The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Right to Life:Pro makes an excellent and impassioned “Right to Life” argument, however it flies wholly in the face of justice. Were everyone to have an inalienable right to Life, Liberty, etc, incarceration for an individual through due process could never occur. I am confident Pro had no means to allow carte blanche destruction, but were we to use only what Pro has presented as the entirety of right to life, there is no rule of law! No one in the pursuit of happiness is entitled, morally or legally, the allowance to harm others, though as Pro has structured this argument that is the take away, as any act that restricts said would be a violation of human rights. In examination of the sources presented, we have the Universal Declaration of Rights from the United Nations. In it, article 30 states: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.” (source provided by Pro). Logically, this is to mean that the rights outlined can only apply to those whom agree with and follow the articles as a standard. Those that fall outside the scope of obedience to the articles must be dealt with to protect those that do. Pro also goes on to use Thomas Jefferson and his hand in the Founding Documents as a means to half of an argument. Thomas Jefferson was in clear favor of the death penalty, and understood crime and punishment. In his papers, Thomas Jefferson outlines what he feels are appropriate punishments for crimes, should they seek to impugn on the rights of others: “For rendering crimes and punishments therefore more proportionate to each other: Be it enacted by the General assembly that no crime shall be henceforth punished by deprivation of life or limb except those hereinafter ordained to be so punished. If a man do levy war against the Commonwealth or be adherent to the enemies of the commonwealth giving to them aid or comfort in the commonwealth, or elsewhere, and thereof be convicted of open deed, by the evidence of two sufficient witnesses, or his own voluntary confession, the said cases, and no others, shall be adjudged treasons which extend to the commonwealth, and the person so convicted shall suffer death by hanging, and shall forfiet his lands and goods to the Commonwealth. If any person commit Petty treason, or a husband murder his wife, a parent his child, or a child his parent, he shall suffer death by hanging, and his body be delivered to Anatomists to be dissected. Whosoever committeth murder by poisoning shall suffer death by poison. Whosoever committeth murder by way of duel, shall suffer death by hanging; and if he were the challenger, his body, after death, shall be gibbeted. He who removeth it from the gibbet shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and the officer shall see that it be replaced. Whosoever shall commit murder in any other way shall suffer death by hanging.” (1)Pro has argued greatly why murder should be illegal for their first prong. Not why a penalty should be abolished.Mind over Matter:With regards to Con’s referencesto psychological damage as a means for a ban, they fall flat. 1) On the matter of the perpetrator’s family, source 4 from Pro does not enforce this, as it is about VICTIM’S rights (Titled “Dignity Denied: The Experience of Murder Victims’ Family Members Who Oppose the Death Penalty”). Pro highlights, again, excellent reasons for not committing crimes: those you love, and those whom depend upon you suffer. The problems that Pro highlights, though, are true at any level of incarceration, to varying degrees. A ban on one and not the others would simply be arbitrary preference. 2) Psychological effect on the executioner refers to a policy change. Humans since the dawn of time have invented machines with which to kill each other outside the bounds of law. As morbid as it is, there is no reason why we can’t devise a timed device to deliver a sentence to blunt any potential psychological effects. 3) Psychological effects to the criminal due to being on “death row” as described could include keeping them as part of general population. With regards to the rest of the arguments on this tangent, I would like to remind the reading audience that this IS prison. It is not meant to be fun. It is not meant to be easy. And with special exception, the perpetrator in question has already engaged in heinous act to get there. Disturbing: On the matter of those found mentally ill, Pro plays fast and loose with wording and intent. Mental illness comes in a variety of form and fashion, the presence of which is only really investigated if that was the cause of the crime, or if such illness prevents the defendant from being competent enough to understand the process they are going through. Bulimia is a mental illness, though even if professionally diagnosed, one would be hard pressed to declare a person unfit for trial due to an eating disorder, especially if the defendant plotted to kill multiple people over something unrelated, such as money. Regardless, a trial cannot progress unless the defendant is deemed competent, this does NOT mean that a sentence cannot be enacted against said convict should the competency fade, or that a death sentence cannot be specifically enacted if the acts occurred as a result of the illness. If the person whom perpetrated the acts is a threat to society, as a sense of justice, it is incumbent to ensure that said person is no longer a threat to society, and the threat should be neutralized down to a tolerable risk… but was is that threshold? I entreat the reading audience to keep this in mind. Cannot be Undone, and the Crux: The most difficult rebuttal would be those regarding a sentence against those whom were later found innocent. I suggest that a policy change of how the death penalty is practiced could correct this minute in number but large in heart-break situation. Con will not argue that in the past, lack of evidence hasn’t led to miscarriages of justice. That was the frailty of the technology at the time, as well as potentially biased members of the court system. Instead, given the nature of appeals extended to condemned criminals, that such an appeals process also come with a minimum time frame with which new evidence and technology could be availed. This would still enable those pleading guilty to find justice, as well as those pleading innocent but wrongfully held to gather additional resources should they come about.Now, as Pro outlined, the numbers of unjustly executed or jailed individuals is reasonably small, the chances of such an occurrence are VERY rare, but should those odds come to fruition, its heart breaking. That is to say, its “deplorable”. Even though every precaution has been taken, bad things happen. I asked the reading audience to keep something in mind: is the risk of keeping those alive those that are a danger to society greater than the chance of an innocent man being put to death? Con suggests that Pro is attempting to deal in pleas to emotional and form absolutes to form them as a means to argument, summarized that if something has even the most remote of negative chances (that result in death), it should be banned. However, keeping life time convicts that could very well kill again (and have! [2]) poses just as solemn a risk, and by the same argument logic Pro suggests, should be put to death. Pro’s final justification is one that becomes self-defeating in application.http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...