Thanks, AvoidDeath! I will begin to rebut.
- Ethics:
As my opponent agrees, in order to achieve morality it is necessary for justice to be given. Justice is, as agreed, an inherently reciprocal notion. In other words, if I stole a dollar from AvoidDeath, I would owe AvoidDeath exactly one dollar in order to achieve reciprocity. Normally, I would have a right to keep my money, but in stealing I have forfeited my right to do so as I have violated AvoidDeath’s right to keep his money. This is reciprocal justice at its basic form. With murder, one has forfeited their right to live as they have violated another person’s right to live. The murderer sentences themselves to death. This is not revenge, this is simply justice. To NOT execute a murderer is immoral, not the inverse.
In essence, this basic idea of justice shows why Con’s arguments are fundamentally fallacious: Con’s priority is comfort instead of justice.
Con argues that those who participate in an execution trial will feel long-term negative effects emotionally. Well,
potentially. However, to halt justice for the sake of ease is a major mix-up of priorities. Justice comes first, then emotional closure. By this line of logic, I should not defend myself against an assault since the killing of that individual might scar me emotionally. Clearly, the outcome of death outweighs emotional trauma. In the same sense, injustice outweighs emotional stress.
Con, perhaps you should consider the emotional effects of losing a loved one while the criminal that slaughtered them is still roaming, at risk of escape or parole, and committing violent acts within prison.
Con also argues that reciprocal justice is immoral through Gandhi's quote: “An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.”
With all respect to Gandhi, this quote is to be expected from a martyr. However, to expect innocent, normal victims of murderers to be martyrs like Gandhi is an inherently privileged stance. Furthermore, to impose pacifism on the victims of murder is an implied endorsement of violence against them.
2. Cost:
As I have already pointed out, the death penalty solves for cost in two main ways:
Plea Deals - Again, the threat of a death penalty convinces many to plea guilty in return for a life sentence without parole. This dramatically saves legal costs!
Deterrence - I have given several quantified results from credible studies that determine there is a deterrence effect of the death penalty. Less crime means less cost to society.
- Effectiveness
It should be understood that crime deterrence is only a secondary goal of the death penalty. The primary goal is to serve reciprocal justice.
That said, I have given numerous, quantified pieces of evidence to back my statements whereas Con has only given broad examples that boil down to “most people say this, therefore it is correct.”
Here is a particular quote I would like to respond to from Con:
“States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates.
This proves that the death penalty is the same or less effective than life imprisonment.”
There are many, many factors involved with crime rates. While the death penalty may work to deter some crime, other factors (for example poverty) will play a larger role in determining overall crime rates. This is not to say that the death penalty does not do its job, but obviously the death penalty is not a “magical quick-fix.”
4. Pain
My opponent’s arguments here seem to show more compassion for the criminal than the victim. Keep in mind that the criminal would not have to suffer emotional stress had they not murdered in the first place.
Furthermore, botched executions are rare and cherry-picked incidents. Even if they were common occurrence, pain should not be something to avoid when it is meant as punishment.
5. Mental Health of Inmates
Most on the death row are dangerous, unpredictable, suicidal, and mentally deranged individuals to begin with. I do not see this as inherently altering anything regarding the inmates.
6. Death Row Conditions
Those on death row are not in bad conditions. If they were, it would be debatable if that is even immoral to begin with.
For example,
in Florida, inmates are fed three meals a day, given regular showers, given regular exercise, get mail regularly, have snacks, have TVs, radios, and get a
final extravagant meal before their execution. Visitors are allowed, and any restrictions present are simply safety precautions for everyone involved.
7. Polls
My opponent's poll comes from Amnesty International, which is a heavily biased organization from the UK. The
site claims that
Further, surveys hold little weight. Argument from authority is a fallacy, and surveys are heavily flawed in nature. In this case, the authority is misplaced even. Average voters do not know the nuance of the justice system.
Even further, this “recent” poll is from 2010. If my opponent REALLY wants to talk recent polls, according to the results of the more recent 2017
Gallup poll (which polled a similar amount of people), 55% of Americans are in favor of the death penalty.
To conclude:
While the economics and crime rates are important (and in favor of the death penalty), we must remember the true reason behind the death penalty: justice. I hope judges can clearly see how Pro wins on every point presented thus far. Thank you.
Via PM's. Please vote for pro.
When and where did the concession happen?
I devote wayyy to much time to this site.
That was quick. I would've liked a bit more time but this works.
Cool.
I shall submit this weekend
4 days
Thanks
Asking for feedback is always allowed.
Regarding your preamble:
1. Restating the format seems a waste.
2. You did better than anything the quote tool would have done (I'm a firm believer in formatting quotes, but that tool usually just makes things harder to read).
I only skimmed over the rest (wouldn't be fair to your opponent to give your case a more in depth reading of yours when his is not available to do likewise). It looks good, touches on many of the main points to be expected, putting a .edu paper near the start was wise and the other sources seemed fine (they can be mitigated if their bias is brought up, but that doesn't change their factual information unless their bias is proven to be overwhelming enough to cross into propaganda).
Calling upon to the gods of this site. I don't know if this is illegal or not, so don't respond if it is, but what do you think of my arguments?