Death Penalty

*insert formality here* //Firstly, my opponent makes a point that the death penalty can deter people from committing certain crimes. While this may be true for some people it may be different for others. For some people death may be just an easy way out. The thought of being subject to harsh penalties while alive is plenty of deterrence for most people. Many police chiefs have confirmed this that the death penalty offers little deterrence. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... // Unfortunately, my opponent is working under the conventional wisdom and usage of the death penalty. I dont disagree at all with her link—because that is based on using the death penalty for murder, which I stated previously is almost impossible to deter with the death penalty. Someone who is at the point where they can suspend their natural resistance to killing their fellow species is suffering from severe mental problems. They are unable to think of the consequences. Further, my opponent thinks that time in prison is an effective deterrent for the crimes I have prescribed. This is simply not the case. Between the trial times, time served, parole, probation, comfortable prison cells, etc., there simply is little to no deterrence in a prison sentence, at least for those crimes. //Next, there are some points about how the death penalty should only be used in certain circumstances with murder NOT being one of them. However, among many circles, murder is usually considered the worst crime and the death penalty the worst punishment. Using this logic shouldn't the worst crime be punished with the worst penalty? However, as I'm arguing con in this debate I'll stay away from that.// Murder may be the worst crime, but the concept of "an eye for an eye" has long been debunked and found ineffective. There are a few areas where it makes sense, such as reparations for theft, but beyond that, this philosophy is completely pointless. The justice system is useless if it is used for vengeance, as usually in the case of murder. Instead, justice and punishment should serve to reduce crime as much as possible. Using the death penalty appropriately for the right crimes can do this. //My opponent mentions how a fraudster would be deter from committing their crime at the threat of death. If a fraudster spent years obtaining large amounts of money only to be imprisoned later wouldn't it make them feel like their entire life was wasted? By that point they would feel all that time was wasted as the money would no longer be significant to them.// This is a good point, however, it ignores several things. Death is a substantially hire penalty than prison, where one can still conduct life very well, if restricted. Most prisons offer decent food, television, internet, well-stocked libraries. Even without this, one can still conduct business or affairs from a prison (legally or otherwise). Meanwhile, a dead criminal cannot do such things. So, even though someone is in prison, they will figure that at least they still get to live a minimally reasonable life with possibility of parole and they will have enjoyed their life before and just endure the "suffering" in prison. I, personally, find it quite unlikely Bernie Madoff is suffering much in prison now. //As for the death penalty for burning down a library, this isn't fully justified. If all the books burned we could just reproduce them from other copies of the same book. I doubt there is any significant work of literature where only one copy exists.// Actually, there are plenty of single works that libraries have. Certainly, some small libraries will have books that are duplicated elsewhere, but this is more exception than rule. Also, there are frequently special, rare editions, that while in print elsewhere, are not quite the same. //If the book was important there would be other copies produced.// Unfortunately, this is not even remotely the case. There are millions of important publications that are single copies and there is no money or ability to reproduce all of them yet. //Plus burning down a library would also destroy books that are insignificant like Twilight(lol).// This is a laughable reason at best to support arson. Not to mention it is an appeal to spite, thus a fallacy. //As for poaching and other such crimes, if we as humans regard murder as a horrible crime wouldn't it be double standards to murder a person for murdering somebody or poaching? Killing is unethical regardless of who is doing it.// This is not about horrible crimes; this is about deterrence. We would not have to worry about morality of a crime if the crime is prevented from occurring. My support for the death penalty (and all punishments) is based on preventing future crime, not responding to past crime. The past is irrelevant; the future can be changed (unless one is a fatalist).