Death Penalty

Today I will be arguing against the allegation that the death penalty ought be abolished in the United States.Now, when a person kills another, they obviously cannot live in our society ever again. We can all agree on that. At this point we have to choose one of two options: To sentence them to life in prison, or to sentence them to death. So when we have another option at hand, why are we so keen to kill them? Because of a point my opposition mentioned, it's too expensive. Now while some would have you believe that the death penalty is an expensive process. In context, next to life in prison, the cost of death is cheap. Food, a cell, electricity... all these things go into inmate's survival, with taxpayers losing $1.5 million on average to every single life sentence. Does a lethal dose of drugs cost $1.5 million? Of course not. If drugs (the only way executions are held in the US this day and age) cost too much for your taste, there are other methods of execution to consider. Bullets are only a few cents each, for example.This brings me to my next point. Executions are absolutely, 100% humane. Like I said, executions are only done by lethal injection in the US today, which involves a painless, falling asleep like sensation that ends in death. My opposition mentions gas chambers, hanging, firing squads, and finally the relevant issue of lethal injection. Only the ladder matters to us here in the United States, and it rarely fails as it is explained. I will advocate for firing squads, however, because they are the only provided means of execution that is plausible for use today. There seems to be a misunderstanding in how firing squads work. It is a firing squad, meaning there are multiple shooters. If one of the usually seven men misses, so what? There are six other bullets entering the heart at the same time. You can't not kill the inmate.And while we have so far not seen any decent reasons why the death penalty is bad, we can't dispute over the fact that there are innocent people executed. However, this is not an issue with the death penalty, but the justice system. With modern DNA testing, we can be absolutely sure if the accused is innocent, and absolutely sure if he is guilty. We're targeting the wrong thing with this very pressing issue, even though it is dwindling with technology. I would also like to ask the opposition why he or she compared elementary school students to convicted murderers, which seems to be irrelevant.Finally, I would like to point out that justice is not important. We are doing justice with either one of the two options presented above (life sentence or death sentence), although one seems to some not to be so. If we are worried about the economy, the death penalty is best. If we are worried about being humane, death penalty (in specific forms) is best. It seems to me that my opposition is seeking death penalty reform to ensure indisputable evidence is presented for it to be used, and humane methods to be used (the best of which being firing squads). Abolishing the death penalty won't solve these problems, just fill our prisons and damage our economy. I would even argue death is more humane in some cases than being locked up forever in a prison, which can cause physiological problems.The death penalty is an affordable, sensible, and humane means of justice. Life sentencing hurts our wallets, their mind, and all of our prisons capacities. Is it really so wrong to humanely and peacefully bring someone's life to an end, when they have likely brutally murdered another? In many ways, we're doing ourselves a favor. We're doing them a favor.