The death penaltys cruel and unusual punishment

Hello, I would like to address a few of your points. While your wording is precise, and fancy it isn"t addressing the issues I present, at all. For example you saying your rebuttal "In order for the punishment itself to be cruel or unusual, it would have to intend for this kind of thing to happen; and quite frankly, we cannot expect all of the other inmates to behave or act compassionately" It doesn"t matter if the state wants psychological torment to happen or not, it happens in almost all cases. This makes it inhumane. For example, the US hung people when putting them to death, they then found this to be inhumane even though the state was not trying to be inhumane. So, your argument has no foundation. That is exactly like killing someone while driving drunk. The drunk driver has no intent to kill anyone yet when he does that doesn"t mean he gets off. On that basis your argument is flawed from the foundation. Just because the government may or may not intend to doesn"t mean that they can"t be held accountable for their actions.. It"s simple law 101 Next, your counter to my arguments based on my findings of statistics on the death penalty. "The flaw here is that this simply does not relate to the subject of whether or not the punishment is to great for the crime. On the other hand, the first bit mentioned here is simply a false analogy. Just because some countries have a history with abusing natural rights, does not mean that all of their principles do so" Sir, you seem very smart, and so in the most respectful way I"m truly puzzled because this statement really makes me judge your knowledge on this subject" China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are known human rights abusers".1,2 So I don"t feel at all secure in our government being a list with those countries do you, and if you do I would say the average reasonable American would not. Finally according a study found that 4.1 percent of death row inmates were innocent. That means that one in twenty five were killed for no reason.3 So I ask you, if that was a loved one and they were put to death and new evidence came out that they were innocent would you still take this stance? If one of twenty five of those inmates were falsely accused and murdered by our government I don"t think it"s even a discussion if this is cruel or unusual. 4 This is the official stance of the EU on the death penalty "The death penalty is incompatible with human dignity. It constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment, does not have any proven deterrent effect and allows judicial errors to become irreversible and fatal." All of this is one hundred percent true, and if my opponent has anyway the death penalty, which starts at sentencing, is humane then please share it. I have not even gone into the botched death penalty proceedings. If we are the last first world country to practice this of all the countries, I am going to side with the other countries. And also, on your last paragraph.. I agree capital punishment is not an eye for an eye. It is the prolonged psychological torture and forced isolation that ultimately after years of false hope leads to the death of a civilian by the government that has the duty to protect them. In this case I could argue, that it is worse than some of the crimes committed by the inmates. 1http://www.independent.co.uk... 2https://www.amnesty.org... 3https://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4https://eeas.europa.eu... Please answer my arguments directly as I did yours, and good luck.