BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Encourages a culture of respect for human rights

Capital punishment is, in general seen as a significant human rights violation by the international community - not only most liberal democracies, but much of international civil society. Abolition will help lead to the development of a culture of human rights and the rule of law by acting as a benchmark of progress, and a symbol of a commitment to these principles. It is notable that Guinea Bissau is the only abolitionist nation in the bottom ten countries in Africa for the rule of law – according to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance’s safety and rule of law category, compared to six abolitionist countries in the top ten[1]. [1] Mo Ibrahim Foundation, “Ibrahim Index of African Governance”, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013, http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/iiag/
Justice co-operation

Crime does not stop at national borders. Therefore efforts to fight crime cannot, either. A country that abolishes capital punishment will be in a much better position to cooperate on justice issues internationally. Many states, particularly ones in the Global North, have policies of not extraditing people to jeopardy of capital punishment. Not only could more people be extradited, foreign states may be more willing to provide broader based assistance and co-operation if they see that a state has made steps forward in criminal justice policy. Some states have a policy of not extraditing to states where there is a risk of capital punishment: a particular clause on this is included in the US-Mexico extradition treaty, and it is the position of the European Court of Human Rights.[1] [1] Soering v United Kingdom - available at http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1989/14.html
Diplomatic relations

European states in particular put a particular emphasis on capital punishment when determining human rights issues for foreign policy. The UK for example has a policy of promoting and lobbying for the abolition of capital punishment with foreign governments.[1] This will help generate goodwill for the nation. This could have a whole myriad of benefits - from aid and trade, to being seen as the “good guy” in any international disputes. When using capital punishment the opposite is the case; controversy has been created by the use of UN resources in drugs cases in Vietnam that could lead to executions for drug offences[2]. [1] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘HMG Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty 2010-2015’, gov.uk, October 2011, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/35448/death-penalty-strategy-oct-11-15.pdf [2] “UN urged to freeze anti-drug aid to Vietnam over death penalty”, Reuters, 12 Feb 2014, http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/12/vietnam-un-narcotics-idINDEEA1B0FL20140212
“Benefits” of capital punishment apply universally

The same arguments about capital punishment apply in Africa - deterrence value, potential cost savings, and principles of justice.[1] This could be more acute, with growing issues of international crime, such as drugs, growing in Africa[2]. Africa has had many issues of conflict and crimes against humanity – these are the kind of crimes that many who are less enthusiastic about capital punishment would still support it for. [1] See “This House Supports the Death Penalty” - http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/capital-punishment/house-supports-death-penalty [2] See Cockayne, James, “Africa and the War on Drugs: the West African cocaine trade is not just business as usual”, African Arguments, 2012, http://africanarguments.org/2012/10/19/africa-and-the-war-on-drugs-the-west-african-cocaine-trade-is-not-just-business-as-usual-by-james-cockayne/
African values

Human rights are a concept that take on different conclusions and priorities when applied in different cultural contexts. Protecting the community as a whole, by removing dangerous offenders from circulation, and by a deterrence effect, capital punishment is a manifestation of a form of “African Values” that place more emphasis on the community over the individual than western legal tradition. Capital Punishment has traditionally used for the most serious crimes such as murder as well as some serious religious offenses which it was feared might bring serious consequences for the entire community.[1] [1] Balogun, Oladele Abiodun, ‘A Philosophical Defence of Punishment in Traditional African Legal Culture: The Yoruba Example’, The Journal of Pan African Studies, Vol.3, No.3, September 2009, http://www.jpanafrican.com/docs/vol3no3/3.3APhilosophical.pdf, p.47
Capital punishment is a comparatively small issue

Whatever the merits, capital punishment in Africa is a small issue. Capital punishment opponents should focus on China, which uses capital punishment in a secretive manner for all variety of offences and executes far more people than the rest of the world put together.[1] If Western human rights groups genuinely want to improve human rights in Africa, there are a myriad of issues that affect many more people relating to good governance, political rights and socio-economic rights, rather than just focusing on a small number of individuals, generally convicted of particularly serious criminal offences. [1] ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2012’, Amnesty International, April 2013, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2013/en/bbfea0d6-39b2-4e5f-a1ad-885a8eb5c607/act500012013en.pdf, p.6
Particular need in Africa

Capital punishment for particularly dangerous offenders is a practical solution for African nations with low quality prison systems, which, through either deliberate policy or basic underfunding, can have poor conditions, or poor security. In 2013, over a thousand prisoners escaped from a prison near Benghazi in Libya[1]. A similar escape with particularly dangerous offenders would be dangerous - a corpse can’t escape. [1] Zway, Suliman Ali, “Amid protests, Inmates escape from Libyan prison”, New York Times, 27 July 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/world/africa/libyans-turn-on-islamists-and-liberals-after-killings.html?_r=0
Encourages a culture of respect for human rights

If anything, abolition could be a seen as a distraction of progress. Even in retentionist criminal justice systems, only a small number of those who go through the criminal justice system are sentenced to death or executed. Behind the smokescreen of reform, things can be hidden. While Russia abolished capital punishment shortly after the end of the Soviet Union, politically motivated prosecutions continue, such as those of the members of Pussy Riot. As for the rankings, correlation is not causation.
Diplomatic relations

