The Death Penalty

The Con seems to be approaching this debate from a more real-world perspective than the somewhat philosophical take I have on the debate, but we'll see how this goes. As previously stated, my argument is on two main points: 1. Establishing whether there can be circumstances in which the death penalty is justifiable and if so what are they? 2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against repeat offenders rather than as a punishment In my attempt to prove that certain crimes can deserve death, I will focus mainly on how the death penalty is a logical extension of the concept of human rights and how it is the state's duty to enforce it: 1. On my first point, I will start by examining why we have rights in a legal context. In human society, we operate on the principle that everyone has a certain set of inalienable human rights and are to be treated equally. However, why should these rights be inalienable? Why are human rights distinct from animal rights? We are not equal as humans, some are faster, some stronger than others. Yet in the eyes of the law we are treated as such. This is because we all share the faculty to distinguish between right and wrong. We accept responsibilities. The entire concept of human and legal rights is that one's rights are equal to the responsibilities one accepts. If one rejects responsibility, by that logic, one forfeits rights. A prime example of this is in the mentally handicapped. Those who are mentally ill and pose a threat to themselves and others have greatly diminished rights, but equally diminished responsibilities. A mentally ill person does not for example, have the right to vote, but they also have less responsibility in the eyes of the law, because of their handicap. We operate on the understanding that one must abide by the same rules as all, or else suffer equal or greater punishment to their transgression. This is why we use imprisonment as a deterrent. Prisoners, of course, also lose the right to vote among others because of their rejection of their responsibilities. Think of a dog. We do not afford a dog the same rights we do a human, and so we do not hold a dog to the same responsibilities. If a dog mauls a child to death, they are put down. However if a human murders a child, they are not. Why not, though? Assuming that person to be perfectly mentally healthy, they have the same faculty for moral reasoning as any other human and can be held to the same responsibilities as any other human. They have abdicated their responsibility to respect life, and should have forfeited their right to life. If a human being does not behave as a human should, they should not be treated as human. Human rights are deserved because of our ability to understand and respect them, not simple biological similarities. It is the duty of the state to punish the abdication of responsibility with the removal of equal rights. Imprisoning a murderer for 20 years, for example, is much like fining a man €5,000 for stealing €10,000. Punishment must always fit the crime. Certain acts when performed by a mentally capable human being amount to a deficient moral compass. Fundamentally rejecting human morality, and therefore rejecting the rights afforded to all humans. What are we to define these acts as? What acts are fundamental violations of human morality? Murder, rape, and any permutations of the aforementioned, are good examples. Any crime in which the perpetrator is likely to reoffend and society will be better off without. I only propose a model wherein the elimination of the perpetrator benefits society. I will go on to define how the elimination of these people is a good thing for society as a whole. On my first point I have sought to prove that: a) Certain acts can indeed negate one's right to life I intend to expand upon this in later rounds. 2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against reoffence. As previously discussed, I am going to attempt to prove that society can benefit from the elimination of certain criminals. Why, though? Surely it is better to rehabilitate? Indeed, there is some weight to this, but certain severe crimes have high rates of reoffence. This is a symptom of having no moral compass whatsoever. Society is better off without those who have not the faculty to distinguish between right and wrong. Ultimately, one without morality is as good as an animal. These criminals are dangerous in prison, and imprisonment is not a sufficient deterrent to them as these criminals are most likely to thrive in a prison environment. I refer to murderers, rapists, drug dealers, (specifically of hard drugs) gangland crime, etc. Such people are very difficult to punish correctly. In prison, they establish a dominance, and if they are ever to be released will at once return to crime. Rehabilitation is not a likelihood with such criminals and as such, it is not worth the state's while affording them the same rights as others. These people are a burden on society, and their elimination is not a bad thing. We negate the possibility of future crimes by them. In this point I have attempted to prove that: b) It benefits society to eliminate individuals who have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have committed these offences and it is therefore a duty of the state to do so. Those two statements a and b are the foundation of my argument. I am seeking to prove that the death penalty should be implemented, not that it functions as it is in America, as I feel I made quite clear with my definition. I eagerly await Con's reply, thank you.