The Death Penalty Ought to be Banned

>>"Why do humans organize into societies? Some would say the foremost of the duties of the government is to protect the life. And in essence, this is what capital punishment is about." Actually, people organize because none of us are self-sufficient and we need each other and the structure of government (Plato's Republic). The first function of the state is to provide security for the people, and as you say, this is indeed what capital punishment is about. The state has the duty to administer justice as per the social contract of the populace. So let's examine how justice can be administered according to John Locke... "Besides the crime which consists in violating the law... whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the laws of human nature." "And any other person who finds it just may also join with he who is injured, and assist him in recovering from the offender so much as may make satisfaction for the harm he has suffered." "It will perhaps be demanded, with death? I answer, each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like." John Locke, Second Treatise of Government In short, when someone commits a crime that breaks one of the laws of nature (i.e. kills someone), then that person declares himself to have given up the rights he has violated in another. Anyone finding the cause of exacting retribution just may recover from the offender so much as to be satisfied that the offender has been punished appropriately. The death penalty is therefore appropriate when the wronged party feels it necessary to seek it, no matter if the offender repents or not - remember, he has already voided his right to life by killing another. As far as China goes, it would do you well to take a comparative politics class - while they are actually considering cutting back on the death penalty in China, they are reluctant to let it go because it DOES indeed work as a deterrent. China is waiting for a more civilized society before removing what it considers to be an effective deterrent to crime. Just a link - the end of this article references the ideology I refer to (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn...) - took me about 2 mins to find. >>"Our founders drafted the 8th Amendment to restrict the powers of our government by specifically banning the use of cruel and unusual punishment. So IS capital punishment Cruel And Unusual?" At the time the Constitution was written, capital punishment was used in the United States. The fact that it says "cruel and unusual" instead of "death" is indicative of the framers' intent to prevent the use of torture as punishment - things like being thrown in a dungeon for weeks and starved to death or put on a stretch rack. If they had meant "no death" they would have said "... nor punishments abridging the right to life inflicted." >>"It is a fundamental principle, taking away someone's right to life is awesome. It is why we have the criminal justice system in the first place, to prevent this cruel act from taking place. It is why the death penalty exists in the first place isn't it? To prevent the death of others?" Anymore, the focus in the United States is moving from deterrent to punishment. The death penalty is at its core a punishment - and a just one. Again, a killer has given up his own right to life. The wronged may seek that life in retribution. Simple as that. >>"My opponent replied that compared to China, it was not unusual. Because somehow Eastern philosophy embodies the death penalty. " I have already addressed this feeble attempt at a straw man argument. I in no way implied that capital punishment was a tenant of Eastern Philosophy. >>"But in which community do we belong. Are we a communist police state or a democracy? Is our country and government organized following the principles of Montesquieu or Confusious?" I see you have given up Locke after I demonstrated that Locke gives evidence to support the death penalty. We are a democracy - a democracy that has decided the death penalty is appropriate. >>"If the voters believes that we belong in the same group as Communist China, then by all means, I concede this point. And by extension, whatever Communist China believes to be appropriate punishments become usual in the United States" This is almost funny in a way. My opponent seems to argue that simply because I gave a counterexample to his statements concerning Europe, that I'm a communist demon... ************************************** The issue of false positives is indeed unjust. However, capital punishment may be responsible for the deaths, but it is not TO BLAME. Consider the fact that there has been a failure in the justice system that results in a mechanism being employed. If this mechanism were a slap on the wrist, would you still hold that it's the slap on the wrist's fault that an innocent person was slapped? Of course not - that's laughable logic. Following his comments here, my opponent tries to suggest that I hold that we should execute innocents because I don't want to pay for them. This is of course completely false - if one reads the debate text, it's fairly easy to see how he twists my words to his own meanings. The fact of the matter is that the average taxpayer doesn't want to pay to keep a killer alive. >>"o this my opponent had no reply. Because there is no reply. Following his brand of logic will reduce America to the type of police state we abhor. One we must be ever vigilant in defending against." This is another one of my favorite arguments of my opponents - that somehow following my suggestions will make America regress to the dark ages and we'll sit around in sack clothes... Actually, my logic would have us simply keep the status quo - America would be no different with my suggestions that if we didn't change at all. I'm a little confused as to who has the improper logic here... ************************************** >>"My opponent's claim that the EU does not care is baseless. In fact, Abolition of the death penalty is a requirement for countries seeking EU membership." This is immaterial.. the US can't apply for membership in the EU unless we somehow drift across the Atlantic and hook up with them again... It's like telling a man that he needs to do his makeup so he can join the girl's club - completely illogical. >>"The idea that China only befriends countries that execute prisoners is ridiculous and both unsupported and unsupportable. " I completely agree - but then again, I never implied that it does. So I'm not sure where you pulled this one from. ****************************************** >>"Through cogent arguments, I have justified and defended my points against my opponent." Through straw man arguments, you have attacked your opponent without actually debating any of the philosophy you claim to hold so dear or the simple economics of the situation, or the failures of the justice system. >>"Should I have triumphed in even One of these points, I have won the debate since my opponent has raised no true independent points of his own." Hard to triumph when you respond with ad hominems and straw man arguments. I don't need to raise independent points - you're the instigator, I simply need to respond to yours. ***************************************** Here's an independent point for you - America is a democracy that has determined capital punishment appropriate. Your argument against that must therefore be based in the philosophy and morals of the situation, considering you say it ought to be banned... I provided language from a philosopher you suggested (Locke) concerning the situation and you didn't address it at all... Read and vote - an excellent debate and a challenging opponent.