Some crimes should be punishable by death, as long as a much higher standard of proof is upheld.

To begin, I wish to rebut some of the arguments the Con side has made. First of all, the Con side has pointed out that the rate of prison escapes has decreased drastically. Though I cannot argue with the statistics that Con side has given me, I believe the actual occurrence of attacks by escaped prisoners (which is correlated to the number of prisoners who have escaped) is far less relevant than the perceived occurrence of such attacks. With the implementation of the death penalty, people feel as if the issue of attacks by escaped prisoners (however prevalent they actually are) is being tackled head on, and thus they believe the perceive a decrease in the danger of such attacks, resulting in increased peace of mind. It's just like locking your door before you go to sleep. Sure, it's really unlikely that anyone will actually try opening your door, but it is still beneficial to people's peace of mind to lock their door before they go to sleep. Secondly, the Con side has argued that it is more costly to execute prisoners then it is to imprison them for life. However, the source where they got the statistic that life imprisonment is cheaper than execution isn't listed. Even if it is true that is the life imprisonment is cheaper than death in the US justice system, that doesn't mean it has to be that way. All the death penalty would have to encompass is a third "Guilty at the standard of proof required for the death penalty" option for jurors when they are delivering a verdict on charges that are punishable by death. Then, if the jurors all agree, the death penalty is made an option in sentencing. If the death penalty is selected, all the defendant has to do to get the sentence commuted is prove that there is enough doubt on the charge they have sentenced to death on that the standard of proof isn't met in a specialised appeal hearing held soon after sentencing. If they are successful in that appeal, the matter is put to bed and the death penalty is ruled out. If they aren't successful, the death penalty is definite and the execution is scheduled. This drastically simplifies things, and would be far cheaper than life imprisonment. Clearly, the cost argument still applies when it comes to the death penalty. As for brutalisation, I have looked into the fine print, and only 3 out of the 5 studies that have been done on it have found that brutalisation occur. Now 3 out of 5 might sound ok, but think about this way: what if a doctor told you there was only a 3 out of 5 chance the medication you are being prescribed will actually do anything. Ruling out the death penalty over this issue is just like that. Now that I have rebuttal out of the way, I will address the morality of the death penalty. First of all, I have a statement I challenge Con to disagree with me on: those who kill or otherwise commit heinous crimes against innocent civilians are the cancer of society. Now what does mankind do when we discover a cancerous tumour? We cut it out and get rid of it. I believe the same principal should be applied to the cancer of society. The death penalty is the cancer removal surgery of society. Like cancer removal surgery, the death penalty is unpleasant, but it is a better alternative than just letting cancer run wild. Therefore, the death penalty is moral as it is a necessary evil in pruning the worst people out of society. For these reasons, I am proud to affirm the topic that "Some crimes should be punishable by death, as long as a much higher standard of proof is upheld".