The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

Before getting to the specific contentions, I'll make my general opening case. This issue takes place on two planes, first, of ethics, and second, of practicality. Some schools of ethics will treat the two as one in the same, namely the likes of pragmatism. While the class of philosophy I will present takes both into consideration, but as separate entities, it will be paramount for my opponent and I to make an effective case on both levels as the nature of the question is law. What's directly implied by the question, "should the death penalty be made illegal", is that I may very well recognize changes that ought to be made to the current system, but as long as I see that there is any place for it, if even a smaller one than it currently occupies, then I have successfully made my case. With that, my argument is as such: The death penalty is a justified response to some crimes, and is both practical and worth its resources. On ethics. The central component here is the issue of justice. I contend that the best way to view justice in this context is a punishment inflicted of equivalent value and severity of the crime committed, for having broke the social contract. We all recognize this basic notion, as we see a jay-walker fit for a citation while a rapist a heavy prison sentence. Equivalency is the marking characteristic. And in the case of the death penalty for the crime of murder, what is equivalent to a life taken could not be less ambiguous. As we are all considered equals and peers, ones life is equal in value to any one others. It naturally follows that one life stolen is worth one life stolen. One who murders someone else is defiling justice with every breath taken thereafter, whether in a cell or walking free. They have stolen not just one right, but every single right from that person they have murdered. Their right not just to enjoy the remainder of their life, but also that person's right to suffer as well. With this, equality of justice should demand that the murderer forfeit too his or her rights, every one they have permanently robbed their victim of, including the right to suffer in a prison cell. The next part of the ethical question is to determine what the purpose of punishment is, and if capital punishment meets the criteria. There are three primary purposes for punishment as I see it: One, a forfeit agreed upon for breaking the social contract, as determined by society as a whole to be justified. Two, as deterrent. And three, as a means for society to protect itself from someone violently unwilling to respect the rights of others, breaking the contract of law. Part one is cardinal and should apply to all punishment. Three primarily is the counter-balance for the weakness and flaw that exists in two. Not all crimes can be deterred by any threat of punishment. But should they shouldn't go unpunished for that reason? This is where the third purpose plays a role. Does capital punishment meet the criteria? I assert that it does. It is justified, it is potentially but not always a deterrent, and more than any other crime, it is the absolute surest and best way for society to protect itself against those who violate others' rights in the singly most malicious and egregious way imaginable. The question of the death penalty's practicality will be fully addressed through your contentions, so I will now continue to the rebuttal phase. #1. This is a misrepresentation of the true ethical maxim which should read like this: *Innocent* human life is invaluable, and to take an *innocent* life from one is a serious crime. The difference between the murderer and the executioner is that the murderer took an innocent life, whereas the executioner did not. All legal punishment is predicated on the government having the authority to do something to someone that in any other normal context would be considered wrong. Even you yourself argue that the government should have the right to imprison someone for the entirety of their remaining natural life, against their will, but I must assume you don't believe that you or I have that right? So it would seem you too have some asterisks to explain. #2. This is one part of the issue of practicality that I must address. You're absolutely right in observing that by our current system, we execute innocent people. The solution is to limit the death penalty to cases that are genuinely 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'. That is, documented and virtually irrefutable proof that the accused committed a pre-meditated murder. It would be next to impossible to prove absolutely that any crime ever takes place, but the only room for doubt that should be accepted is when the only conceivable way the accused is innocent is total, inexplicable conspiracy. This is the standard the letter of the law is currently supposed to be held to. If it were, there would undoubtedly be fewer executions, but there would be some and they would be perfectly right. #3. A murderer can no sooner serve more than the rest of their life in jail than they can be executed more than once. They'd be a pinned beast with nothing to lose either way, not just with the death penalty. And yes, one life sentence gives than an opportunity to appeal and potentially go free, but in high-degree murder cases where the evidence is overwhelming, they're basically guaranteed to receive several life sentences and restrictions on parole possibilities. More-over, a person having committed a murder is far more likely to attempt to get away with it by laying low, and keeping a low profile. Going on some murder spree of all the people who could incriminate them only increases the chances of them being caught by magnitudes. 4. The second main part of the practicality issue. Money. First, I would ask you if justice is *worth* the cost, even if it is more expensive? Second, the reason the death penalty is more expensive is because it is paired with a more expensive trial and appeals process [1]. What this means, is not that the death penalty is more expensive, because as basic logic would dictate it is ostensibly *less* expensive, but that the court process is unfair. Why should those who are being charged with the exact same crime receive less resources, court time and appeals just because they aren't facing life? It should take the same amount of time and resources to determine if two people having committed the same crime under the same conditions are guilty or innocent. Their punishment comes last, and should have no bearing on the trial itself yet it does. And why shouldn't someone facing life be able to access appeals in the same way as someone on death row? The lost time and life of someone innocent serving a life sentence is just as valuable as the time lost of an innocent person waiting in death row. This speaks not of what's impractical or costly of the death penalty, but of what is unfair in the trial system we have. This concludes my opening argument and rebuttal. The next round should be interesting! [1] http://quickfacts.census.gov...