Death Penalty

This is my first debate here, so hopefully my opponent will go easy on me. ;) The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has been a punishment for crime for millennia. Over the years, its use has been expanded and retracted. Perhaps the first polity to abolish the death penalty was the religion of Judaism, which, as long as 2000 years ago, created dozens of obstacles to make the punishment impossible to apply, for all intents and purposes. It was determined that only God had the right to take life away. Today, however, dozens of countries (mainly in Europe and parts of the United States) have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Other countries keep it on the books for certain crimes, usually murder, rape, drug trafficking, treason, espionage, and desertion, at a minimum. There are many arguments against the death penalty, usually revolving around whether society has the right to take away life, appropriateness of the punishment, and the question of accidentally executing an innocent. However, I am not the typical death penalty supporter. I do not think it is effective for deterring murder, except in the case of murder for profit (that is, a hitman). When someone commits murder, they are likely so mentally incompetent that there is simply no way they can think of the consequences. Thus, I oppose the death penalty for most murders. Of course, I am here supporting the death penalty, not opposing it. Punishment should be a deterrent against crime, not something that exacts compensation (justice). The areas I support it are areas where it is effective and when there is no other deterrent that works. I support the death penalty for white collar crimes, such as fraud, embezzlement, corruption, and bribery. I can produce the example of Bernie Madoff, who made off with billions of dollars in an enormous mutual fund ponzi scheme. He is now serving something on the order of 150 years in prison. Clearly, a nice, cushy prison cell is fair enough to him that he risked it in order to gain profit. I am convinced that if he was under threat of death, he would not have started the fraud scheme, or at least would not have let it grown so huge. Similarly, in areas of corruption or bribery, I can give the example of Rod Blagojevich, former governor of Illinois, who attempted to sell the vacated Senate seat of Barack Obama to the highest bidder. At best, he will serve enough consecutive jail sentences that he will die in jail. At worst, we see he was only convicted of one crime and will have a maximum of five years in prison. If he was threatened with death for his corruption and solicitations for bribes, it is likely he would not have engaged in such activities. My conclusion is that in the case of financial white collar crimes, potential criminals have the ability to weigh the consequences, unlike in most murders. However, I also support the death penalty for another group of crimes, which are related. The first is a new crime that is an adaption or expansion of an existing one. That is, the arson or destruction of intellectual institutions, such as libraries and museums. To burn or destroy these buildings can damage the cultural history of mankind and this must be prevented at all costs. I would rather a would-be arsonist light a McDonalds than a library, which will give him death. The other crime is poaching. In a similar fashion to the above, destroying endangered species of plants or animals does irreparable harm to the Earth and mankind. Clearly, the existing punishments of prison and sometimes only fines are inadequate. Poachers must be threatened with death in order to greatly increase their cost of doing business to their very life, which will deter them to find other sources of profit. Finally, in the case of drug trafficking, I support the death penalty. However, I only support this if drug trafficking itself is illegal. My reasoning is the same as for poaching—raising the cost of business. This punishment has seen effective use in China, Japan, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. :D