It should be for a state to independently determine its criminal justice policy. At any rate, there are some developed states that maintain capital punishment; they are hardly likely to impose diplomatic penalties on other states that do the same. Capital punishment also doesn’t stop states being seen positively. Despite having even worse human rights violations (if you consider capital punishment as a human rights violation) - the US and US-aligned nations in Europe have very strong and positive relations with Saudi Arabia, despite Saudi Arabia’s gender segregation and lack of religious and political freedom.
“Benefits” of capital punishment apply universally

Those well trodden arguments lead to an anti death penalty position, not a pro death penalty one. Deterrence cannot be measured, mistakes are made too often and issues of punishment (if punishment, rather than rehabilitation or incapacitation is a legitimate goal of a justice system, which it is not) are different between cultures. Evidence on cost shows it is more expensive than prison in the Global North. With regards to crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Court - the world’s leading authority on international criminal law - does not use capital punishment. Neither did the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
African values

The idea of a unified “African values” is as manifestly absurd as unified “European values”, or the “Asian values” used as an excuse by anti-democratic leaders such as Matahir Mohamed and Lee Kuan Kew, (heads of government of Malaysia and Singapore respectively in the 1980s), to reject political freedoms. Even so, capital punishment can be seen as opposed to the “African value” of ubuntu - a broader concept of treating people with humanity. Religious leaders are often also against, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria described capital punishment as savagery and expressed its desire to join the “civilised world in ending the death penalty”.[1] [1] Uduma, Uche, ‘Nigeria: Much Ado About the Return of Death Penalty’, Leadership, 14 July 2013, http://allafrica.com/stories/201307151576.html?page=2
Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive.

Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it.  For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums.  Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).
People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs

In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs.  In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil.  Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates.  Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous.  It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself.  In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.
A Practical Solution

There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented.  The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors.  Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled.  For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them.  The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied.  What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable).  Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system.
Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor

The greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives.  A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}.  Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible.  The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.)
Organ donors are more deserving of organs

Reciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive.  In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place.  However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality.  This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them.  And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity.  Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people.  The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society.  For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest.
People ought to donate their organs anyway

Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives.  More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor.  One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time.  If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}.  The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal.  This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects.  Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.
The right to access healthcare is absolute

Healthcare is a primary means by which individuals actualize their right to be protected against an untimely death.  The ability to access healthcare, to not have the government actively intervene against one receiving it, is of fundamental importance for living a long and worthwhile life, and is hence entrenched in the constitutions of many liberal democracies and much of international human rights literature {WHO - Health and Human Rights}.  While some rights, such as the right to mobility, can be taken away as a matter of desert in almost all societies, absolutely fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, are actually inalienable and ought to never be violated.  What this means in practice is that one’s access to healthcare should not be continent.  The government should set no standards on who deserves life-saving treatment and who doesn’t.  To do so would be to assign a dangerous power of life and death over the government.
This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo

Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ.  Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act.  To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress.  Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just.
Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive.

For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate.  This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}.  One’s body is one’s most foundational possession.  Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory.  The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile.  This is a gross violation of body rights.
People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs

Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death.  To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom.  This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one.  While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.
A Practical Solution

The controversial part of this plan is how the status of “donor” is determined.  Each standard that could be used has massive, and sometimes monstrous, negative ramifications.  If the requirement is that recipients be donors for a certain number of years beforehand, then people who have been donors for a substantial but still inadequate time are being perversely punished simply for not having been doing their civic duty long enough (see also “past decision they cannot now undo” point below).  If the standard is simply that they must have been a donor for any amount of time, however small, prior to needing the organ, this perversely encourages patients to hide their need for an organ long enough for them to register as donors and then collect their organ; any attempt to solve this would require doctors to report on their patients’ need for organs, eroding patient privacy and turning the doctor-patient relationship adversarial.  The last of the proposed standards, that the recipient only need to sign up to be a donor in the future, causes all the alleged benefits of this to policy evaporate; the average person will not sign up to become a donor, as they know that they can always sign up later in the event that they need an organ.  This plan only gets any benefit whatsoever if healthy people are signing up to be donors as a cautionary measure, rather than a small group of sick and likely elderly people who only sign up when they need organs.  In addition to reducing the pool of donors, such a standard which calls for people to be donors from the time of their need onwards would require a massive breach of body rights to enforce. In order to make it binding (and prevent people from de-registering as donors once they no longer need organs), the state would have to say that they can no longer withdraw their consent to be donors, which amounts to the state laying claim to their organs.
Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor

There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate.  An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors.  This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.
Organ donors are more deserving of organs

The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts.  Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded.  We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better.  A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.)  Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.
People ought to donate their organs anyway

Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do.  People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else.  Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious.  Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs.  This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living.  This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs.  Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.
The right to access healthcare is absolute

The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them.  The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs.  The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily.  Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right.  Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship.
The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality

Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, which is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and legitimize themselves in the marketplace of ideas.
Denial of access adds mystique to their beliefs

While some people might be enticed by the mystique of Holocaust deniers as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the firm hand of the state denying them a powerful platform from which to speak. Even if some are enticed these individuals will find it much more difficult to access the information they seek and so only the most determined will ultimately be influenced. Some Holocaust deniers will always lurk in the shadows, but society should show no quarter in the battle for truth.