Capital Punishment

====== Pro Case ====== I realise the burden of proof, as Pro, is partly on me (although it's mainly on Con as the instigator). So here, quite briefly since this isn't a particularly in-depth debate, are some of the main reasons Capital Punishment is justified; 1. Critics of the death penalty often cite the fact that innocent people have been executed in the past, and probably will be in the future. This is a supporting argument in the general claim that we should be building a society based on respect for human life. Con has made similar claims in his first post and last. However, ladies and gentlemen, the exact opposite is true. In fact, far more innocent people have been killed as a result of released, paroled or escaped murderers than by the death penalty. By executing the most dangerous among us, we are actually building a society based on respect for innocent life. [1] [2] 2. Capital punishment is completely effective as a deterrent to the criminal being executed. In addition, studies show that for every execution, 18 murders are prevented [3]. This more than justifies the need for the death penalty. ======= Refutations ======= Firstly, Capital Punishment is NOT murder, according to the definition. This is little more than a semantics point, but I would like to forestall Cons emotionally appealing use of the word: as in 'the state murders people!'. A much more appropriate use is 'execution', which hardly backs away from the moral implications. Murder: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Execution: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Con realises the fallacious nature of his quote, but then muses on the saying: 'an eye for an eye', and how it applies to the justice system. I think he is correct: the law should not work like that. Punishments should not be equal to crimes. But how on earth does he think that this applies to the death penalty? The criminals who are executed are the worst scum society has to offer. They are often serial killers, the ones who rape then murder their victims, who have no sense of what it means to be moral, and who revel in other peoples suffering. Is that what the death penalty is? No! It is the relatively clean, quick death of somebody with a disgusting amount of blood on their hands. Con seems to have this idea that since both the criminals and the state have killed people, then both crimes are equally heinous. He says: 'Murder is murder because in murdering someone, no matter what the cause, a life is being taken'. Let me ask him this: to you think that killing somebody in self defence is equal to killing an innocent person? Do you think a soldier doing his duty is equal to a paedophile raping and murdering little children? If not, he must admit that some killing is justified, and consequently that it is perfectly possible for the death penalty is justified, regardless of if it involves killing people. That most European countries do not have the death penalty is utterly irrelevant. Indeed, it's nothing more than an appeal to authority. We are debating the merits of the application and morality of Capital Punishment, not how many countries have it and how many don't. Perhaps they have good reasons: if so, present them so we can debate them! On the other hand, perhaps it's nothing more than the result of misguided aversion the killing criminals, combined with excessive media attention on the criminals themselves, rather than the victims who really should be being paid attention to. [1] http://www.talkleft.com... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [3] http://www.heritage.org...