A just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment

When I had accepted the challenge, I didn't realize that this debate was only 2 rounds. I thought my opponent simply wanted to make the opening arguments, which is why I complied with his suggestion of not posting anything in round 1. However, I've noticed that because this debate is only 2 rounds long, my opponent has specifically structured it so that he does not get to have a rebuttal to my contentions. I'm not sure why he did this, but it's my burden to offer arguments so indeed in this round I will include a response to my opponent's arguments, and then present contentions of my own. I'll let the audience vote according to all that's been presented. Thanks and good luck, Con. == Rebuttal == I agree with my opponent's definitions. 1. The Death Penalty Deters Crime ----> While Con argues that the death penalty should be legal because it serves as a deterrent against murder, this statement could not be further from the truth. Innumerable studies have been conducted and proven to show that the DP does not, in fact, deter crime. In addition to the many studies I will link you to, consider the fact that the murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990 [1]. As in the past, the Northeast (where there is no DP) continued to have the lowest murder rate in the country, while the South continued to have the highest (where there is a DP) [2]. According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of all executions (90% in 2000) [3]. A survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association showed that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Over 80% believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty. Similarly, over 75% of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would produce a general deterrent effect. In fact, executions may actually increase the number of murders, rather than deter murders. [3, 4]. In short, criminologists, psychologists, law enforcement and statistics all prove that the DP is *not* an effective deterrent. Therefore, my opponent's argument has been negated. 2. The DP Would Benefit Everyone in Society ----> My opponent describes a Romeo and Juliet scenario where a murder would have a snowball effect and lead to people killing others, such as what happens with gang violence. However, this commits the base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability. Con has not provided us any evidence that this would be the case, and in fact I argue the opposite -- it is not likely for people to go on killing rampages to avenge the murders of their loved ones, for a plethora of legal, practical and moral reasons. Nevertheless, I negate this contention on several grounds. First, by imprisoning a murderer, you are removing them from society thus eliminating the threat. Second, since prisoners can be forced to work unpaid labor, we can have many unwanted jobs done for free (such as picking up trash on the side of the road). This is a way that imprisoned criminals actually benefit society as opposed to if they were dead. Third, when killed via DP, your death is quick, painless and humane. If a murderer is a horrible human being, perhaps society would agree that morality and justice would best be served if this criminal was forced to be kept alive and caged like an animal for the rest of their pathetic days. Fourth, killing is immoral. There are a lot of moral questions regarding the DP, and some feel it's a hypocritical standard. We may as well avoid this unnecessary moral dilemma. Fifth, some think the DP is cost effective; however, it's actually the opposite -- a legalized DP costs the state (tax payers) more money [5]. Finally, let's not forget the fact that mistakes HAVE been made; we've killed innocent people in the past, and many times people on death row have been retried thanks to new evidence and found innocent [6]. Out of at least 400 innocent people convicted of capital crimes they did not commit [7]. Is that something society wants on their conscience? Killing innocent people? Again, refer back to the morality/hypocrisy argument. 3. An Eye For an Eye . .. will make the whole world blind. ----> First, Con advocates retribution for crimes. If someone kills, they should be killed. However, our criminal justice system does not work that way. If I cut off someone's hand and take away their right to have a hand, is my hand subsequently removed to impose fair punishment? No. The purpose of punishing criminals is to protect society. Jailing people for their crimes protects society at large from their direct influence. Moreover, I've explained how killing a criminal swiftly and painlessly is not exactly a "fair trade" for most of the murders that warrant the DP (which are brutal). It is easy to make the argument that people being tortured i. e. kept in solitary confinement is the proper moral equivalent to ending someone's life. == Arguments == Now that I've negated my opponent's contentions, I'd like to note that many of my arguments are indeed found in the rebuttal (especially contention 2). However, there are indeed some additional points I'd like to make. First, I'd like to reiterate that a legalized DP is the more expensive burden to tax payers, due to the endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system. Second, this country is sharply divided on the issue and many people feel that this violates our commitment to avoiding any punishment that is "cruel and unusual. " Some even constitute the policy as barbaric. Thomas Jefferson once said, "What all agree upon is probably right; what no two agree in most probably is wrong. " Clearly the controversy is not unwarranted; the DP does indeed raise a lot of moral questions. For instance - if we're advocating that killing is wrong, is killing another the way to properly express that sentiment, or is it hypocritical? Some believe that no human has the right to take another person's life in any scenario, whether they're innocent or not. If you say deserving parties ought to be killed, what about a case where a father kills a man who kills his child? Should the father not be held accountable? By saying only the government can determine whether something is right or wrong, it gives them a monopoly on morality. To quote Friedman, it is not the law's job to make people moral or upright. The only thing they can do is establish laws that can be equally applied to ALL people, even if they work for the government (including not killing). The "eye for an eye" mentality establishes revenge, not justice. Also, note that many juries are hesitant to convict people being tried because they don't want condemning someone to death on their conscience. It would overall be best for society and the legal system to eliminate the DP. [1] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4] Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2, May 1997 [5] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [6] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [7] . http://karisable.com...