Death Penalty

I asked Pro whether it was ever morally right to intentionally kill someone if you are not being immediately threatened. He responded that it is never morally right though it can often be morally acceptable. This is contradictory. In his example, he talked about accidentally killing a potential burglar. However that is a case of a mistaken perceived immediate threat. With the DP, you know the person is not an immediate threat, so this example is not analogous. As such, we should stick to Pro's initial assertion that intentionally killing someone who is not an immediate threat is NEVER morally acceptable. Pro has not provided one moral argument whatsoever validating the DP. He said that appealing to the majority of people ought to be what determines law, since morality is subjective. However a moral argument supporting this proposition is necessary or else we're just appealing to the majority which is fallacious. I'm sure if 51% of the population agreed that it should be legal to rape his newborn child, Pro would want further justification aside from the majority of people agreeing. I'm not arguing that morals aren't subjective, but that a moral justification for law is necessary. He hasn't provided one and even said he doesn't have to. This is clearly wrong for all the reasons I've outlined in the last round. Second, I wrote "Pro says there may be times where the 'eye for an eye' system of justice ought to be applied. Obviously I'd like an expansion, such as when and why." Pro completely dropped this, which means it's a point in my favor. The audience should assume he cannot justify vengeance (payback) as justice in any case. Next, I asked if we trusted the government to only kill bad people. Pro said, and I quote, that it's "not relevant." If Pro doesn't think that potential state sanctioned murder of innocent people is relevant, then one must wonder how this best effectively achieves his standard of justice: the quality of being fair and reasonable. I contend that this is not reasonable. Furthermore, I've said that given the State has a monopoly on force, that the State having the authority to legally put someone to death is a threat to society in and of itself. Pro never responded to this either. Pro writes, "Being detained for life (no parole) is morally equivalent to the DP." First, I never advocated the potential for no parole. I'm the one who said Pro could not prove who could and could not be properly rehabilitated - another point which he did not respond to. Second, if Pro thinks that being detained is equivalent to death, then he has already defeated his own argument of why the DP ought to be preferred. In that case, his only other justification has been the 100% likelihood that someone could not escape death. However, I explained (a) exactly why it would be absurd to base our legal system around such a tiny probability; we don't in any other area -- and (b) that this is not only an impossible but completely unfair standard, since Pro does not provide 100% guarantee that innocent people won't be killed. In my alcohol analogy, Pro responded "We do outlaw drunk driving because of the risk it has on other people." Drunk driving has proven to kill thousands of people a year [1], while Pro has failed to prove that escapees from maximum security prisons have killed anywhere near that many people. By his logic, alcohol should be criminalized because people MIGHT die from it. There is no 100% guarantee that they won't after all. Pro writes, "Unless Con can show that LI is as accurate (100%), then LI... this is not the best we can do." Once again, if 100% accuracy is the criteria, then he has again defeated his own argument. Unless Pro can show that DP sentencing is 100% accurate, then the DP is not the best we can do by his own standards. Pro argues that killing someone has the exact same effect as LI. Assuming Pro accepts the right of self-ownership (the reason why he would be worried about potential threats in the first place), why not have the inmate make that determination? If prison is really equivalent to murder, then surely many would commit suicide rather choose LI. I contend that this is their prerogative and should be a legal option, but it does not justify the DP. While it's true that one could die during LI, this ignores (a) there was no state appointed individual to take a human being's life - period. And (b) the likelihood of exonerating someone is ZERO upon their death, though obviously possible if they're still alive. Pro consistently presents a contradictory standard. He wants us to worry about the statistically proven VERY small chance of a prisoner's escape, but not consider the chance of exonerating a jailed, innocent human being. While I cannot prove that there is a greater chance for mistake under the DP than LI, I can prove that you can attempt to rectify the falsely accused in one situation, but you can 100% NOT rectify it in another when the person is already dead. Last year, Freddie Peacock became the 250th person to be exonerated for his crime thanks to DNA testing [2]. A false confession played a role in his initial conviction as it does in countless others. Again, it's completely non-sensical to only care about one small potential for mistake (escape), and ignore the potential for another (killing an innocent person) as if one is somehow more dangerous than the other, while the latter guarantees taking an innocent life while the former says someone MIGHT hurt again IF they escape. Pro did not respond to this. Moreover, there could be greater benefit to society (the goal of our justice system) keeping someone jailed instead of dead. In addition to eliminating the negative effects of the DP that occurs to the victim's family, defendant's family and society overall (see: PDF I linked in R2 about families opposing the DP), one could have a positive impact on others even from behind bars. Others could contribute by performing various labor amongst other possibilities. Pro continues, "For accuracy's sake there is a substantial time frame from the time of the trial to the actual execution, to allow for appeals..." This blatantly conflicts with his other arguments. He writes, "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." However by his own admission the current DP process is NOT cheaper so this doesn't make any sense. He specifically used cost as a reason to support the DP, but then advocates keeping the same process that makes the DP more expensive than LI... 70% more expensive (hundreds of millions), in fact [3]. Pro has defeated yet another one of his own arguments since LI is the cheaper option. He can repeat that he simply wants an equal trial process for those facing LI, but that can happen without the DP. Again he has completely ignored my contention that eliminating the DP means equal trial costs (as possible) for equal crimes. Pro misuses the term fallacy when he says it's a fallacy that someone would be killed for being sick under his proposition. No, if someone is mentally ill, and kills BECAUSE they are mentally ill, then they are indeed being punished for what their involuntary sickness has caused (their crime). He glossed over this and never justified it. Pro also falsely accused me of a non-sequitur but I don't have enough characters to explain why. Pro concludes, "OBL commited a crime and has no chance of rehab." Once again, Pro cannot prove that OSL (a) needs rehab, as he hasn't proven mentally ill, and (b) that Pro is the best psychological judge of whether or not that was the case even if he did need rehab. That's a true non-sequitur. Pro failed to provide an adequate moral OR practical/logical reason to justify the DP. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...