On the Death Penalty

I will sum up his argument below. Claims: 1. Criminals lose their rights when they break the social contract. 2. It is unjust for a victim's family to have to pay for the continued existence of the person who murdered their family member. 3. Admits there is no concensus on Social Contract Theorists, but that it is his opinion that ciminals negate their rights when they break the social contract. 4. The source I stated contradicts my argument. 5. Roussou "ignores common sense". <<"Why would the thief retain a right to property? The slaver a right to freedom? The murderer a right to life? This sort of retaining of rights flys in the face of appropriate punishment and remuneration for transgressions. ">> 6. <<"if an individual enters into a social contract where it is understood that certain egregious violations like murder carry a penalty of death, the individual has given his right of self-determination on that subject area to the government. ">> Rebuttals: 1. Pro claims that, based on the Social Contract, a criminal loses his natural rights. He then goes on to contradict himself when he admits there is no consensus on this point among Social Contract Theorists. Therefore, this point is null. 2. The amount paid by one taxpayer for the incarceration of a murderer is so miniscule as to go wholly unnoticed. This is a problem that could have a solution. This is a single problem and not indicative of a need to exclude life incarceration as a sentence. The cost paid by the immediate family for the murderer's incarceration (through taxes) could be calculated. They could be reimbursed from the murderer's estate. 3. I admit that Pro indeed has a right to express his opinion on the matter. However, in debate we are not interested solely in the opinion of those involved. We are looking for verifiable evidence. To back up his opinion on this point Pro has used the Social Contract Theory. Unfortunately, as we have seen and as Pro has readily admitted, there is no consensus on this point. Theorists do not agree on if criminals retain or negate their natural rights when they break the contract. I would like to note here that my point on dual sets of rights was not refuted by Pro and thus follows through to this final round unchallenged. 4. Yes, the source, wikipedia, both agrees with and contradicts my argument. That is the point, there is no consensus among Social Contract Theorists. 5. To say Roussou ignores common sense is clearly an opinion. So I hope that this wording does not sway the readers. Pro asks some relevent questions along with this point, which deserve addressing: <<"Why would the thief retain a right to property? The slaver a right to freedom? The murderer a right to life? This sort of retaining of rights flys in the face of appropriate punishment and remuneration for transgressions. ">> They retain these rights because they are the 'natural' rights often touted by philosophers. The term Natural implies that they have these rights at birth and retain them until they die. Therefore, a state based on the principle of respecting natural rights cannot justly take these rights from one of its citizens. As I argued in R2, the state can remove civil rights from a criminal because it is the state that grants these 'civil' rights. Therefore, a state (government) can take away a citizen's Civil rights if that citizen breaks the contract with that state, but it can never justly take away his/her Natural rights. 6. A person enters the social contract by birth. It would be abusrd to expect an infant to understand that by virtue of being born it accepts that if he commits an "egregious crime" like murder his punishment is death. Additionally, as I have shown in point 5, a person does not (and can not) give up his/her Natural rights to the government. Natural rights lie outside the jurisdiction of the government. CONCLUSION My opponent argues that it is "disgusting" for a victim's family to pay for the murderer to live. I have shown that this is not necessary. He bases his case on the social contract theory, stating that criminals lose their rights when they commit a crime. Unfortunately, in the same post he admits that there is no consensus on whether or not this is true. Therefore, I have negated his claim that, based on the Social Contract Theory, "the death penalty is a just punishment for certain types of crimes. "