Total votes: 2
*Framework*
The ethical framework provided by Pro was concise, powerful and convincing. Given the duties of the government embedded in the constitution, consequentialism (perhaps even utilitarianism) entails. However, Con does a nice job of also using the highlighted government duty to also argue that governments have moral duties. The definition of general welfare cited by Pro also includes "Morality of its citizens" meaning that either the fulfillment of moral duties or net benefits are legitimate forms of argumentation for this debate.
*Arguments*
A caveat: In Hamlet, Polonius says that "brevity is the soul of wit", I hope Pro can learn from this proverb by making his arguments more concise. Do not fret, Pro, I will definitely not judge you based on this or take into account when evaluating your argument. I am just saying that it makes the argument more readable.
I will evaluate Pro's arguments first. Firstly, his argument "Voire dire" was cogent and contained numerous excellent citations. However, there was a major problem; it appeared to be a non-sequitur. Granted that there is institutionalized racism in the legal system, especially in the American south, how does this at all mean that we should abolish capital punishment. At best, it would mean that we should *reform* capital punishment (a possibility that Con is open for) or that we would have to purge the racism from the system, by maybe advocating for a quota of black jury members or the like, before allowing judges to sentence capital punishment. I found the argument to be invalid.
As for Pro's second and third argument, I found to be convincing and well-argued yet I have had my reservations similar to the first argument. Is it inconceivable that we can reform the capital punishment in America to be cost-effective with more skilled public defenders? For this reason, I have reservations but given Con's efforts, his arguments absolutely do warrant a strong case for the resolution.
This contrast is one of the reasons that made me vote in favour of Con for the better arguments section. While Pro outlines reasons why the current capital punishment is problematic, it does not directly support the resolution since it leaves open the possibility of reform over abolition. On the other hand, Con's arguments were directly centered at capital punishment, in principle, making it a plausible and legitimate form of justice no matter what flavour it might take. For example, under Con's proposal, the inmate would only be on death row for less than 2 years meaning less money to be spent on housing, feeding and taking care of them.
The points about reform rather than abolition were also mentioned by Con in his rebuttals which I thought was crucial to his case.
On to Con's arguments ....
Con's (implicit) first argument attempts to work on the moral intuitions of Pro and the readers of the debate. I think I share Con's intuition that Hitler deserved the death penalty and so the death penalty is prima facie justified in some scenarios. And Con argues that if death penalty is justified in some cases then it should not be abolished given that it would be the just sentence on those occasions.
Given that Con argues for the significant magnitude of certain crimes and that death penalty is the suitable punishment, I think Con's contention that capital punishment is proportionate to the crime to be sound. I also liked Alex Kozinski's part about forfeiting the right to live. It bolstered Con's argument.
If there is one thing, I would fix, I would not have included "and the like" since it leaves room for error due to interpretation.
Pro seems to be attempting to rebut the two arguments above by arguing that even if death penalty is legitimate in some cases then it should be abolished, but I thought this response was poor. Con was not advocating that death penalty be sentenced to every criminal but only to the most heinous of crimes. Since Con already argued that the most heinous of crimes deserve a proportionate serious punishment then Con's argument that it is legitimate and should not be abolished is sound.
However, Con's third argument was unlike his first two. His third argument offered no support for his negation of the resolution. So what if capital punishment can put a stop to recidivism? Other punishments like life in prison without parole (Pro's proposal) also provides the same benefit. Since both proposals provide the same benefit, they are on epistemic par and so this argument does Con no exclusive favour.
One last note, I thought Con's attempt to clarify his proposal or even refine it to be adequate and unproblematic. If Con feels the need to show how Pro's points are compatible with his case, then I see no problem with doing so as long as it addresses the resolution. Great job by both sides.