The Death Penalty--With a Twist!

Thanks to Bsh1 for the response. ---What the debate is about (excusing killing)To return to my previous analysis, I think we can assume (unless my opponent chooses to make an argument for nihilism) that a violent killing of another human is wrong, unless there is some exception or explanation that redeems or excuses it. I feel confident that Pro would agree that the default position of killing is that it is immoral due to the fact that the crime of the defendant is murder. Because the default category of killing is one of immorality, a central question of the debate is therefore whether or not this killing (death penalty) is exceptional. If Pro does not manage to show that the death penalty is somehow excused, then his only choice is to defend that murder is by default morally upright or neutral. Thus, Pro is tasked with showing that the death penalty has a valid excuse that makes exception to this killing.-- RebuttalsMinor notesPro claims that I say revenge is never acceptable. That is incorrect--I merely pointed out that revenge alone is not a sufficient excuse for committing murder (for lack of a better term). Pro begins to claim that the defendant is a threat to others, but concedes that one shouldn't linger on this point in the debate. I have to trust Pro on this one that he will not re-invoke this argument later.Death penalty as revengePro makes three rebuts to my analysis on the death penalty being essentially merely revenge: 1) The criminal put her/himself to death; 2) Revenge isn't necessarily inherently wrong; 3) If revenge is always wrong and punishment to modify behavior is right, then there is a contradiction when revenge and punishment coincide. Unfortunately, second (2) and third (3) points are based on a misunderstanding of my argument. The misunderstanding could easily be my fault; I should have been clearer. In my last round, I never once claimed that revenge is inherently wrong. I merely suggested that revenge is not an appropriate or adequate excuse for murder. Thus, Pro's 2 doesn't contradict my debate. Furthermore, the "contradiction" in 3 doesn't apply, because I neither claimed that revenge is inherently wrong nor that punishment is right. I merely pointed out that the death penalty is not punishment in the psychological sense. Thus, the contradiction in 3 is based on two quotations that weren't mine.-Pro digresses a bit in discussing "rights" in point 2. He suggests that all instances of doing a wrong is a violation of rights. This is a problematic analysis for several reasons. Firstly, 'rights' are highly subjective and quite fickle. What are and aren't rights are often points of contention. For example, would handing out religious brochures be a violation of the right to privacy? Would stopping these brochures be a breach of religious rights? Pro treats rights as if they are clear cut, when this is not the case. It is therefore highly possible that there are wrongs even when there is no clear instance of a violation of 'rights.' Thus, this whole discussion of rights does not help my opponent's case, because one is not obligated to prove a violation of rights.Furthermore, according to the United States Declaration of Independence all men have the "inalienable rights" of life and liberty. Inalienable means: "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor" [2]. Thus, even a criminal cannot forfeit their right to life. Therefore, if one takes Pro's discussion of rights seriously then one must admit that the rights of the executed criminal have been violated, and Pro's own analysis works against his argument.Also, Pro asserts that wrongs are violations of rights, and that criminals have forfeited their rights. This means that it is impossible to wrong a criminal according to Pro's argument. Not only is this cruel and an obvious breech of justice, but it also forms a slippery slope. At what point are one's rights forfeit, and at what point are they intact? This vagueness presents a serious threat of injustice for anyone who could be labeled a "criminal," which could include anyone who broke a law (basically everyone). If one is convicted and labeled a criminal, then under Pro's framework one may be beaten senseless by cops without being wronged.[2] http://tinyurl.com...-The remaining rebuttal (1) is also the most counterintuitive: Pro claims that the State does not put the criminal to death, but that the criminal puts her/himself to death. Naturally, we cannot take Pro to mean this literally (or else what are we debating about?). Instead, we must understand Pro to mean that the criminal killed himself/herself figuratively. To illustrate this idea, Pro narrates the story of a mother who gives a child a timeout for stealing a cookie, and pointing out that the timeout was in a sense the child's own doing. Let us examine this story closely to see to what extent it applies to the death penalty. Firstly, unlike the State in the death penalty scenario, the mother in the story did not do lasting harm to the child. In fact, the timeout presumably made the child wiser and healthier (in the long term). In contrast, in the death penalty scenario the sentence would make the defendant simply dead. Secondly, the figurative self-punishment explanation the parent gives is meant to help the child learn to take responsibility for his/her actions. In the case of the death penalty, it is safe to say that the responsibility lecture is lost on the deceased. Thirdly, the parent is not acting out of pure revenge. Although according to Pro any proportional response counts as revenge (a strange definition, to be sure), the intent of the parent was not only to make the child proportionally harmed, but also to teach and help the child. If the mother gave the child the punishment merely to make the child suffer a to a certain extent without any amount of helping the child, this certainly seems immoral. After all, pure revenge tends to be a poor excuse for causing harm.Fourthly, the parent isn't killing anyone. The cutesy cookie scenario is underproportional and almost disrespectful towards the persons who are dying by the hands of the state.Fifthly, the mother is looking toward improving the future at the expense of present harms, whereas in capital punishment the focus is on the unchangeable past, whereas the present harms remain.Sixtly, the parent can always choose not to harm the child. In a most literal sense, it was indeed the parent who enforced the punishment. Similarly, the immorality of the victim does not force anyone's hand--although it would be convenient to pretend that the criminal sentenced himself to death, clearly the State and those involved in the legal proceedings and those involved in the execution all have roles in the killing of the defendant. Difusion of responsibility is not the same as a lack of responsibility.--DemonizationPro clearly demonizes the criminal. Admitting the rape and murder is the worst of humanity is a reasonable and justifiable assertion. Professing that an Other is so evil that it is acceptable to murder that individual is the demonization of the Other. Pro's portrayal of the criminal as the enemy-other can also be seen in his creating a hypothetical with outrageous and exaggerated murders and rape. He portrays the criminal as unthinkably different from and far more evil than 'normal people.' This same tactic of portraying the enemy-Other as evil is what has fostered all kinds of violence--a point that Pro didn't rebut. Pro's portrayal of the criminals as evil has real world implications. The people on this website may grow to become or are already elected officials, activists, and/or voters. The demonizing of criminals will cause a loss of empathy toward the criminal and the idea of a fundamental gap between 'us' and 'them.' This ideology, if not rejected, will cause one to support or accept violent actions against prisoners. Pro literally makes this ideology the central part of his case--that criminals can be so bad that violence against them is acceptable. Since debate is a comparison of rhetoric, Pro's rhetoric ought to be rejected on the ground that it is demonizing and otherizing toward criminals, which makes them appear inhumane and therefore fosters ideologies that accept violence against criminals. We cannot effectively understand how to deal with criminals unless we understand them as people--Pro's demonizing criminals destroys that connection; thus, Pro's demonizing rhetoric ought to be treated as an a priori issue.---Pro refused to expand on his earlier points, even after I asked him directly to do so. I fail to see why humanity may be reduced to autonomy (a strange assertion since we are dealing with prisoners who have next to no autonomy), why dignity is central to the death penalty, or why we should listen to the opinions of Hume or Locke. After all, their political theory was smart but is unquestionable antiquated now. I see no reason why we should apply the political opinions of two philosophers hundreds of years ago to contemporary politics by default. They are smart, but not above reproach.