A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

I negate the resolution, resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment. I offer the following definitions: A just society is a group of individuals living in a community that are guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. The death penalty is a death sentence used as punishment. A punishment is defined as an unpleasant action in return for a wronged action. The resolution asks whether or not this punishment ought to be used by a just society, we can conclude that a just society would not do unjust actions, thus, I value justice, defined as fairness or giving each their due (American Heritage Dictionary). My value criterion is consent. For example, stabbing is unjust because there is no consent of the involved, while surgery is considered ajust, meaning it lacks qualities of both justice and injustice. While both actions are the same, the consent is the only difference between these two scenarios; therefore, consent is an important determining factor in whether or not an action is just. The affirmative burden is to prove that the death penalty is unjust, and as long as I can prove that the death penalty is consented to, it would no longer be unjust, therefore, we negate. Contention One: people agree to the death penalty because they live in a just society. A just society creates certain laws and punishments for its people for the sole purpose of maintaining justice and order, for example, the death penalty. A citizen in a just society would know the rules and consequences of a wrong action. By living in this society, individuals are consenting to its rules. If one does not consent to these limits, they have the right to leave the community at anytime, since the just society would not force anyone to stay. So, by staying in the society, individuals are tacitly agreeing to the death penalty. Contention Two: people consent to the death penalty because by committing the criminal action, they are giving inexplicit consent. First, a just society would not sentence the death penalty to any crime other than first degree murder, since no other crime is proportionate to the punishment of death. Just societies would not sentence the death penalty on an unproportional action, because the actor is not due the unnecessary harm. So, because the criminal commits first degree murder, we can conclude that this individual was capable of mental comprehension, or the ability to understand their immoral action. This is true because mental comprehension is a determining factor in deciding whether or not the individual was able to understand its fault, further on, deciding their consequences. For example, we would not assign the death penalty to a mentally ill person incapable of rationality. Because of this, the criminal must have had full awareness of both their actions and consequences, if they continue the unjust behavior, they have inexplicitly agreed to their punishment, as in this case, the death penalty. Contention Three: people consent to the death penalty because they prefer a quick death rather than spending the rest of their lives in prison. Phillips explains: Robert Anthony Phillips, Volunteering for death: the fast track to the death house, Crime magazine-an encyclopedia of crime, July 2001. There are dozens of death row inmates in the United States who have or who are doing the same thing: 'volunteering' for death. In the last year, volunteers have been executed in Nevada, Florida, Indiana, Arkansas, Virginia, California and Oklahoma. These volunteers get on the fast track to the death house by pleading guilty and asking for a death sentence at their trials or, most often, dropping their appeals after they are convicted. Since 1995, 409 convicted killers have been executed in the United States, with at least 61 of those volunteering for death, the rights groups says.Why are so many admitted or convicted killers volunteering to be executed? Criminal defense lawyers, psychiatrists and death-row inmates themselves offer a variety of reasons. Some volunteers are crazy. Some find God and are convinced that heaven awaits them if they pay for their crimes with their lives. Some use murder as a means of committing suicide. Some just can't live with themselves for what they did. Others like the idea of controlling a system they really have no control over. But, the most prevalent reason cited is that life on death row is not really life.Twelve states have no death penalty, but of the 38 that do most isolate condemned prisoners [are locked] in high-security cellblocks within maximum security prisons away from the general prison population, keeping them locked in their cells up to 23 hours a day. Studies have shown that prisoners who are isolated become severely depressed and delusional, possibly making them want to end their lives and give up their appeals. Even if the death row inmates are not insane, the isolation and restrictions imposed lead some to want to end their lives, rather than living in such conditions. "Humans are creatures who naturally avert themselves from pain. They seek to eliminate us much pain as possible. Therefore, when faced with a choice between life in prison and the death penalty, they would choose the death penalty, because it eliminates all pain, whereas life in prison merely extends all pain for the rest of their lives." (Rohit) The people of a just society agree to the death penalty, because: One, they give tacit consent by living within the just society, Two, they inexplicitly agree to this punishment when they committed the crime, and Three, convicted individuals would rather die a quick death than to live their lives in prison. Because the death penalty is consented to, it is no longer an unjust action. Thus, we negate.