Death Penalty

I should clarify my position, law should not be made by an objective moral code, but it is made by the collective subjective moral code of its society (when in a democracy). If 51% of the population view that pot should be illegal, then it will be, when 51% of the population view that pot should be legal, the system will change. "Is it ever morally right to kill a human being if you are not being immediately threatened? " I'll assume this is also applying to "innocent human being. " While it is never morally "right" it is often morally "acceptable. " If the term "innocent" is not actually meant here, then the answer is yes to both, pending the situation. There is no case where you "should" kill someone that you know is innocent. However, if you awake to someone in your house that you did not invite in, and you shoot and kill them, fearing they may be a buglar only to find out later that they are actually your neighbor using your phone to call the fire department because their house is on fire, they weren't threatening you and they were, for the most part, innocent. However, such a situation would not warrent the same as someone who had intentionally killed 7 women that he met on craiglist just for the jollies of watching life leave their eyes. It is true that removing threats is what a justice system should be based on, ideally by "fixing" what caused the individual to commit a crime in the first place. However, simply showing that LI "will likely not escape," does not dismantle anything. "Will likely" is not a very strong argument. If I roll a die, I "will likely" roll a 3 or higher. Anything over 50% is "likely. " Would a prison that has 35% of its population escape be considered an adequate prison? Technically it is likely that a given inmate would not escape, but it fails to meet the criteria of "the best we can do. " Con has not and can not challenge that execution is 100% inescapable. Unless Con can show that LI is as accurate (100%), then LI, on the front of keeping people locked up, is not the best we can do. There is also no possibility of exonerating someone that has passed away in prison after LI, that makes it no different than the DP. I will remind that in my opponent's round 1 source, it also pointed to several people that were falsely put in prison for life (and died there), LI is not exempt from making mistakes as the same legal system is used. For accuracy's sake there is a substainal time frame from the time of the trial to the actual execution, to allow for appeals, independent eyes to look at the case and evidence, as well as sperate judges to view it. However, that is related to the trial, not the punishment. Being detained for life (no parole) is morally equivilent to the DP, as both have been deemed to be removed from society forever. Is there any difference from me locking someone in a box forever until they die or just killing them? Both have the exact same effect. The person is removed from society at t=X (the end of the trial) and they both stay completely removed from society until they die, just one dies faster and at a predicitable time. Here, Con has misinterpreted my statement. If the outcome of X and Y are the same (person completely removed from society until they die), then we might as well do the cheaper and more effective of the two. Con has also misconstrued my arguments by saying, "he doesn't want those facing the DP to have access to more appeals since it can be more expensive. " I said that those with equal crimes should receive equal judical effort. Just because a person with an identical crime is looking at life does not mean that they diserve a lower quality justice system with fewer appeals. This is the second time that Con has missed this point and that I've had to correct it. Con continues to try to say that this is about morality. My argument is not, and has not been about morals, since there are no objective morals. If we go by society's morals (average morals of citizens) we get different results, pending which bias site does the survey [1][2]. But for all practicality, both LI and DP are locking someone away until they die, just one dies faster. "he will have to justify killing someone for being sick. " This is a fallacy. No one is being killed "for" being sick, they would be executed because of the crime that they commited, and the [lack of] potential of correcting their reasoning for doing so. Whether they are "sick" or not does come into the equation. "if the likelihood of someone escaping a maximum security detention center is ridiculously low, this threat is too unrealistic for any serious consideration. " One of the links in Con's second round was about 9 people that recently escaped from a high security prison [3]. Again, for "the best we can do," if option A is 99.9% and option B is 100%, A is not the best. "We don't outlaw alcohol even though thousands of innocent people will be killed by drunk drivers this year. " We do outlaw drunk driving because of the risk it has on other people. " I haven't said that one facing LI should have a lower standard of justice. What I did say was. .. that [DP should have] a more thorough process of appeals" Saying that one should have a higher standard is the same as saying the other should have a lower standard. Both are for the same crime, both are the same punishment (locked up forever until death), so both should have the same thoroughness. However, since death comes faster to those on DP, they should have their appeals done quicker, while the LI has more time to stretch it out over. "Do those who intentionally kill someone on death row who later turns out to be innocent also warrant the DP? " First, I'll say that not all that intentionally kill innocent life should be executed (if you go over my arguments, I never made such a claim). Second, like the homeowner that intentionally killed someone that they thought was guilty, but was innocent, should not be killed, neither should a judge that convicts someone. However, it would be acceptable and encouraged, that if someone was innocent, to look into why they were falsely convicted and if it was the result of any foul play. The same should apply to anyone that dies after LI and is found to be innocent, there is no difference between the two, as this relates to the justice system, not the punishment. Since the potential for mistake (wrongful conviction) is present in both DP and LI, it cannot be considered against one or the other. While I have shown that escape has a greater risk under LI than DP, my opponent cannot show that DP has a greater risk of mistake than LI under my ideas, since both would have the same justice system, and the same amount of appeals. "In that case, this proves that this is about vengeance rather than logic. " Non Sequitur. OBL commited a crime and has no chance of rehab. Execution is the ideal way to ensure that he cannot repeat further crimes of such severity. It has nothing to do with vengeance. This would be clear, since I also mentioned SH, which there is no reason for me to want vengeance on him. "Pro concludes by saying that I must prove rehabilitation/LI is completely safe, but this is absurd. .. " The DP is 100% effective. Con would have to show that rehab/LI is just as or more effective than the DP. The only way for that is if either is 100%. I've shown that the DP is more effective than LI mathematically, and that both LI and DP have an equal chance of mistake through a justice system. This is not about morals, this is about which is logically better for society. Thank you, [1] . http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org... [2] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3] . http://abcnews.go.com...