Debate Rebuttals

In Phuong and Crystal's opening statement, they said

In Hammurabi’s code, it states “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, therefore, a life for a life. Society needs to know that when someone sheds innocent blood, a high price is paid not only by the victim but also the murderer through the means of execution. Take for example the case of Timothy McVeigh, after killing 168 people with a bomb, we doubt that anyone can say that he deserved to live. If McVeigh had lived, who can say that he would not have arranged another bombing or kill more people. Only by sentencing the murderer to death will it ensure that the “killer will never kill again”.

However, they are contradicting Hammurabi's code with their example of Timothy McVeigh's death. If they execute McVeigh, it will only satisfy gaining revenge for one of the killed individuals. Moreover, it is also impossible to fulfill getting revenge for all 168 people because it is impossible to kill the same man 168 times over. Furthermore, by saying that the only way to make sure a killer will never kill again is to sentence that individual to death is incorrect because this is making an assumption that criminals cannot change, that people cannot find ways to amend for their mistakes, and that people are unable to forgive and forget. As a side note, even if the killer dies, it doesn't make the killed victim come back to life. A man is dead once they are dead. In addition, Phuong and Crystal states that

Killing, by definition, is the taking of a person’s life. However, it does not only mean taking the life away from a person, but also family away from family.

However, this point is insignificant. Although it is true that the death of an individual is the taking of a person's life from that person and its family, the execution of the murderer is also the taking of a life from an individual and its family. To relate back to the example given by the opposing side, wouldn't the death of McVeigh also be the taking of a life from a family? Wouldn't it be the same concept as the taking of a son's life from his parents and a brother from his siblings? Thirdly, the opposing side states that

Killing is a crime. It is against the laws of justice.

This point is also contradicting itself because executing a murderer or a criminal is still the killing of an individual. Although permission has been granted and the execution is technically legal, who has the right to decide whether that individual's life is to be ended or not? In addition, our opening statement said that this system is ineffective because "an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind", meaning that the cycle of death will never end if everyone live up to the statement of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and therefore, a life for a life." This is because the individual who injects the lethal poison, fires the gun, or uses whatever method assigned to end the criminal's life still technically ended a life with their own hands; therefore, that individual would also be considered to have killed someone.