Thank you McMieky for this debate. I do find this debate to be a very interesting topic.
To start off this debate I will present my own argument for why the death penalty should not be abolished and then I will address Pro's arguments.
Firstly I do not hold that one is entitled absolutely to life but rather has a duty to live. This difference lies in the fact that at times killing is justified. Such as in self defense or a war. Now obviously this debate is not about those things, so I am not making a comparison to those. I am practically showing how life is something we have a duty to perform, yet we are not entitled to it absolutely. Obviously we are entitled to life insofar as we are fulfilling the duty to live, hence why it is not absolute. If it was, killing someone in self defense would be morally wrong. But, and this will be the major premise to my argument, if one fails, in certain ways, in the duty to live properly he forfeits the entitlement to that life and the duty attached to it since these "certain ways" are directly contrary to the duty of the individual to the common good of society.
The next question of course is, what are these certain ways in which one loses the entitlement to life and the duty attached to it?
To answer this, it is important to understand that Man by his nature is a social creature. We form societies and our role in it is to freely give to the common good of that society in whatsoever way according to our capabilities. There are two ways to fail in this regard: Indirect and direct hindrances.
Indirect hindrance to this common good is a common thing and part of what it means to be human. So being homeless, or not willing to get a job, or littering or other minor offenses do not justify the death penalty, since they are indirect hindrances.
Direct hindrances must be separated into two parts, malicious and unintended.
Unintended direct hindrances do not justify the death penalty because they are of a nature that while the common good is harmed there is no intent to do the harm to the common good itself or to be a direct threat to it. So for example, a person who is a one time murderer, who murdered the man who stole his money and then his wife and his house all just because he hated him, does not deserve the death penalty because he does not intend harm the common good itself nor is he a threat to it, but simply acted out of an unjustified revenge to one person.
Now malicious direct hindrances are of the nature that one does harm the common good with the intent to harm it and/or is a direct threat to it. Some crimes are of such a nature that it takes much premeditated thought and preparation order to perform the crime that, at best, they are a real threat to society and its members. Such an example would be of what some have called "Anarchist crime." Anarchist crime is any crime that intends to do direct harm to an established society with the intent to harm it. So, an anarchist who works secretly to undermine the economy, authority of the government, and the well being of the common good simply because he hates the order of society is a direct threat to the stability and duty of all members of that society to live well and hence does deserve the death penalty. Exile would not do justice to this crime, since by exile he would presumably be integrated into a different society which he is a threat to by his set will on being an anarchist. This is in fact considered one of the worst evils one can do because it demonstrates a hatred for the way Man is.
Other Malicious direct hindrances can include: serial killers: because they are direct threats to members of society. Active pedophiles: Because they are a threat to the young members of society. (obviously, having the disorder of the mind to be sexually attracted to children does not deserve the death penalty since there is no intent there). Active/ serial rapists: They are a threat to the foundation of society, which is marriage and the family.
Any of the above crimes committed once does not constitute the death penalty but rather the crimes repeated . How many offences before the death penalty is deserved is dependent on circumstances and the individual cases.
In light of the above said, The death penalty should not be abolished.
Now I will address pro's arguments:
The death penalty is violation of fundamental right of humans. governmental policy
that allows countries to take another human life raises ethical questions about the
equivalence of life taking and crime prevention.
The fundamental rights of humans are those things to which we have the duty to do or have, based on the nature of man. Dying is natural to man so life is only a fundamental right under the light of the fact that we will die. This means there ought to be times when life is laid down for the greater good. If it is done nobly as a soldier for his country, they ought to be given the greatest honor and respect. If it has to be done because one is a direct threat to society, it ought to be done humanely and not publicly. (legal witnesses are obvious exceptions)
Also, many countries have don't have the death penalty anymore, realizing that it is immorally
wrong.
this is not a very good argument as it could mean that there are countries that have it wrong.
Many wrong convictions happen and have gotten people killed. But the existence of the
death penalty makes risk of executing an innocent person and irreversible and wrongful
death. And later on, when technology gets better, they figure out that the person was
innocent and nothing happen people just protest and the government does nothing. This
highlights the flaws in the failing of the legal system.
This is an unfortunate truth, but one that stems from human failure, not the existence of the death penalty itself.
Studies find out that the death penalty does not do much for stopping crime. In fact,
many sats with the death penalty have more violent crime compared to those without.
Life imprisonment without parole have equal effective to the death penalty.
If the purpose of the death penalty was to set an example only, then yes, I would abolish it. But the main purpose of the death penalty is to rid society of a constant threat to it. If there is the side effect that it makes people think twice, cool.
Data consistently show that the death is applied to people who are poor or are a minority,
This shows systemic biases within the judicial system, so is the death penalty even fair?
I would like to have a reference to this if possible as I am sure I would find it very interesting. But simply looking at this quote, I do not see how, simply because it has been applied more to poor or minority, this shows a systemic bias. I think I need further explanation on that.
Well done to both sides. It was a very interesting debate to read!
Votes please!
Sorry I was out for the second round im looking forward to your response.