The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

In this response, I will attempt to extract my opponent's main points and refute them.RebuttalR1: Fundamental DifferencesThere is a fundamental difference between keeping someone for life in prison for murdering a single or multiple person(s), rather than being killed for killing. For example, here is the American Society of Criminology on capital punishment: "Retribution, which argues that the state has the right to impose a level of pain and punishment equal to or greater than the pain suffered by the victim, is clearly a major justification for the use of the death penalty." It is evident that the death penalty is based on retribution (revenge), and by my argument, is immoral.By this definition of retribution/revenge, life in prison does not apply as a retributive punishment (I will address my opponent's claims that 'because of sexual assault, it is worse than death' in R2), and is therefore an adequately moral response to such a crime.R2: Independence of IssuesI completely agree that sexual assault is a major issue in prisons, and that the state should work to fix this. However, using this issue to argue against capital punishment is invalid, as it is a separate issue which must be addressed independent of our government's policy on capital punishment.Of course there are major dilemmas within prisons today that the government must address, to ensure the safety and well-being of all inmates. But to use the problems within prison to argue that prison is worse than death is irrational, as these problems can be solved without a change in our policy on capital punishment. These claims on prison safety simply do not apply.R3: On Humane PunishmentIn my arguments, I never ask for humane punishment. I ask for punishment that is not principled revenge; there is a key difference that my opponent fails to recognize.Of course it is challenging to find tender and compassionate punishment, in fact, I would argue that solely punishing someone cannot be a warmhearted action. Tenderness and punishment simply do not go hand-in-hand, and I realize that.My opponent argues that all punishment is revenge anyway, but he is very incorrect. The act of revenge is identical or excessive in response to the original action; life in prison is clearly not on the same level as capital punishment, as I have claimed in R1.R4: Utilization of Eye-for-an-Eye PrincipleMy opponent spends a lot of his time capitalizing on the invalidity of my usage of Gandhi's principles. I ask him to recognize that I did not say that Gandhi's principles were true or are universally accepted; I put forth the eye-for-an-eye principle as an example for my claim that the death penalty is based on revenge, and is therefore an immoral form of punishment.R5: Conflation of Balanced Punishment and RetributionYou assume in your response that a balanced form of punishment is right, however, you have presented no argument to support your claim. However, if I am to assume that this claim is supported, I would like to clarify that the idea of punishment fitting the crime is subject to change. A fitting punishment is not necessarily the retributive one, which my opponent also fails to recognize; for example, if someone is mentally unstable and commits bestiality, a fitting punishment (depending on the place, but perhaps time in a mental health institution) is not retributive, as this is not an identical (or excessive) response to the crime which was committed.R6: No Morality in Argument 2My second argument does not have anything to do with morals. I do not argue that the death penalty is immoral because it is expensive, I argue that it should be abolished because of the extra, unnecessary expense. This is a utilization of the straw-man fallacy.R7: Questioning of DeterrenceMy opponent makes no attempt to rebut my claims, and only asks questions, which I will now answer.My argument is that it is pointless to have capital punishment when studies show that it adds no deterrence effect to the punishment of life in prison. Of course no punishment that we know of can completely stop crime, which I fully acknowledge. However, punishment is an element of a fair society; people who commit wrongs should not be treated as if they did nothing wrong. It is a fundamental concept, not a purely legal one.