It is unreasonable to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show a lack of regard for human life. We offer, on the contrary, emphatic care for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself.
             My agreement with these, the words of philosopher John Stuart Mill, compels me to affirm today's resolution that capital punishment is justified. My value premise for the round will be justice, giving each his or her due. My value criterion is a societal benefit without infringing on individual rights.
             -I feel it is necessary to observe, before I begin, that while I feel the death penalty is just, it is only just as punishment for certain crimes. However, If I can prove the justice of the death penalty as a punishment for one specific crime, It would affirm the resolution. In this round, I will attempt to prove that the death penalty is a just punishment for first degree, premeditated murder. (Serial murderers)
             -Contention #1: by murdering another, criminal's forfeits their right to life.
             The system of punishment is based on taking away the liberties of convicted criminals. In committing a crime, an individual gives up certain rights, and it is because of this forfeiture of rights that we can impose punishment upon them. The amount of rights forfeited is in some manner proportional to the severity of the crime for which the individual was convicted. If someone commits a minor crime, such as littering, they lose a small amount of right. Therefore it is justified to take from them a small amount of their liberty, possibly economic liberty through a fine. As the severity of the crime increases, the amount of right forfeited increases likewise. In other words, if I kill a woman, I am being unjust because I am doing to her what I would not have her do to me. I am expressing that we are not equals, and that I am her superior. By demonstrating that I ha...