The Death Penalty Should Be Used In Certain Cases

Resolved: The death penalty should be used in certain cases

There are many cases in which the death penalty is just and should be used. For example, if a man is proven that, without a doubt, he killed another man, that murderer should be killed. While it would be profitable to use the people in prison to do labor, the prisoner should at least be given the option between death and working in prison for the rest of his life.

Death Penalty: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you, mongoose, for starting this debate.

"For example, if a man is proven that, without a doubt, he killed another man, that murderer should be killed."
Impossible. There's always a chance that the man was framed. Always. Unless, of course, there's a direct confession, but in that case, it would be a plea bargain [1], and you don't reward a plea bargainer with death. What kind of bargain would that be?

"While it would be profitable to use the people in prison to do labor, the prisoner should at least be given the option between death and working in prison for the rest of his life."
Now, why would the option of death have to be written into the law? Everybody always has the option of death. Just throw the prisoner in a mine, and let him kill himself if he wants. Killing him for him would hardly be delivering justice.
Additionally, this would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the law [2]. If a man can do work, he should be put to work, but if a man cannot do work, it would be illegal to require his death, as that would be discrimination against his physical fitness.

In conclusion, my opponent has to show a realistic situation that would actually happen in which a man is proven to be absolutely guilty beyond doubt, and also has to justify killing that man rather than sending that man to do labor. He has not done this, and until he does so, the resolution is negated.

Good luck.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent has dared to challenge the possibility of there being 100% proof of a man being framed. Fun! Hypothetical situation time! So, let's say a man is at a Yankees game. He runs onto the field, and shoots their entire team dead, killing them. After this, he is tackled by the umpire, and taken into custody. This was seen live on several cameras, in front of thousands of witnesses. The man is never given a chance to escape. In this case, it is 100% proven that the man is guilty of murder.

The option of death would have to be written into law. Suicide is illegal, as is letting a man suicide who one knows full well is going to suicide. This would be called assisted suicide [1]. Because of such, it would have to be written into law.

The argument about physical fitness would only even apply if they did labor in the first place, which they don't.

It is clear that when one person takes the life of another, then that person has lost the right to life.

".... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." [2]

The Constitution supports the claim that the death penalty is just, as it includes life as something that can be taken away with due process of law.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.law.cornell.edu...

1. Hypothetical Situation

My opponent should realize that the armed Yankees security guard would have already shot the criminal dead before he fired fifteen shots. It is not logical for a man armed with a gun to be tackled by the umpire, but instead shot.

Furthermore, it is quite obvious that if the man is arrested, he would plead insanity, and a psychological trial would be needed to determine whether or not he is in fact insane, draining the taxpayers' money. As my opponent is heavily against wasting taxpayer dollars, I assume he would not be in favor of this.

2. Suicide

My opponent claims that suicide and assisted suicide are illegal. However, this is ridiculous. Just because they are, doesn't mean they should be, and we're debating "should," so my opponent has to give reasons as to why suicide should be illegal. Suicide is currently legal in the United States [1]. It seems completely illogical for my opponent to support the involuntary killing of a man by trial, but not the voluntary killing of a man by assisted suicide. It is a violation of liberty to make suicide and assisted suicide illegal. In fact, what my opponent proposes be done with criminals (giving them a choice between labor and death) is an assisted suicide at the expense of the taxpayers. Instead, the criminals that want to kill themselves should kill themselves without any legal interference whatsoever.

3. Fitness

"The argument about physical fitness would only even apply if they did labor in the first place, which they don't."
But they should. And you agree that they should. And the resolution says, "should."
Round 1: "[T]he prisoner *should* at least be given the option between death and working in prison for the rest of his life."
My argument stands.

4. Right to Life

Just because we have the legal power to take away a man's life, doesn't mean we should. A man's life is much better spent working in prison, to which my opponent agrees.

5. Conclusion

My opponent claims that because assisted suicide is illegal (which it shouldn't be, as it infringes on liberty), the state should be given the power to perform assisted suicide (completely contradictory). Obviously, we should not be wasting taxpayer dollars just to let a person kill himself through the state rather than through a rock. He's a criminal; he deserves to be killed by a rock rather than by a deadly implement of his choice.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

1. Hypothetical Situation

Let's say that he only kills Alex Rodriguez, and is then shot in the arm, forcing him to drop the gun but not killing him or permanently damaging him. He also is a clear hater of the Yankees, and has a blog called "Shoot Yankees Dead!" He also has a very high IQ. He does not plead insane. He just denies that he killed him, and says the videos were all edited, and the people were all brainwashed. Remember, this is all theoretical.

2. Suicide

My opponent's source is about suicide, not assisted suicide, as it would be. I do support the right to assisted suicide. However, this also goes with the death penalty. If a man refuses to do labor simply because he doesn't want to do it, he should be put to death. In this case, it would be a penalty, of death, supporting the resolution.

3. Fitness

I have changed this argument to separate not the unfit from the rest, but the unwilling. This way, it does not unlawfully segregate people.

4. Right to Life

This is worthless if the man refuses to do the work. My opponent has given no substatial reasoning for not allowing the death penalty, and it is almost the last round. The right to life should be taken away for capital crimes. A mans life is better gone than spent absorbing food and health care [1].

5. Conclusion
My opponent believes that my plans would waste tax payer money, even though I have shown that they would not. The state deserves to be able to remove the burden without having to return him to the streets or making him somebody else's problem. Thank you. Vote PRO.

NOTE: It is impossible to kill yourself through a rock. A rock is a very hard object. A person would die on impact if going at the speeds required. Thus, it is impractical for prisoners to have to do such, as it would take very elaborate equipment. [2]

1. http://cbs4denver.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

1. Hypothetical Situation

If he does not plead insane, then that's all the more evidence for the lawyer to use to plead insanity for him. To claim that everybody was brainwashed would be very good evidence for insanity.

2. Suicide

"If a man refuses to do labor simply because he doesn't want to do it, he should be put to death."
Put to death? No. That's still a waste of money. What you do is deprive the convict of food until he works. In this case, death is not a punishment, but merely a cop-out from the real punishment, life enslavement. My opponent's source desrcibes capital punishment specifically as the killing of a person through legal process. Starvation is not an execution by judicial process, as described by my opponent's source (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and fits no definition of "execution" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...).

4. Right to Life

My opponent now decides to identify the unwilling, but I have given temptation through starvation as a better method, as it requires no food wastage and might actually make the person cooperate. Additionally, if I had power over prison life, it would be miserable health care, and bread and water for consumption. Not a waste of resources in the slightest.

5. Conclusion

My opponent's plans would still use up taxpayer money with appeals to insanity. If a man refuses to do labor, he should not be put to death forcefully, as my opponent began to advocate in this last round, but rather deprived of his foodstuffs until he cooperates, a win-win for both parties.

NOTE: My opponent's source for his NOTE gives no reason to believe that a person could not kill himself through a rock. It's just either a cheap attempt at a source by taking my quote out of context or a humurous play on words, in which case, I hope it is the latter, although the source still has no relevance to the debate whatsoever.

In conclusion, vote win-win, not lose-lose. Vote CON.