These United States should retain the Death Penalty for murder.

Thanks for a timely response Con, now I will refute your arguments.1. State should not multiply guilt.--> No impact, this is obviously outweighed by lives saved.--> This point doesn't even make sense. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. --> Using this logic, Police should not be allowed to excede the speed limit to catch a traffic violater, and we shouldn't arrest and imprison kidnappers because the punishment is physcially similar to the crime.--> The physical similarities between execution and muder do not make them anywhere near similar morally. If someone attempts to kill me, and I kill them in defense, the physical act is similar but morally it is the complete opposite of his.--> He states the when the state executes an individual, they don't take the moral consequnces into consideration. Not only has he provided only his personal opinion as evidence, he has not even explained what those consequences are. --> Also using this logic, we shouldn't imprison people either, because it's infringing on their personal freedom. --> He argues that the Declaration of independence and the UN declaration of human rights both recognize a right to life. They both also recognize a right to liberty, which imprisonment takes away. Also, when these documents were created most countries had the DP and continued to use it, long after these treaties were ratified. They had the moral insight to tell crime from punishment.--> He states that no one is at liberty to kill. This is completely false, People are justified in killing in self defense and soldiers are justified in killing during war (even if the war itself is not justified.) The DP is reactionary, and thus is not the same as murder.--> I am mildly offended by how he compares brutal murder with a just execution. Heres a quote about how the victims of the murderer Peter Cantu died: "As the teens cried and struggled, six gang members took turns raping them. Finally, gang leader Peter Cantu told Medellin, "We're going to have to kill them." Gang members Derrick O'Brien and Raul Villarreal looped a belt around Jennifer's throat, pulling with such force that the belt broke. Cantu, Medellin and Efrain Perez strangled Elizabeth with a shoelace. Then they stomped on the girls' throats for good measure."[1]Heres an account of Peter Cantu's execution: "At this point the warden asked the prisoner if he wished to make a final statement. Cantu, staring straight to the ceiling, replied defiantly "No!" The hope that many people had that this murderer would show some remorse or accept some reponsibility for his crimes was gone with one short word. With that, the warden instructed the executioner to begin the flow of lethal drugs. Cantu closed his eyes and breathed in deeply before exhaling heavily. He would not move again."[2].Can we really claim that these are morally similar? The murder of an innocent is not the same as the execution of a guilty man.--> English philosopher John Stuart Mill sums up this point nicely with this quote: "Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall."2. Punishment--> So what? Our focus must be on public safety, not revenge as you yourself said in your first point.--> No evidence for this, his opinion only.--> Evidence contradicts this, 96% of those sentenced to die fight to get it moved to life imprisonment.--> If criminals do not fear death, than I wonder how police ever get criminals to surrender without killing them.3. Innocence--> His evidence shows no innocents that have actually been executed, the releases show that our current appeals system works! It would be much more concerning if there were no releases from death row ever. --> Why is it ok to accept the thousands of innocents who die every year through car accidents for our own selfish convience, but the slight chance of executing an innocent man for something much less selfish, like public safety, is so unbearable? If it happens, it is extremely unfortunate, but it is no different than what happens to innocent people every day. --> In his link, the vast majority of those sentenced were sentenced in the 70's, 80's or very early nineties. What this shows is that because of the rise of DNA and forensic evidence, along with recent supreme court decisions restricting the death penalty, this problem is much less severe now than in the past.--> He tries to show people who were wrongfully executed, but the fact remains that in all of these cases, the people who are actually qualified to assess guilt or innocence (the Jurors, the Judge, the Supreme court, the state board of paroles and pardons, ect.) all found these people guilty. I'll take the veridict from the people who actually know about the case than writings from some dubious website any day.--> This is outweighed by the innocents saved from the DP.4. Discrimination --> So what? Why should we let guilty poor people and minorities escape their penalty just because guilty rich/white people do? I'm sure rich people are also more likely to be acquitted when they're guilty, so should we release some guilty poor people just to be fair?--> No solvency, absolutely no evidence to suggest that discrimination would stop existing if the DP was abolished.--> Discrimination must be countered by eliminating discrimination, not by eliminating punishments. ConclusionMy Opponent concludes that murder is bad. I'm glad we agree on this, as we all should. However he makes a very puzzling statement, saying that it's bad for the government to "murder". Again, he is falsely comparing murder to an execution. This also contradicts some of what he says, why would it not be ok for the government to execute people, yet it is ok for them to imprison them forever, which my Opponent believes is a worse punishment? He brings in a quote from Oscar Wilde talking about how sickening punishments are to the guilty. This is very confusing, because he is arguing against the death penalty, yet he has stated that life without parole is a harsher punishment, so really this statement supports my side. So unless my Opponent is advocating the abolition of life w/o parole as well, his first and second contentions condradict eachother as does this statement.If life w/o parole is truly a worse punishment, than not only are we saving innocent lives with executions, but we are also showing mercy to the worst of our criminals. If that is not kindness and justice, than I don't know what is. I urge a Pro vote, and greatly anticipate my Opponents next round. Back to you, Con!1. http://www.chron.com...2. http://abclocal.go.com...