Capital Punishment in the United States is Flawed and Should End

Thank you for accepting my challenge. "My opponent argues a quote by Kant, "act not unless you would have it be a universal law". Under this quote my opponents analysis is flawed, because by killing someone they are not saying everyone should act that way. They are saying by killing someone a LAW is established that allows for the killing of someone. Thus death is punished by death, eye for an eye." Yet this is precisely what universality and "eye for an eye" argues. Murderers have accepted that all should act in this way, so we should answer the same. As I said: "We kill people who killed to show them killing is wrong?" According to the idea of universality they have shown how they want society to be. We disagree, or this would not be a crime. So how does this not set a bad example? Doing this we say "You're right, society should be this way." The reciprocity of this says to do that is ok. "Further more we kill people to show them a punishment. A punishment that sends a message that says killing is WRONG. This doesn't set a bad example, because if we just allowed killers to go on without a punishment a government would not have control over the enforcement of law in it's own territory which undermines sovereignty." There are many punishments which also show this, including life without parole (L-WOP), and uphold the rule of law. "My opponent offers the examples of a rapist or a kidnapper that we do not enforce an eye for an eye for. However, the death penalty was not designed to follow an eye for an eye." Here you contradict yourself as earlier you said: "Thus death is punished by death, eye for an eye." So which is it? "Further more it is not up to an individual citizen to decide if the state can put people to death or not. A citizen has forfeited their rights to execute punishment by being part of the social contract and thus they have trusted a higher authority to do this. Thus unless a majority can be motivated behind this ideal whether you agree with the death penalty or not is not going to change anything." In what way? Should we argue the social contract or democracy as well? I am merely speaking about my ideal. Could this not be part of this "social contract"-to have a legally defined human life be inalienable by capital punishment? My argument is precisely that: Yes indeed, murderers have devalued life. Killing in return does not restore their value. Again these specific arguments were addressed, universality particularly. I do not claim that all evidence is flawed and every conviction wrong. However, when dealing with death cases this is a more dangerous risk. Our court system has in fact been questioned severely in recent years because of the people who have been exonerated. As for the rest, it appears to be argument from popularity. That is not proof of right. I also note the widespread dislike of the court system and jury duty, but again this does not prove anything by itself. The appeal system is supposed to exist precisely in order to stop miscarriages of justice. Your argument that it can't be too easy to appeal and wouldn't help much anyway is appalling. If you're innocent, appeal is often your only hope. I reject the view that it's elitist to expect a standard of competency for attorneys, especially in death cases when needed most of all. They do not have a "right" to such represent someone when their lack of competency may jeopardize the defendant's chance. It is the fault of the court if they allow ineffective assistance of counsel to stand. I have not said that most or all capital cases are based on little evidence, but that it can be and is flawed. Enough evidence to convict does not mean the defendant is actually guilty necessarily. I have already addressed the issue of counsel or lack thereof. I have not claimed that every case if falsified. Furthermore, some can and do go to prison upon falsified evidence. We are not arguing whethere there are "some" people in prison who deserve to be there. Again, the argument from popularity is not enough alone. Because claims of falsified evidence or anything else "fall on deaf eyes" does not make them wrong by itself, assuming that's true. Assuming the defense is also able to lie and or falsify evidence in no way disproves my point. Both are wrong. Being convicted in the ways I listed is not dening the right to a fair trial? "It works both ways" and thus does not effect the outcome is a shocking argument. Does this mean because the defense can lie too it's all good? I should point out we know who usually has the most resources, to lie or falsify and whatever else-the state. I see. Then no situation exists in which a person is not mentally responsible for their actions? I'm not saying you should set the standard so low everyone can plead incompetence or insanity. We have the opposite problem. There is no justification for a felony, you say. Apparently so, because we have a "justification defense" along with incompetency and insanity. Though I'm for jury trial, but some issues go beyond that, such as incompetence. Juries must also be checked. "If a majority of jurors agree that the person deserves the death penalty, then that person deserves the death penalty; no exceptions" is strikingly equivalent to mob justice or tyranny of the majority. Again, it can't be just argument from popularity. Allow me to address deterrence, since you have mentioned it: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Not only do states without capital punishment endure lower murder rates, they have fallen steadily in them, while rising in those which have it. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... I agree this is based on many factors. However, it can be manifestly shown that capital punishment is not effective at lowering murder rates. Although government is by people, the individual has to be protected from the majority too. Again, simple majorities thinking something is right or wrong does not make it so, and accepting that it does is frightening. I reject your contention that you've proven the court system is not flawed, or anything else. As to proving it ineffective, see my posts above. Whether it's wanted is not in contention. I contend that it is not justified.