Capital Punishment

rebuttals

inductive vs. deductive reasoning.

the statement that the legal system relies solely on inductive reasoning is not even true. Deductive reasoning can often be recognized by its use of if-then statements. For example. If the suspect was found at the scene of the crime covered in blood and holding the murder weapon, then the suspect most likely murdered the victim. On that point, he also says that because there could be a sliver of possibility that this suspect didn't commit the murder then we can't execute him. At that point you aren't justified in believing anything. Take science for instance. Nothing is proven in science. Ever. You can never be 100% certain of anything. Yet you trust that when you jump gravity isn't going to fail and send you flying off into space. Because although you can never be 100% certain that the law of gravity doesn't have exceptions you can trust that it probably doesn't. While my opponent's argument certainly shows that we need to be careful in our application of the death penalty and only apply it when we are sure that the suspect is guilty, it does nothing to show that we should not use our near certainty to administer justice. It's also important to note that of all of the people who have been executed and later exonerated, they have almost exclusively been convicted in a time before DNA analysis existed and were later exonerated by DNA analysis. Today the odds of a false conviction for a capital offense are extraordinarily low. It also bears noting that the convict has the ability to appeal and will not be executed for many years. Plenty of time for new evidence to surface. 

My opponent also claims that "evidence is not proof" by that he means proof in the mathematical sense like the way you can prove that a triangle has three sides. By that logic, there is no proof that gravity exists. Yet, we all believe that it does.

Moreover, say the suspect is a Charles Manson looking guy. Pentagram tattooed on his forehead and he brags about his murders in court. There can be no reasonable doubt that this guy is guilty. Do you still oppose the death penalty? if so, then you object to the death penalty on principle not because he could be innocent. In which case this argument isn't the real reason that you oppose the death penalty.

does not fully alleviate the burden on the families.

Nothing can ever relieve the emotional burden on the families that are affected by horrible crimes. But justice has been done. They get retribution. Just because punishing the perpetrator will not alleviate the burden on families is not a good reason to not punish them.

the perpetrator is at peace

I don't believe that he is. But that's a debate for another time. Even If I was an atheist and didn't believe in hell, I still wouldn't care. You haven't provided a warrant for this argument. Why does it matter that the perpetrator has found "peace" in nonexistence?

we can't determine the fate of another person based on probability alone.

Of course, we can. We do it all of the time. Every prison sentence is given based on probability. After the probability of their guilt has risen beyond a reasonable doubt, we determine their fate. This argument is untrue on its face.

the death penalty will not bring the victim back

Neither will a life sentence. Is your argument that we should never punish them at all because it won't bring the victim back? If we can punish them despite that not resurrecting the victim, then why can't we execute them?

The death penalty is an ineffective deterrent.

This argument is actually a strong point in my favor. There's no point in attempting to rehabilitate someone so psychopathic that not even the threat of death deters them from committing terrible crimes. One of the symptoms of psychopathy is that the threat of punishment doesn't deter them. Again, if they aren't deterred by punishment, should we just not punish them at all? And if we can punish them despite punishment being ineffective, why can't we execute them?

Because most of my opponent's arguments lack effective warrants or are invalid, I conclude that the Death Penalty should not be abolished. 

Firstly, I would just like to point out that I didn't say that the legal system relies "solely" on inductive reasoning. I did say however that it does rest upon inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive reasoning, meaning that in the vast majority of cases it is grounded in inductive reasoning. I will grant that there may indeed be instances where the deductive reasoning is taking place in a court case. However, the courts generally do not work like this; and it would be a very impractical and long-winded process if it did.  

Furthermore, while I generally adhere to the idea that we should live our lives according to probabilities I draw the line when it comes to determining the life or death of another individual. In workforces in a number of countries, the health & safety also work according to probabilities as well as possibilities; the idea is to mitigate as much risk as possible as well as probable to a workers life and wellbeing. In this respect, an appeal to possibility is indeed justified.  

Yes, my claim is that "evidence is not proof." While this does apply to mathematics I am almost certain it can apply to other things too such as deductive proofs in formal logic and argumentation. Also, it is not scientific to say that there is "proof" of gravity; it is, however, more appropriate for scientists to talk about the degree of evidential support for gravity which I believe is very high. Nonetheless, pondering abstract ideas of physics is very different from deciding whether a person should live or die. 

In regards to the bit about Charles Manson, all I can say here is that I disagree that one can conclude that someone is guilty of murder solely on the basis that they're going around like a lunatic shouting about it. 

I do not see the death penalty as an adequate form of punishment. I do see that the end of their life equates to the end of their suffering while alive though. Moreover, I do not like to think here in terms of punishment. I believe we should think in terms of rehabilitation if possible and keeping society safe from perpetrators through incarceration. Of course in some instances rehabilitation may not be possible and the crimes that were committed too severe, and so the most plausible solution I ascribe to is having them incarcerated for life for the safety of the pubic.  

This bit is actually relevant. I think the word "peace" is being confused. I will be more specific; when a person's life has ended they are no longer enduring any form of punishment or suffering, at least according to the way we know of punishment and suffering. Therefore, at the end of it all,

the death penalty isn't really a penalty; it's merely just an execution. What is irrelevant is to whether or not you believe they may be in hell or not; this, however,

is rested on faith and does not make for a very strong argument. 

When talking about fate I meant we can't or at least shouldn't decide to take the life of another based on pure probability alone. Incarceration is very different from willing it upon oneself to decide whether or not someone else should be put to death. 

The point I was trying to make here is that one of the arguments for the death penalty is because it brings some sort of relief of burden. I, however, disagree with this idea and think it's no more than just an illusion. In regards to punishments that is a matter of subjective opinion. Objectively speaking a perpertrator still needs to be incarcarate to avoid being posed as a threat to the public. So in that respect no, prison or death as forms of punishment will not bring anyone back of course, but we still need to mitigate threats and risks to the rest of society. 

Firstly, I fail to see how this is a strong point in the opposition's favor. However, as I said above the legal system isn't and/or should not be purely based on mere punishment. When considering the safety of the public incarceration as prevention is a viable and plausible option.