A just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

Just Society: a society that is deemed just due to its moral and just actions to remain just Punishment:a temporary penalty inflicted for an offense, fault Ought: different from should according to David Hume's philosophy of moral judgment. A just society is one in which the very basic principle of justice is upheld and promoted within a society, that principle is that of remaining moral. Every individual has their own interpretation of justice, but every theory of justice links back to its basic principle. The negative has the burden of proving that use of the death penalty is either moral or just if he or she fails to do so then you must vote affirmative. Through our moral judgment know that taking the life of any individual is immoral and wrong under any circumstance. David Hume stated that ought differentiates from that of "is", due to the fact that ought is upstanding of a moral obligation. It is then the moral obligation to enforce justice and to protect people within the just society. However this cannot happen if use of the death penalty is instilled. If the death penalty is allowed to be used as a form of punishment, we will be furthering a crime we are striving to prevent. Thus that will lead to the breakdown of moral fabric that is encompassed in all societies today. My value for this round is justice because we must uphold a strong basis of justice but one with moral understanding. Every just society is then under a moral pretense, therefore this is the first reason why the death penalty can not be even considered as a form of punishment. Not only is the death penalty immoral, it promotes further violence in a society that we are trying to promote unity and justice within. Use of the death penalty would then advocate for Stalin and Hitler's actions, obviously which cannot be accepted. The death penalty is not used as a punishment rather as an ultimatum. My criterion for this round is adherence to moral obligation, as I earlier defined ought is upstanding of a moral obligation. Adhering to the moral obligation to promote justice within the society is impossible if the death penalty is allowed to be used, it will degrade everything that a just society is striving to uphold and prevent growth and or a learning process for these individuals which further damages society and will eventually lead to a societal breakdown. Contention 1: The death penalty is not a form of punishment The death penalty is not a form of punishment for the sole reason that it promotes a purification of society which we know to be wrong not only under a moral pretense but would never promote justice. As I link back to what I stated earlier that advocates Hitler and his Nazi regime and Stalin and his Communist regime. This could and will never happen, you cannot advocate for the death penalty and state that it promotes justice in fact it does the complete opposite, the death penalty promotes the government acting Fascist it oversteps the boundaries and violates the theory of social contract. Contention 2: Use of the Death Penalty is overstepping the boundaries of the Government. In social contract citizens give up rights for protection from the government. It doesn't state that the government does not have boundaries or limitations to the actions that can be taken. The death penalty cannot be used because it doesn't promote justice and is allowing the government to overstep boundaries and therefore the citizens are no longer being protected but more at risk than when they originally began to maintain justice. Again the reasons that the death penalty cannot be even considered is that it is not a punishment it is a tool that promotes eradication and fascist actions, it does not promote justice, morality or peace and for these reasons you now must vote affirmative.