The death penalty is a reasonable form of punishment for capitol offences.

I here by challenge you to defend your stance on this issue. This debate is purely idealogical in method, meaning that while we could just throw statistics at each other for a while and see who wins, I would rather like to argue the ideas behind it. Both debaters are expected to be polite and respectful to the other. and so...... begin What is the death penalty? It is a form of punishment used by a legal system that ends the life of the convicted offender. This punishment is reserved for criminals convicted of the most heinous of crimes, such as murder, rape, or treason. What is the goal of the death penalty? The death penalty has several possible goals if not all of these in one. 1. To ensure justice. Most societies believe that crimes ought to be punished in a form or fashion equal in severity to the crime committed. Thus a murder must be punished by death. (notice that the severity of the punishment and not the nature is equal, I do not endorse raping rapists as punishment) 2. To remove possible future threats to society. Seeing as the ideal government will protect its citizens, any murderer must be removed from even the slightest possibility of committing such crimes again. This constitutes the death penalty in the minds of some governments. (I don not particularly endorse this motive, I am simply presenting the facts) 3. (This is the most vital and pivotal reason for the death penalty, and I will build my case on it) To prevent other citizens from committing these heinous crimes. When people see that the result of the crime that they could commit is death, it inspires them to not commit murder. This is an unquestionable statement. Thus the death penalty prevents a large amount of heinous crime from being committed. When set next to other possible punishments for these crimes, it is the only one that does this effectively and is thus the best possible option. (we will go over this later) Arguments against the death penalty 1. It is against natural rights: all ideological issues against the death penalty spur from this statement here. If you look at the individuals who envisioned natural rights (John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean Russou) you will find that they defined them as this. The rights that a government is unquestionably and inexcusably REQUIRED to protect for those individuals that are INCLUDED in that SOCIETY. Also found in their explanation is that any individual who violates the law of this ideal government is then excluded from that government's protection of rights to the extent that they violated those rights. Thus thieves aren't protected from loss of property, rapists from loss of dignity, liars from loss of reputation, murderers from loss of life etc.... Seeing that they aren't a part of the society anymore, the government may take a murderers life justly in order to preserve the lives of those who are a part of that society. 2. There are acceptable and more effective alternatives to the death penalty: this is false. Such alternatives are all forms of rehabilitation or permanent incarceration. Rehabilitation's purpose is to bring criminals back into good standing with society, a society (that as I have already proven) they no longer belong in. Furthermore, the first goal of a justice system is to prevent crime from ever taking place. To do so, we must provide incentive for citizens to not commit these crimes. People are not intimidated with life in prison (eating three square meals a day, endless cable television, and free healthcare), they do not refrain from murder due to the possibility of rehabilitation. Thus the best form of punishment to fulfill the greatest goal of any government (to prevent murder or other heinous crimes) is without question the death penalty. I look forward to your response to this case and any further insight you might provide for debate.