The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

Forgive me for being so eager and jumping into debating so soon, and with each will give in my input in your argument . Contention 1: Value of human life. Human life is invaluable, and to take a life from one is a serious crime. I am sure my opponent will agree on this! However, pro-death penalty will ensure that there is an asterisk attached to this. Pro-death penalty version: Human life is invaluable, and to take a life from one is a serious crime*. *unless that life is taken from a person by the government. A: I agree with you to a value of a human life. I take it seriously, but look at the facts that in some reasons the death penalty is the only way to solve a solution. No, Im saying that if a little boy stolen something and then place a penalty on his head. In some very extreme cases I'm pro to the Death Penaty, and banning the Penalty will not put fear into the criminals who is out there murdering 5-9 people. Do you know they receive many comforts just being jail anyway? http://www.weeklystandard.com... I would ask my opponent to explain why he has this asterisk attached? A counter-argument could be: One forfeits one's right to live by killing another human being. That might work, except: a) Where is that a written; what authority tells us this? And b) Doesn't that justify people executing the executioner(s)? If not, why not? This appears to be hypocritical on many levels and I do not see as logical. A: One forfeits one's right to live by killing another human or humanS beings. If you mean where is it written in the bible? I don't believe so, but we not following the bible. It's more on moral standing, when you murdered one or many people expect punishment not sitting in your cell for about 45 years watching tv, playing on the internet, eating free meals, read, and free education wasting many tax-payers money. On your argument (B) Actually, yes it does justify the executioners. I know how stupid it sounds and illogical into saying. Each time they executed a criminal they have to battle their own demon. Contention 2: Innocent executions. Allow me, if you will, to look at two scenarios. One: An innocent man is found guilty by the courts, despite pleas of innocence. (For whatever reason, it could be very bias; it could be framed, etc...) His punishment is death. He's executed. Years later, evidence is shown that he was, in fact, innocent. An innocent man is convicted and the families of both the accused and the victim have their false justice revealed to them. Two: Same scenario, except this man is sentenced to life in prison. Then, when he is later proved innocent, he can go free. An innocent man didn't die. In short, the US government takes a very hypocritical stance of: "do as I say, not as I do". Examples of scenario one include Johnny Garrett, Carlos DeLuna, Thomas and Meeks Griffin, among others[1]. These injustices are rare, granted, but should a justice system include absolute punishments with less than 100% success rates? Of course we shouldn't - it's not fair. Justice that's not fair is not justice in the American system. A: On your first scenarios, I have to comment on. If the courts found him guilty and sentenced him to death he or she had time to re appeal as I'm sure the judge will not sentence him to death right away. You're allow 3 chances to appeal, at least waits for a year that gives some time to require new evidence at his defense, if the judge cannot see logic do not blame the death penalty that he is gone, blame the judge, the jury and his defense, who had done a lousy job in defending him. On your second scenario: I figured that is ideal but I give you a point there, because my argument on your second one was already used in the above. I see your point, but I'm not at all convinced. But regardless, what you said " "do as I say, not as I do" is really something, do not compare murders and rapist to the government. We do not murder people out of sport, we do not rape people either then laugh later on and say, "do as I say, not as I do". The murders and criminals agreed to this possible punishment when they forcefully taken a human life or force themselves on countless people. The US government is not murderers. On a note take a look on Adolf Hitler. He killed many Jews and Americans. So if the Death Penalty is banned, we just going to let him stay life in jail with all of his comforts? The Jews families is rolling in their graves, and the American people will cry in uproar at such injustice! He killed around millions of people and yet he walks freely? Contention 3: The death penalty could encourage murderers to murder again. This, at face value, seems like a ridiculous suggestion. But it's really not; allow me to show you why. In the American justice system, the penalties are very restrictive. Judges have to say: This crime=this punishment. It's called mandatory sentencing. So if you've killed someone, to some extent you know what you've got ahead of you if you're found out. So - what they've got to lose? Effectively nothing, so they might as well kill witnesses, other grudges, etc... "A wild beat cornered is not safe to touch." A: There are some psychos everywhere, and I have to disagree only in half at this. Most people are afraid of death, which reduced the crime of murdering people greatly. They know what they get themselves into, yes, but it WILL MAKE them think twice before acting .They also know that they could stay in jail for around 25-45 years, and I doubt some without mental problems would want to take a risk. It's a 50/50 shot, but if you lived in Texas you know your outcome. Death. If that person willing to murder witnesses, people and other grudges then more likely sentence him to death instead of being locked up to comforts and then laughing in all of our faces when he can do everything he wanted outside for free inside with the American People's money. He won. Humanity lost. The victims family, in distress. Contention 4: The cost is far too high. It has been shown in various studies that the death penalty is far higher a cost than life without parole[2], wasting taxpayer dollars on extra expenses. "California [alone] could save one billion dollars over five years by replacing capital punishment with the death penalty."[2] What could these dollars go towards? Schools , police stations to help reduce crime in the first place, roads, rubbish, etc... This is phenomenal! It shouldn't be wasted on tedious, immoral, hypocritical, and unfair justice systems. A: Here I have to disagree with you. It costs a lot more to host prisoners for life than the Death Penalty, we have some real high known serial killers escaped jail and wouldn't be caught in around the next 10 years! (examples are on the current American Top-Wanted List) when the courts decided not to use then penalty. Those criminals could escape jail (it's not impossible) and go after the witnesses, and the victim's family. The Death Penalty brings the victim's family peace knowing that, that person will not be on the streets hurting another. Say what you will about the Death Penalty, but IT IS JUSTIFIED in the extreme cases.