The Death penalty is a just form of punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

I have perhaps a slightly different, preferred style of debating than that I've seen so far on this website, but I will try to be as clear and systematic as possible. Contentions: --------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Kant's Scale of Justice Argument "According to Kant, when one kills another person, then they themselves have sentenced themselves to death. The criminal has universalized the action of death and has tipped the scale of justice. Thus the government must give the criminal what he/she has universalized, i. e. death, and put the scale back into balance. " ---- This I think omits the fact that it, in a way, it actually makes us play by the criminals rules. By stating that "The criminal has universalized the action of death" and "the government must give the criminal what he/she has universalized" you are stating that THEY have set the standard, not us, and that we should be as unforgiving as they. Also "they themselves have sentenced themselves to death" is not true, they only actually die if we say they die (barring natural causes etc. ). This is a clear subconscious attempt at removing accountability from us and passing it on to them. This is only done as the person who invokes this argument, knows this is an act that they do not want to take full moral responsibility for, logically, because part of them thinks it is wrong. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "The equality between victim and criminal must also be realized. The government must put equal worth between the victim and the criminal. Therefore, to maintain the balance, the government has an obligation to kill the criminal. Only then, has the scale of justice been balanced. " ---- Is it really equal worth though? Say the victim was anti-death penalty, do we then still execute his attacker? We have no way of knowing whether they would have changed their minds either way after they were murdered for example. If they would not want the person that killed them to be executed (and not necessarily in a Gandhi way, they may think they will suffer more in prison then die) then by executing them, we are in fact dishonoring the victim's wishes. Also, what if the perpetrator is suicidal? Is that equality to kill a person who wants to die/is not that bothered by it, to counter someone who didn't want to die? -------------------------------------------------------------- II. Locke's Right Violation Argument/Social Contract Theory "According to Locke, when one person kills another then the killer loses their right to life as well. The Social Contract explains that it's an imperative obligation of the government to give the killer the death penalty because he/she has lost the right to live in society. " ---- There is no contract, as with balancing justice, I contend you are being scientific in a situation that is inherently unscientific (it's very hard to be scientific when you are dealing with individual persons, we acknowledge that everyone is different, yet strive to treat them the same in the "interest of fairness"). A contract is an AGREEMENT (. http://dictionary.reference.com...), if the perpetrator was to actually (provably) state that if he/she ever killed someone that they consent to being put to death, then I would agree. ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Social Contract explains that it's an imperative obligation of the government to give the killer the death penalty because he/she has lost the right to live in society. Essentially, the killer has broken the contract between himself and the government. " ---- There is no "obligation", there is a clear choice. That politicians use the death penalty (pro and con) as a way of distinguishing themselves from other politicians to rally votes behind them is the closest to an "obligation" the government has, and that is an obligation to their own career. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Thus, the government has the right to remove this person from society. " ---- I agree but there is a big difference between removing from society and removing from life. I fully support life in prison MEANING life in prison, no parole, no TV etc. Four walls, food and a lot of time to reflect on why they shouldn't have committed their crime. ----------------------------------------------------------- "The government would be violating the contract if they did not because:" Again, there is no "contract" but. .. "A) They would be letting a killer keep the right that was taken from another member of society. " ---- That is what distinguishes us from them, I would rather not stoop to their level or anywhere near it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "B) They could possibly be putting other members of society at risk as well. " ---- If they are put in solitary confinement 23 hours a day for the rest of their life I support it. There are other ways to protect society. If we think like that then we might as well execute anyone involved in a serious violent/sexual crime. To conclude this round I will just copy/paste my other points from the comment section that resulted in this debate, as most have not been covered yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Variables suggested by Biowza and the basic but subjective moral issues aside. I'll debate this one. 1. It's financially more expensive to impose the death penalty than to imprison someone for life. 2. As has been seen recently, this punishment can be expanded at the whim of public opinion/political agenda (child rapists as well now, not just murderers). At which point will it stop? Someone stole my car once and I wanted to kill them, doesn't make it right. 3. It might not bother people to kill the person who has committed the crime, but it doesn't take into account the family/friends of the person to be executed. 4. Bearing in mind the above, it's clearly about retribution/revenge. This is a destructive mindset both on a personal level and in terms of society. If revenge is what's most important, then we may as well have a vigilante society. 5. It doesn't prevent crime. When people commit murder for example, aren't expecting to get caught or aren't in control of themselves. Punishment of prison for life is as good/bad at deterring murder as the death penalty. The US has a much higher murder rate per capita than say the UK, and yet they don't have the death penalty. It's a social issue comprised of many factors. The death penalty is irrationally driven for the ill-informed public, and a lazy political tool for politicians struggling to define themselves from other politicians. "