Capital Punishment

In this speech I will rebut my opponent's case. DEFINING THE CRIME Con makes two arguments here: (1) that some lives are worth less then others, and (2) that innocents may be jeopardized by the death penalty system. I will address each one of these points in turn. One: Con suggests, in his example, that killing a killer is not as bad as killing an innocent person. Con further asserts that, if Person A is a criminal, and Person B is a local citizen, and Person B kills Person A, it would be unjust to sentence Person B to death. Let us take a look at the difference between vengeance and justice. Taking the life of a criminal, prior to having gone through justice, is merely vigilantism and kangaroo justice. The danger of enabling citizens to kill criminals is that it empowers unconstrained violence. But, more importantly, I think that the types of cases you are referring to are more the exception then the rule, and this concern focuses more on the "viability of implementation," which is not relevant to this debate. Moreover, as per my assertion that only the worst crimes should receive death, I would assert that crime against humanity--as the worst crimes--would be most appropriate to be followed by death. But this, is less critical, because of my final point here: Finally, though, and most importantly, this is not a debate about what crimes should get the death penalty, but rather, if the death penalty--in theory--could be applied to some unspecified crime. Two: As for the second objection, Amnesty International, a group in favor of abolishing the death penalty, asserts that "[s]ince 1973, 140 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful conviction. In this same period, more than 1,200 people have been executed" (Amnesty International 1). This means that the ratio of innocent to executed individuals is less than 7 to 60. So, even based on numbers from an organization diametrically opposed to capital punishment, comparatively few innocent people are actually killed on death row. And, in cases of genocidaires, there is likely to be far more evidence, especially in the form of bureaucratic trails and countless witnesses, to help increase the accuracy of convictions. COMPETENCY Reforming killers again crosses into the territory of being too specific. But, in addendum, trying to reform people's beliefs systems seems very close to brainwashing. However repulsive we find someone's beliefs, we must respect those beliefs, because to do otherwise would be to infringe upon their freedom of thought. We should not condone state-based mental retraining; North Korea "reforms" individuals but I don't think anyone would endorse it. Finally, reforming people in no way absolves them of their past wrongs. Regardless of your beliefs systems, you know the consequences of your choice, and you must accept those consequences as Hegel argues in my case. Finally, we are not murders for utilizing the death penalty because we are giving people their due. They chose death by committing crimes, we are merely fulfilling their choices logical end, which is their due. SOURCES Amnesty International. Death Penalty Facts. May 2012. PDF. 28 September 2013. <. http://www.amnestyusa.org...;.