The topic for the first semester of LD debate is: "A just society ought not use the death penalty"
..sooo much room for confusion. So negative on this resolution means pro-death penalty. Who dreamed that up? Anyway, when I started research for this case I didn't honestly have a personal conviction. I decided to write both using the best information and philosophy I could find, and kinda feel it out. After running the case a few times, I decided what I really like to say about it.
First of all, the topic here is not whether the death penalty is effective or humane - the key word is just. To be SURE that the clash in this debate is over justice and not merits of the death penalty, I came right out and used "Justice" as my value. I threw in my token morality argument and talked a bit about the fundamental purposes of criminal punishment. Then I brought in a little bit of an offbeat theme: economics.
The contention says: If human life is to have the highest value, it should cost the most to take it. Like purchasing a material item, you should have to pay more for higher value things. Among those receiving life sentences are drug dealers, gangsters, and even people who have had "three strikes." By giving murderers a life sentence, we establish that taking a human life is as costly, and therefore carries as much value, as violation of the "three strikes" law. We must make these criminals pay the highest price for the highest crime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
its pointless for the death penalty. The poison cost alot already and in california alone has over a thousand people waiting for thier turn
But question is why do we kill people that kill people when killingpeople is wrong
Again... it's ironic but true. Place the highest cost on something, and it will have the greatest value.
Post a Comment