Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.Obviously, the overwhelmingly important definition in this (lovely, philosophical, non-policyesque for once) resolution is the meaning of "just."
Get your brain back in gear with a trip to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Legal Punishment.
Some terms to consider: retribution, restoration, prevention, deterrence, desert, consequentialism.
More coming soon.
Update 8/17: I ask some mathematical questions about executing innocents.
Update 8/20: I parse the resolution.
Update 8/26: What's the relationship among capital punishment, democracy, and a just society?
Update 8/29: I tentatively delineate the distinction between private morality and public justice.
Update 9/1: How can a satirical newspaper illuminate our understanding of the death penalty?
4 comments:
Thanks for the link!
It seems to me like some of the major arguments for the death penalty will be retribution and incapacitation. The death penalty actually has an unequaled recidivism rate.
Affirmative -
My first contention is as follows: that because a just society does not necessarily equal a perfect society, there will always be the chance of error, bias, or poor circumstance which leads to the death of someone who did not deserve to die, this modeling the very idea of injustice.
Eh? Ehhh?
i dont htink its very good fumpy, because thats a defensive arguement and theres lots of evidence against the idea of wrongly convicted poeple.
Alright so Fumpy your argument sounds alright, but for aff. telling me that mistakes happen sounds more like a neg. argument for me. you will lose that point because i just twisted it to agree with neg. i like the aproach but hey watch your wording.
Kinkaid defensive arguments are good, and the evidence actually proves the point not make it against the case and finally. there is no idea of wrongly convicted there are wrongly convicted it happens
Post a Comment