The Death Penalty/Capital Punishment should be eliminated

Let's get straight down to business. I am on the Proposition side of this debate, arguing that Capital Punishment A.K.A. the Death Penalty should be eliminated. I'll begin with a definition. Webster defines "eliminate" as 'to put an end to or to get rid of." I'll start with an opening. Capital punishment is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. Crimes that can result in the death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offenses. Capital punishment has been used in societies throughout history as a way to punish crime and suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. Capital offenders are then sent to death row and await execution, by processes such as electrocution, gas, injection, hanging, or a firing squad. 36 states in the United States currently permit capital punishment, some even killing near 400 people since 1930. Nine states have no minimum age for execution and others vary from 10-18. 1. If the goal of the death penalty is to punish a person as severely as possible, life without parole can be seen as meeting this objective better than capital punishment. The reason is that life without parole forces a murderer to live out their remorseful life, whereas capital punishment saves them from living it. This is why many people on death row express feelings of relief about being put to death. James Bernstein, NY Times. ""The loss of freedom for the remainder of one's life is no mild punishment. We do not need the death penalty to express society's utter repudation of those who would take the lives of others." If the death penalty is considered a "proportional" punishment for someone who commits 1 murder, wouldn't we need a harsher sentence for a person that tortures and murders 10 people? If proportionality is the model, we might have to torture criminals in order to exert sufficient punishment. Therefore, the inherent flaw in a concept of justice based on "proportionality" is that it has no limits, creating a slippery slope to torture in the name of justice. Harry Lee Anstead, Florida Supreme Court Justice, dissenting from a ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the electric chair. St. Petersburg Times. 26 Sept. 1999 - "Our justice system is not simply an instrument of vengeance, despite the connotation to that effect contained in the extreme rhetoric that sometimes surrounds the constitutional debate over continuing use of the electric chair." 2. The innocent are cruelly slaughtered. Since 1973, 123 in 25 US states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. The Innocence project indicated that more than 150 people have been exonerated on the basis of DNA testing that concluded that they were innocent. This creates a likelihood that many individuals have actually been executed that were innocent. This is too many, particularly when the executed are seen as innocent victims of the state. This is harmful to the state and the judicial system, and is sufficient evidence to shut down the practice. Judge Jed S Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan discusses novel legal argument against capital punishment which he developed while overseeing death penalty case; interview; his 2002 ruling pointed to increasing number of DNA exonerations and wondered whether death penalty violates due process because executed prisoners cannot pursue claims of innocence. 3. Cruel and unusual punishment. he death penalty is severe in the damage it causes to the human body. Inflicting mortal damage on the human body, whether by electric chair or lethal injection, is equivalent to or even worse than torture, and violates basic human rights that are inherent and irrevocable. The death penalty is also cruel and torturous in the way that it inflicts psychological damage on convicts that wait on death row. Also, sometimes, criminals do not die, and are still taking the effects of the punishment, for example, being electrocuted, but still being alive, and taking the pain of the volts. 4. Negative effect. Death penalty is there to deter crime, but it doesn't. Capital punishment has a "brutalizing effect" that increases the willingness of criminals to take life. If state-sanctioned killings are occurring, might an individual feel more justified in murdering another person? If governments of men can take the power of life-and-death into their hands, might this make a man more comfortable with also taking that power into his own hands? The site I am posting shows an increase in crimes. http://debatepedia.idebate.org... California averaged 6 executions a year from 1952 to 1967, and had twice the murder rate than the period from 1968 until 1991 when there were no executions. In New York, from 1907 to 1964, months immediately following an execution showed a net increase of two murders - an average over a 57-year period. Bedua/ACLU. 1992. "The Case against the Death Penalty." "Reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its control. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-crime measures that will really work." It is important that scientists be able to study murderers to determine what drives them to perform such heinous acts. If society has a better understanding of the causes of murderous rages, it should be better able to prevent them in the future. Capital punishment prevents this research from occurring. 5. Wastes too much time and money. Considerable delay in carrying out the death sentence is unavoidable, given the procedural safeguards required by the courts in capital cases. Starting with empaneling the trial jury, murder trials take far longer when the death penalty is involved. Post-conviction appeals in death-penalty cases are far more frequent as well. All these factors increase the time and cost of administering criminal justice. The sobering lesson is that we can reduce such delay and costs only by abandoning the procedural safeguards and constitutional rights of suspects, defendants, and convicts, with the attendant high risk of convicting the wrong person and executing the innocent. Capital punishment wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defense counsel, juries, and courtroom and correctional personnel. It unduly burdens the system of criminal justice, and it is therefore counterproductive as an instrument for society's control of violent crime. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of the resort to violence rather than reason for the solution of difficult social problems. Sources: http://users.rcn.com... http://freenet-homepage.de... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... deathpenalty.org http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://query.nytimes.com... http://www.religion-online.org... http://www.nytimes.com... I look forward to debating with someone!