American Society Has No Moral Authority to Punish Murder

Thank you for an interesting topic. For my constructive, I will focus on the philosophical grounding of the American government and demonstrate how, through the signing of the social contract as manifested through the Constitution, the government of the United States is obligated to punish those who break the social contract. What is important to note is that, by the government of the United States, I mean the government in its abstract form; that is, without specific actors or policies within. I. Exiting the State of Nature The state of nature is the hypothetical premordial state in utter anarchy and absense of governance. In the state of nature, people are generally presumed to be equal, fairly preoccupied with self-preservation, and have several innate rights claims. One of these includes an innate right to punish those who infringe on the rights of yourself and others [1]. We gather that this is a fundamental right because it is necessary in following the law of nature, which commands that we preserve ourselves and, if not conflicting with our own safety, others [2]. In order to ensure the survival of a premordial society, then, it was necessary for a sort of vigilantism to occur, to deter, incapacitate, retribute, and rehabilitate. Leaving this state of nature, of course, has obvious benefits. The main impetus, however, for doing so revolves around several inconvenienves present in the state of nature: 1) Lack of a tangible, universal law, 2) Lack of ability to enforce puishment, and 3) Lack of an impartial adjudicator in conflict [3]. To avoid these difficulties, men banded together and transferred some of their natural rights, including a right to punish, to the government in a social contract, which outlined the rules of society and the obligations of the government. The central role of the government, then, is to enforce the social contract and to punish those who go against it. If a government fails to do this, then, depending on which philosopher you prefer, the people have a right to revolt against the government, or the government fails to even be a legitimate government in the first place. Thus, we can see that any state, including the United States, has a moral obligation to its constituents to enforce the social contract and punish those who go against this, including murderers. Failure to do so involves, in effect, a lie and a betrayal of trust. II. Constitutional ObligationsThe Constitution of the United States, the closest thing the United States has to a physical manifestation of the social contract, outlines what the government is obligated to do. Federal and state police powers, which involve the punishment of murder, have several constitutional justifications and commands. These come from Article II, Section 16, which 4requires the executive to carry out the laws of the United States [4], the Eighth Amendment, which prevents cruel and unusual punishment (and, thus, implies some ability to punish) [5], and the Tenth Amendment, which allows for both state and federal authorities (under the Interstate Commerce Clause) to punish offenders via police powers if the government is determined to have an interest in doing so [6]. Needless to say, the government of the United States has an interest in punishing murderers for all four pillars of the justice system: 1) Retribution, 2) Rehabilitation, 3) Incapacitation, and 4) Deterrence. Punishing murderers fulfills the social contract by physically demonstrating the rights harms that the perpetrator has done, working to mold the perpetrator into a productive member of society, prevents further harm from being done to others in society, and deters others from perpetrating further crime. Since the United States has this sort of interest on all of these levels, the government is Constitutionally justified in doing so. III. AlternativesNote that if the government does not have the power to punish, it ceases to be a legitimate government at all. Thus, if the resolution is upheld, the United States becomes a state of nature, similar to what I oulined earlier. This state of nature could range from a toxic society marred by vigilantism and prejudice to a outright destructive one rife with crime, in which no productive societal growth would take place. Thus, even taking a utilitarian stance, it would be moral for the state to have an authority to punish. Doing so allows for greater utility in society (which I feel is fairly evident) and, therefore, ought to be done. Fostering this greater utility by protecting life, liberty, and property is clearly the moral path. ConclusionI have demonstrated that the government of the United States has the authority to punish murder (indeed, to punish at all) through philosophical, Constitutional, and utilitarian argumentation. Thus, the resolution clearly must be negated. I look forward to reading and responding to further arguments. Sources1. https://www.law.upenn.edu...2. http://facedownphilosophy.wordpress.com...3. http://www.iep.utm.edu...4. http://constitution.findlaw.com...5. http://www.law.cornell.edu...6. http://law.justia.com...