Capital Punishment in the United States is Flawed and Should End

As I've stated twice now, Universality in this case goes as follows: by their action the murderer has said all should do the same, regardless of personal motivations. This does not apply to what is actually their reason (if there is one) to kill, but once again refers to "act not unless you would have it be a universal law" the Kantian categorical imperative. My opponent states "However, if we were to use the principal of Universality, the idea is that a law is established." Yes indeed, and my argument is that such a law itself accepts what it claims to combat. How can we say killing is wrong and thus should not be universal law by accepting that as punishment for the same? By doing so, we are saying by example (whatever our motivations, if you follow this idea) that it should be universal law. We can argue over whether life without parole is right, under what conditions, etc. My point was merely to point out that capital punishment is not the only possible sentence for murder. If you argue that life without parole is worse than capital punishment, fine. What is preferable to capital punishment? This may be a false dichotomy between life without parole v. capital punishment. So it's better for a 21-year old to die than spend the rest of his life in prison? The rest of your life may-I stress "may"-be pointless and meangingless. However, if you were put to death there is no life, to be pointless, meaningless or anything. You regard capital punishment as more humane as such. Again, why is either the humane choice? Perhaps there is some third option we have not considered or even found yet. I agree the prisons are overcrowded, but the solution is hardly more killing. Prevention and rehabilitation are things which the system is less focused on than punishment. Without life without parole categorically, it does offer what capital punishment lacks. A chance, however slim, for rehabilitation, even when imprisoned forever, and exoneration. I can say the possibility of an innocent person killed is what my greatest objection is. Even if we could somehow ensure no innocent was killed it would still be a barbarity. I do not see how the eye for an eye motive in this explanation contradicts my critique of Universality, which it is part and parcel of. I am fully aware of how the United States government is structured. The inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are at the principles in the Declaration of Independence, commonly held as our values. The word "inalienable" means "not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated", thus cannot be given up, transferred, or legitimately taken away http://dictionary.reference.com.... Now, I am fully aware of the fact that when these principles did not affect capital punishment, slavery or many other institutions then. However, if we are to "live out the spirit of our creed" as it were, they can and should. Hence, the state has no right to kill a person for their past act of killing, to "alienate" their right to life, only to prevent a person to deprive someone of the same right, which does not require homicide necessarily. Life is of course foremost, as the other rights can only exist with it. Well, it's good we agree that nothing will bring someone back. I personally know people who have suffered the loss of someone to murder, both heartless, pointless crimes. Now, according to you punishment is not an end itself (which does seem to contradict eye for an eye) but deterrence is the goal. We'll get to deterrence later as you said. The offender has been punished if sent to prison as well, and this may give closure to victims. "A lot of the times the death of a loved on if not properly punished, could lead to even more deaths as the victims believe they have not received an adequate amount of retribution." Are you referring to vigilanteism, people taking law into their own hands? In your own words "the point of the social contract is that people have given up their rights to self-enforce so that they have a higher authority to appeal to." So this means to appease the desire for blood vengeance, the state has to do this for them? Hang the killer by law or we'll string him up from the nearest lamppost? Please do point out where I have changed my mind on this. Again, the government has far more resources in most cases, along with influence, so it's not as if both sides have an equal chance to fix things. As for believing Innocent Until Proven Guilty, the presumption of innocence, that's a principle, which all people do not believe in necessarily. I will remind my opponent how many criminal statutes exist and the large number of citizens who violate them (as evidenced by our having a largest percentage of our population imprisoned than any other country). We have the "anarchy" of jury nullification, people acquitting defendants contrary to evidence when they believe laws are unjust or the charged offense justified, which a lawyer is not allowed to say they may do anymore. Once more, abiding by the court system is not a sign of it's merit in all cases. Argument to popularity-again. Public executions were abolished in no small part because of people disliking to see it for themselves, as society advanced. The appeal system was not designed for innocent people in large, rather to prevent abuses by the government. In many cases, without an error of some kind at trial, evidence which points to doubt about the guilt of a defendant or even proves innocence will not be enough for a conviction to be overturned. Finality, which you mentioned would be of comfort to victims, is used as justification for this. I misunderstood what you meant by "counsel", my apologies. I do not know that judgest cannot be expected to meet such a high standard-they hold people's lives in their hands, so it would seem a reasonable expectation. So a lawyer must be competent at least, but that can be any standard which the state decides, that is to say it could be very low. I am merely expressing my distaste and worry over the low standard which often exists. I am well aware that stupidity is relative and if they serve this means they were accepted. Because something exists that is not always right or good. "If you have enough evidence to convict than obviously the defendant is guilty." Legally guilty, yes. Actually guilty, not always. In referring to falsity, this is not black and white. Eyewitness testimony being wrong, for instance, does not often mean people intentionally lie, but misremember. Further, fitting the facts to the case is not the only way it works. The other way arounds occurs also. Frame-ups, when they outright occur, would be usually because the defendant is felt sincerly to be guilty and can't be allowed to get away, whether they really did it or not. I've addressed the points you repeat in this next paragraph, so I'll just address this: "If enough evidence has been present to convict a felon then they deserve their punishment." So the actual truth does not matter? Actual innocence should not count? The honorable justices of the US Supreme Court appear to agree. Just because most felons have some form of mental illness does not disprove the point-quite the opposite. I never said people do not have the right to sit on juries. I did say certain things should not be put to a vote. They are the rights on what all else, democracy especially, rests. No, my sites do not show crime rates, homicide particularly, have gone down in all states. Capital punishment has not deterred apparently. In fact, New York State has less homicide now, without ever using it's death penalty from 1995-2004, when their highest court stopped it. Furthermore, states which have capital punishment on average have more homicide now than in the last decade, which is the point and shown by the data. So your argument on deterrence, in fact, has been disproved by this.