The Death Penalty is a justified means of punishment

I would like to quickly clear up something, I hope my opponent can forgive me but there was a mistake in the value area, it was in fact MORALITY and not LIFE, I hope he can accept my sincerest apologies, now on to defending my case;I agree morality, and justice do relate however let it be noted that our Laws, the way to reach justice, are simply our codifications of our morals which is why we always prefer Morality ahead of Justice. Towards my criterion he states that delivering justice doesn't infringe on sanctity of life, normally I would agree however as I have proved the Death Penalty is a clear break of sanctity of life, as it takes away the life of someone. Sending someone to jail does NOT infringe on sanctity of life because it does not harm the criminal in any way. In fact, they are fed, housed, and given the basic necessities of life, unlike the death penalty which takes away a criminals life and therefore makes the largest possible break to sanctity of life as it purposely kills someone.My opponent establishes a "burden of proof" on the affirmative in stating that the "status quo" already approves of the Death Penalty and therefore I must disprove its justifications. However this "status quo" argument is fallacious argument because in the 1700-1800's we considered slavery as "the status quo" this didn't mean that it was "justified" as we can see since now it is abolished in the United States. Furthermore support for the death penalty has steadily been decreasing, only 33% of the populace supports the death penalty with a significantly higher (52%) supporting life without parole.(1) Completely turning around his "status quo" argument and proving how we should always look to the con.Cont. 1To my first contentions he states that since the Death Penalty is "proportional" and therefore justified. This argument is not sound however, because putting a criminal in jail is also "proportional" as they basically serve the rest of their life in a cell. However this "eye for an eye" argument is obviously NOT how we run our judicial system. A rapist is not raped himself, a arsonist is not set on fire, likewise a murderer should not be murdered himself and instead should be sentenced to life imprisonment.My opponent clearly did not read the entirety of my first contention, but I will reiterate the important points of the 2million people arrested in 2000, 70,000 were convicted of violent crimes necessary to be considered for the Death Penalty, however as I proved ONLY 6.5% were sentenced to death (or exactly 4501) obviously meeting the "unusual requirement". Furthermore no matter what crime the death row inmates committed, the state does not have the right to use barbaric forms of death like the electric chair or the inhumane "lethal shot". Cont. 2My opponent makes the crude remark that a innocent person would rather DIE than to be sentenced to a prison sentence. Simply put this is not supported by any sources, and appealing to the humanity in all of us I think everyone can agree that no sane person WANTS to die. Furthermore, if you extend the 6th source from my first speech, you see DOZENS of stories of people exonerated and who live happy lives today. Obviously my opponents claim that "people prefer dieing then jail" is false and is why we also prefer life imprisonment. Furthermore he fails to recognize the major impact of the contention the killing of people is not only wrong, but the killing of an INNOCENT person is even worse. How many people in the pro world would need to be killed innocently before they realized the death penalty has major errors. Not only does the death penalty have controversial implications but it is easily resolved by having life without parole as the alternative. It reaches the same goal, stopping crime, at a cheaper cost and without the possibility of killing innocent inmates. My source states how tax payers actually are paying much more for death row; "taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement."(2) Cont. 3My opponent makes a very short response to my third contention and is basically the same as before, however he misses the fact that a RACIST federal institutions should NOT be allowed to continue its proceedings. The reason we created the 1964 Civil Rights Act was to prevent racial segregation and major forms of discrimination. Now not only does the Death Penalty meet the requirement for "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" but it is a breach to our 1964 CRA, furthering my resolve that the Death Penalty is not justified nor is it Moral, taking a life is never justified or moral. ===Rebuttal===My opponent begins by stating that justice is also defined as "proportionality" however as I stated above it obviously isn't. The ancient proverb comes to mind "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Rapists are not raped by the judicial system, arsonists are not set on fire by the judicial system, and murderers should not be murdered by the judicial system. Towards his value criterion, he is stating whoever brings about the most justice should win the round. I only do this the best, for two main reasons, one I reach the SAME justice that he does, I prevent crime and secondly I DO NOT kill innocent people, a judicial system that is okay with the killing of innocent people is obviously one that is not functioning properly and is the reason why you will always prefer life imprisonment. Furthermore I have further proof of how the Death Penalty DOES NOT result in better justice and in fact does not prevent harms as the Pro would like to believe it does, in fact states that employ the death penalty have a higher death murder rate then the ones that do not(1). To his Cont. 1, the proportionality argument has been proved again and again that this should not be how our justice system is run. My opponent brings up a very nice statistic that 600,000 criminals are released each year, my one question is, how many of those were convicted of a serious crime that would usually result in a death penalty sentencing? As I stated in my earlier speech, only 70,000 people were convicted of serious crimes, compared to the 600,000 people released per year, we see that the number of inmates who were convicted of serious crimes and released must be very small indeed, completely disproving his impact of "danger to the populace" Furthermore I have turned his impact, and proved that the death penalty actually costs MORE than sentencing someone life imprisonment. Furthermore we notice that "life imprisonment" means that the offender WOULD NOT return to society and therefore makes NO threat to society any longer, and in fact reaches justice for everyone AND I prevent the risk of "killing innocent people" meaning not only do I punish the people who commit crimes but I PROTECT the innocent, meaning I link into his value criterion BETTER than he does a clear reason why you must vote CON. I thank my opponent for his arguments and await the replies, may the best debater win![1] http://www.amnestyusa.org...[2] https://death.rdsecure.org...