That we should abolish the death penalty

(I had actually requested in round 1 that: "The format of this debate will be round one for definitions (in first Con I simply expect my opponent to respond to my definitions) and the others for argument." Because Con argued in this time, I ask Con to forfeit the last round that we have equal time for argumentation.) When we look at the death penalty, we see am archaically old punishment that can only be described as cruel and unusual that just doesn't fit in with modern views of the criminal justice system. I will argue that the death penalty is a cruel punishment and that it kills innocent prisoners. First, to Con's case: In Con's prompt response, for which I thank him, he laid out a set of value criteria and only one real contention; the strong deterrent the death penalty provides. Firstly, Con tries to set this debate strictly based on a utilitarian philosophy. However, he provided no evidence for this claim, and we refute it, as libertarian philosophy around whether it is ever morally correct for the state to take a life is also important in this debate. Secondly, Con raised his argument, coming in three parts: 1. The death penalty deters crime. 2. The state has a responsibility to reduce crime. 3. Crime rates rise when the death penalty is enforced. We agree with the second contention, however, it was interesting my opponent talked in terms of the state's 'obligation' while trying to uphold a strictly utilitarian debate, which was a contradiction in terms. We disagree with the first and third contentions, about the death penalty's detterent effect. Firstly, my opponent has already conceded that "where the crime is committed in the heat of the moment there is no likelihood that any punishment will act as a deterrent," and so this point now only considers 1st degree, planned, murder. In the first instance, we consider that there simply is no real deterrent effect on committers of 1st degree murder; we believe that if they have planned their killing they are likely to be either mentally ill or martyrs (in the case of terrorists) or believe they will not be caught, and in either case the deterrent effect will have no impact whatsoever. Secondly, even if it did, we consider that the difference between the deterrent of prisons and the death penalty is miniscule. My opponent attempts to normalise prison, saying that prisoners receive three square meals and perhaps parole, but in fact, inside many prisons is rape, of which over 2000 cases in prisons were reported last year [1], and, in many of the high-security prisons 1st degree murderers would inhabit, there is no freedom of movement. In the view of many potential murderers, the death penalty would be an 'easy way out' that would be preferred to prisons, if these thoughts were considered at all. Secondly, my opponent claims that it is empirically true that murder rates rise when the death penalty is stopped. Firstly, he has not provided any unbiased source for these statistics. Secondly, according to these statistics, the crimes that actually rose were 'fights involving fists and feet, stabbing and cutting by glass or a broken bottle, shooting and strangling. 72% of the victims were male with younger men being most at risk', exacly the sort of unplanned heat-of-the-moment crimes which he said he did not support the death penalty for. Finally, we believe that other associated causes, such as population increases and rising poverty can be better associated with rising murder rates. --------Own Case-------- Contention One: Firstly, on a principled level, we object to the death penalty, in that we say that a system of execution is basically inhumane. Firstly, we object to the very idea of this execution. The group my opponent wishes to execute are 1st degree murderers, but the state is almost lowered to their level when it commits an act of extreme violence such as killing a person. Secondly, it is inhumane in terms of the pain and suffering inflicted upon the victim and their family. The death penalty in the form I presume my opponent supports, lethal injection, is highly painful; scientists have theorised that the anaesthetic used wears off before the death of the prisoner [2]. For this reason, we argue that it is clearly inhumane. Furthermore, it causes great suffering for the accused's family; they cannot visit their family member anymore. Contention Two Secondly, some prisoners who are executed are later found to be not guilty. Even years after conviction, convicted killers can be found to be innocent as new evidence comes to light. 139 cases of this kind, where convictions have subsequently been quashed [3], and there may be others which have not been discovered. If these prisoners were sent to prison, they would have been freed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...