The Death Penalty Should be Abolished in the USA

Con claims that some of my arguments are irrelevant. I believe that he misunderstands those arguments (which is, admittedly, partly my own fault) RE Inconsistent Application (my arguments 1 and 3). Con claims this argument is irrelevant because the inconsistent application of the penalty is not enough to abolish it. My argument is that it is. The inconsistent application, I said, could not be changed successfully and therefore the death penalty should be abolished. I also argued that leaving the death penalty to juries was unfair, but the Supreme Court says that the death penalty must be left to juries. Therefore, I argued, the only fair thing to do was to abolish the death penalty. Con has misunderstood this, and claims that I said that the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. I never said such a thing. RE Innocent Deaths (my argument 2). Con rebuts my innocent deaths argument by claiming that prosecutions and judges should be improved and the death penalty should stay. Con also argues that the death penalty should only be used in cases with strong evidence. My argument is that no matter how good the jury, judge and prosecutors are, and no matter how compelling the evidence is, there will still be some innocent deaths. These deaths will be irreversible, even if new evidence arises after death. In my opinion, it is not worth it to pay the price of just one innocent death, for a system that is not even proven to be more effective than a life sentence. RE murder rates and deterrent (my argument 4). Once again Con fails to understand my argument. I said that the death penalty clearly did not deter murders more than life in jail, therefore there is no reason to apply it. I did not say that it was not at all a deterrent and I did not say that life in jail was a 100% deterrent, as Con seems to think. Also, Con says that the difference in murder rate is due to other factors. However, he provides no evidence that states with the death penalty have more of those contributing factors. RE cost (my argument 5): Con concedes my point but says that cost is not a main factor in this debate. He says that by following my logic, probation should be used instead of jail for murderers. Probation is not a deterrent, while jail is. Con's argument falls apart. I would also argue that, while true that expensive alternatives are sometimes better than cheap ones, Con provides no argument that the death penalty is better than life in jail. He also does not mention the $120 million annually that, in California alone, could be used on hospitals or schools. RE international consensus (my argument 6): Con uses the obvious argument that 'if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it too". Con is correct. However, my 6th argument is a minor point in the debate, and is not meant to be a main reason to get rid of the death penalty. It is simply meant to illustrate that many experts and people world-wide agree with me, and that that should be taken into consideration in a small way. According to Con "Justice is ideally the equal punishment or redistribution for a crime committed, and in the case that equal punishment or redistribution are impossible, the greatest possible punishment be given". I accept this. My argument is that life in jail is equal to the killing of an innocent. The mental anguish that murderers feel in jail should not be underestimated. The murderers must think about what they have done and the consequences. For the years they have left, they must realize that they will have no freedom. They must realise that what they have done is the worst thing that a human can do. However, if you simply kill murderers, the punishment is not equal. The murderers get an easy way out, and don't have to feel remorse. Even if the death penalty is as bad for murderers as life imprisonment, I would still argue, given the litany of problems I have found in my other arguments, that life imprisonment should be used. Thanks to Con for his excellent arguments.