The Death Penalty Should be Abolished.

a. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is famously summarized as "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. " A crime is a violation of social law, of the society in which the person observes. By committing a murder or another heinous crime, the criminal universalized his action, and thus they lose the right to be members of the society and need to be punished. Kant has two conceptions of crime; private and a social crime. A private crime is like deceiving a person to gain personal goods, while a social crime is like theft or murder. The difference is that social crimes affects society, while private crimes affect a person; though the severity of both are not different. However, for social crimes it is up to society, to government, that this be punished. " There are some huge flaws in Kant's philosophy. Kant's categorical imperative states that people should obey the maxims and that this applies to everything. The problem with Kant's deontological philosophy is that it puts all emphasis on actions and not consequences. Meaning, every wrong action is unjustified, no matter what the effect. For example, one of Kant's maxims is that lying is always wrong. Even lying to preserve the well-being of others is unethical, regardless. Also, following the same logic, being the victim of rape is wrong. You are engaging in a morally wrong action. Therefore, you are immoral, you must be ostracized from society. Yes, I agree that a murderer should be deprived of the liberty to be a part of society, but this can be done with life without parole. Most certainly, killers should be punished for their actions, but the death penalty is not the best option. "The main point of death penalty however, should lie in moral absolutism: this is the foundation of human rights. If we were to punish people based on societal benefit, then this could justify punishing innocent people if doing such will benefit society. " First off, let's not commit the straw man fallacy. I am not saying that the death penalty should be abolished based solely on societal benefit. My points are as follows: The state, by implementing capital punishment, lowers its standard to the mentality of the killer. In an infallible system, such an irreversible punishment should not be instated. The death penalty is illogical. The cost of the death penalty is exorbitant, while life without parole is much cheaper. The death penalty is not a deterrent. Secondly, your point about societal benefit is completely moot. I argue that the death penalty should be superseded with life without parole because the cons of capital punishment outweigh the pros. "By most accounts this is valid, but do remember the notion of retributive justice; the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. The corresponding punishment for murder is the death penalty. The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right to humans; life no matter how bad is more preferable to death (Kant explains this by illustrating the example of suicide). By violating this right, your own right is discarded. " If the corresponding punishment for murder is the death penalty, then, following the same logic, the punishment for rape should be rape. By the same token, the punishment for arson should be ignition of the arsonist's property. I do not agree that by violating this right, your right to life should be discarded. I argue that by violating this right, your individual rights should be discarded. Theses include the rights to property, the right to liberty, and the right to be a part of society. "d. A system of laws that fails to punish criminals is weak, and since laws are what create a society, the society in turn is weak. This is why punishment must be dealt out; it would undermine the moral values to not otherwise. " The system does fail to punish its criminal when condemning murderers to life without parole. Capital punishment is a primitive issue and should be eradicated, so we can progress as a nation. Over 130 countries, as of 2007, have already abolished capital punishment. None of the the western European countries utilize it. Most of these countries are not weak and continue to prosper. How do you define weak? Japan has instated capital punishment and is militarily weak. North Korea has instated capital punishment and is economically weak. "a. Prisoners can and often do kill others in the prison system. " With more capital, there is more room for reform. Like I've already stated, the extra funds should be used to fortify prisons and improve conditions. That is why the economic factor is significant in my argument. "b. 70% of criminals released from prison in California come return to the prison for another offense. [1]" I'm sorry, I can not find the source you are referring to. .. This is a very broad statement. To what does this apply? I am assuming that you mean that, even with life without parole, murderers will be released after 30 or 40 years and commit more crimes? Anyway, life without possibility of parole is just as permanent as the death penalty. "c. When dealing with the DP, extra measures should be taken to ensure accurate rulings. " I agree, if the death penalty is to be implemented AT ALL, extra measures SHOULD be taken to ensure accurate rulings. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. Some have advantages over others. Usually, the prosecution's resources are almost limitless. Juries have biases. "-I can't see where my opponent is getting at. This point is valid; murders will almost always be murders. Statistics show that released or escaped murders to kill more, and with he advent of the death penalty, this can be solved. YET again, I do want to stress the importance of my first argument; from Kantian ethics. Social benefit is never part of the case. " Following the same logic, we could execute everyone in the United States, everyone with the capacity to kill, so murderers are deterred. This is why, even though it is based completely on technicalities, you point is moot. "Right to life is a fundamental liberty of all humans. To break it is to jeopardize your own. " No, to break it jeopardizes your own individual rights: right to be among society, liberty, right to property. "Rape can be consolidated in other terms. " That is why the death penalty is illogical. "Unjust usage of the law does not undermine the death penalties principles. You have failed to show how increasing court appointed attorney's salaries is difficult, and how the law being fallible is relevant to the death penalty's validity. Just because we don't have a perfect or a more ideal system of laws does not mean the DP should not be instated. As it stands right now, it is morally correct. " Uh. .. yes it does. In areas where crime is abundant, it is costly to hire adequate attorneys and to invest adequate funds in individual cases. For that reason, courts appoint attorneys that are ill-trained. In addition, sometimes an attorney is paid less than the minimum wage. Thus, an attorney is unmotivated to devote the 700-1000 hours to a case that are necessary. Also, in adequate funds are authorized for investigation, etc. I'm just regurgitating info I already stated. With such a fallible system, the death penalty should not be instated because it is irreversible. With life without parole, accused murderers can be proved innocent (during the duration of their lives) and not unjustly executed. It is morally wrong because it causes us to lower our standards to the mentality of the murderer, etc. THEREFORE, THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. Thanks, Sam, for the great debate!