Bring back the Death Penalty

In cases of pedophilia:A "life sentence" is a very subjective thing to say RE: the victim of crime. It is also an emotional appeal. Mental illness is very much up-in-the-air as to whether all cases have a biological component or not (see: http://www.apa.org...). As such, my opponent cannot simply claim that every victim will have a "life sentence," nor can he equate the subjective nature of such a diagnosis with an objective standard calling for death in response as a definitively equal punishment.An eye for an eye is meant to provide equal retribution when applied. As such, it fails in the cases of pedophilia. Strictly speaking, were "an eye for an eye" applied to those cases, it would mean that another pedophile would have had to have violated the pedophile being sentenced when he was a child. It's simply not a valid case for an argument of "an eye for an eye."My opponent's assertations of "spiritual" and "mental" death are just as subjective, and as such are too vague to allow the scenarios one would normally call "fair" in a justice system.As a further obstacle to my opponent's rationale, there has been no case made for depriving a convicted pedophile of life who may be suffering from his own bouts of mental illness. This seems to be an egregious bit of oversight.I reassert: In cases of pedophilia, though the crime is reprehensible, death is not a valid punishment under the idea of equal retribution.In cases of murder:My point RE: mob rule merely asserted that certain rights inherent in humans (the right to life specifically here) are not subject to the whims of a political or other majority. In the end, this is what sentencing boils down to: that which the system (which is run by people) agrees upon as fair. However, the same system can be stacked by those in authority (see: http://www.theguardian.com...) regardless of the overall fairness. As such, sentencing which would literally end the life of a human allows far too much subjectivity and emotion into the process.For example, if a gunman were to murder my wife, it would not be a legitimate or legal response for me to follow the criminal home and murder him in retribution. I, too, would be guilty of murder. Likewise, if I got ten or twenty of my friends together and followed the gunman home and beat him to death, we would all be guilty of murder. This principle holds true if I murder him with an hundred of my friends, or a thousand accomplices. So, why is it somehow justifiable when an entire country does so under the guise of a justice system?My opponent has asserted that life without parole "does not really give proper justice to the victims," but that is plain assertion. It is extremely subjective. What if one from a group of pacifists is murdered? If the death penalty is given, then is not improper justice done, since (under my opponent's assertions) it provides retribution for the family which find the very same retribution morally reprehensible?Aside: the notion of friends and loved ones of a murder victim also being victims is emotionally appealing, but it is not based in fact. I do not have a fundamental right to be near any specific person. If my parents decided to disown me, I would not have legal standing to get them back in my life except in the rarest of circumstances. As such, simply being deprived of another's presence, however permanent, is not a crime. The only true victim, from an objective standpoint, in a murder is the murder victim. Basing sentencing on the victim's "survived bys" amounts to revenge, and that is hardly a socially acceptable ethic, nor is it what would generally be considered civilized.Therefore, despite my opponent tossing aside the notion of life sentences, there is not much in the way of a case that stands up against it as a logical to death penalty. As I've already pointed out, it amounts to vengeance and mob justice to deprive a person of life as retribution. Certainly a murderer has broken this rule individually, but the concept of an eye for an eye does not resolve the problem, as it passes the same crime on to the justice system and/or society (depending on how one wishes to view it). As Ghandi pointed out, "An eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye . . . ends in making everybody blind."All in all, my opponent has a very emotionally appealing argument, but arguing from emotion alone is a logical fallacy; additionally, he has discounted the point that government imposing a rule against an individual (by definition, a minority in any country) can be viewed as mob rule, especially when fundamental rights are violated.As one additional, but meaningful, point, my opponent has asked (and I paraphrase), "But what of the victim's fundamental rights?" Unfortunately, this is a false dichotomy. The violation of one person's rights does not legitimize the violation of another's.