Capital Punishment in the United States is Flawed and Should End

Good Debate I'd like to say. _Refuting my opponents case same way as before_ 1. Again I don't really understand my opponents point here. By Kant's statement we are saying that it should be a law that is enacted. It's not universal law if a government wants to punish by using a death penalty. Further more if that was the case why is it when somebody over-drinks the punishment isn't we get drunk as well? 2. I agree that their are other sentences than murder, however my opponent has admitted to the fact that somebody who rots in prison may be pointless and meaningless. Their should be nothing preferable because the intent is to punish a crime and thus their can be no other "friendlier" alternative. Further more at the instant that a 21 year old is going to spend his whole life rotting in a jail cell, yes his life is meaningless. If he dies instantly he is mourned, he is remembered, he is loved by people who may have cared for him. If he rots, he most likely ends alone. 3. I won't deal with the humane issue, because my opponent has not offered up a third option that is more humane, although their may be one. Further more a lot of the time the Death penalty is more humane than just "lynching" such as lethal injection. Also, I don't see the point of rehabilitation if you're never going to actually go back into normal society. 4. I've already dealt with the issue of Universality, again my opponent assumes that the state enacting a death penalty means that it believes everybody should do it and yet we do not kill drunk drivers with drunk driving. Only an eye for an eye in regards to murderers was the first one, because we deem murder to be one of the highest violations and punishments. 5. If somebody breaks the state's laws they are basically nullifying the rule of law set out for by the constitution. That means they have effectively put their own being above that of the constitution. At the instant that they refuse to live by the rules set out in the constitution, the constitution no longer applies to them. They have nullified laws and the constitution does provide for punishment else it would not go through the process of a court system to begin with. Hence the state can take away "life" because the murderer has already put himself at a level where he doesn't wish to tolerate the state. 6. Umm. .. yes when Madoff stole people's money I think it's safe to assume a lot of them were infuriated with him. I think it's safe to assume that their would have been a blood mob outside of his hotel had the state not intervened. In regards to killers the state does have to punish them or yes you would have a vigilante mob. Do you honestly think we can just leave murderers living in their quiet little home and not a single person would want retribution? 7. The government can't influence the trial by jury which is why the whole point of trial by peers was enacted; further more the government doesn't allocate resources to solve crime it is the law enforcement system of that state. Further more the same person who arrested you is not the same person who takes you to court. Further more obviously if somebody is being put to trial somebody doesn't believe their innocent; the main point is that the judge and the jury must remain under that principle. Yes, their are a lot of laws that are broken; this has nothing to do with the Death Penalty unless we refer specifically to felonies which you don't. Your final statement I agree with, nobody likes to see an execution. Does that mean we believe that criminals shouldn't be punished? Absolutely not. 8. You keep assuming their is this huge mass of innocent people that go to jail. This is a completely ridiculous notion as remember that we do not have mass riots demanding the removal of the jail system. Further more, a counsel has to be at a standard level that judge, because else we are saying that only the elite have the right to deem the goodness of the country. Further more when it comes to lawyers; have you ever heard of PRIVATE PRACTICE. Not every lawyer has to be a state lawyer and if they are as incompetent as you keep acting they are. Then isn't it fair to say that anyone who goes up against a state lawyer will instantly win? IF their was such a low standard we would have all these incompetent rulings and hearings; and yet obviously this isn't what take place. I am deeply concerned with what a huge belief my opponent has that we have such low standards that we would accept complete idiots in positions of power. 9. Again. .. false evidence can be used by both sides. If we're talking about a death penalty their is obviously a higher expectation in evidence. Again. .. evidence isn't buyable off craigslist. Further more, you pre-screen all evidence before you put them in, you just don't abstractly leave a witness in and pray she/he is good. You always zoom out to look at what aspects are useful in your case. Of Course obviously since you're going up against such an "low-standard state lawyer" then shouldn't you obviously beat them in a case? 10. Of course innocence matters, the whole point is that if their is enough evidence to convict a felon that outweighs the counter-evidence (Again remember that in a death penalty evidence is taken much more highly into account); then obviously isn't it fair to say the defendant must be guilty? However, the state's role in life is too not convict as many people as it can, it's to deal a fair punishment to a crime that has been proved to have happened. If you don't accept this again my opponent believes that state lawyers are of a low standard. In a death trial most likely the defendant will hire a good lawyer that the trust; for obviously everything is on the line. So it should be easy to get enough evidence to prove the innocence since the state lawyer must be so stupid. 11. My opponent accepts that most felons have some form of illness, but he beliefs this doesn't justify a punishment. I wonder what my opponent sees as his perfect world, do we just put all the felons and murderers in a little insane asylum and we just ignore their punishment? Well then everyone would plea insanity, that would be such a huge loophole their would be no point in a punishment system. Is that what you are saying is the best thing for democracy? 12. My opponent has been caught and now he is trying to worm his way out of the most important argument. Voters please follow the links that my opponent provided, (they are in round 2, his case). They all show that crime rates have gone down throughout the years universally to all states. My opponent has not refuted my argument that states with a death penalty, obviously have more crime because their would have been no need to enact the death penalty unless they had a big problem which they obviously do. Remember this is the most important argument here, because it directly proves if the Death Penalty is flawed or not. Remember that as my opponent has shown; ALL CRIME RATES HAVE GONE DOWN IN DEATH PENALTY STATES. Thus the Death penalty has successfully deterred crime. It doesn't matter if it's not the same rate as non-penalty states; what my opponent can't refute is that is has deterred crime. This means even if it is or isn't as useful as non-death penalty states. This doesn't mean it's flawed because it still has worked. Further more their are other reasons in which why a death penalty state has a higher crime rate as my opponent has agreed to before. What this debate will really come down too is not really the arguments on the criminal court system, because these are mainly just proving the idea that the court system of America is/isn't flawed. The main argument here is the one right above this statement; has the death penalty done anything useful. As proved it has, and thus their is no reason to remove the Death Penalty, because it has not been proved flawed.