Resolved: The United States should abolish the death penalty.

I will respond to my opponent's overview, and then I will move on to my original format. < > We all know what it's trying to do- punish somebody for doing a certain action. But let's take that one step deeper- what's the point of the punishment? Isn't it so they won't do it again? Isn't it setting an example so other people won't do that same thing? Yes, it is. The death penalty tries to stop people from doing this by saying- if you kill someone, you will be killed. Obviously, people don't want that. My whole case was rebutting the fact that it is not a proper form of punishment for the the aforementioned reasons. Going back to my contentions: CONTENTION I: DP =/= DC. My opponent merely suggests that the death penalty is not supposed to deter crime. I beg to differ. In fact, the THREAT of the death penalty is one of the major reasons for it being there. The idea of saying, 'you will die if you do something' theoretically makes people not want to do such a thing. If I said, 'I will beat you up if you post your next argument,' you obviously are not going to want to post your next argument. Plus, it would better if we COULD reduce these rates. As I have shown you, murder rates go DOWN when the death penalty is not there. Thus, we should be more focused on getting crime down (without capital punishment) than seeking revenge for crimes, which is what CON suggests. CONTENTION II: Cost. My opponent suggests that we shouldn't be worried about costs. This statement is completely ridiculous. With the money from executions, we could be paying for tighter security prisons that lock people up for life, and STILL HAVE MONEY LEFT OVER. I have already shown you that the death penalty doesn't accomplish what it wants to do and how it is morally unjustified. My opponent does nothing to prove why the death penalty is necessary to do certain things, nor why life in prison can't solve for these problems. She then comes to this conclusion, "We want to punish these criminals URGENTLY." This is laughable. Read my R1. I said that the REASON the death penalty costs so much is that it takes so long for people to be executed. If we could get the convicted people in in a week, maybe this could be a valid argument. However, in the United States, it takes 10-20 years for a person to be executed, contradicting the whole point CON suggests. As I see it, if we can reap the same rewards at a cheaper price, why not? CONTENTION III: Right or wrong? My opponent rants about morals being based on religion. However, had she read my argument, I based all my arguments off simple logic and the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Nowhere in my arguments would there need moral backing from religion. CON then suggests that the constitution can be broken because they are criminals. Let me make a point that she concedes that it IS cruel and unusual, and she just states that law of cruel and unusual punishment can be broken. I find this argument to be completely ridiculous also. The VERY REASON our founding fathers put that amendment in is so that people could not make those arguments. It is un-American, no matter what they did. They deserve the same rights that other Americans have. If we torture them, we sink down to their level (which was my point 'B,' which CON did not respond to). Furthermore, who gives you the right to say what is right and what is wrong? Following CON's logic, I could say that I hate people with skulls in there logos and that they should be put to death. Even simpler, think about this: the Nazis thought all Jews were immoral. They then put them to death. Now we know that's wrong, but that's what CON suggests: to pick people who they see as immoral and put them to death. You simply cannot pick and choose what is right and wrong nor who should be put to death. Again I'd like to mention CON drops point B. I stated that the logic behind the death penalty is flawed. If we see killing as being immoral, why are we killing? We are stooping to their level. The idea of capital punishment is contradictory and illogical. Finally, to rebut my last point, CON suggests that it is the officer's fault if someone is found guilty and sentenced to death. I say, so what? The person is still innocent. My opponent is basically saying, 'whoops, I guess he's innocent- too bad we had to kill him.' There should be at least some breathing room for technology or testimonial to prove someone's innocence. Otherwise, again, we have contradicted ourselves by killing an innocent person for killing an innocent person. As for my opponent's case, I have already responded to it a million times. It is a contradiction to use one's morals to do the exact same thing they do. Think back to preschool: Teacher: "Share your candy, Jimmy." Jimmy: "Okay. Can I have some of your candy?" Teacher: "NO! IT'S MINE! MUAHAHAHAHA!" That's not what a teacher would say. It's a classic case of lead-by-example. If you are going to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk. Okay, enough clichï¿½s, what it comes down to is this: if you are going to say a person does not have the right to live for killing someone and you put them to death, you should be killed too because you have disobeyed your own morals. THAT'S the case. I eagerly await my opponent's R2.