Capital Punishment Should be Abolished

Human RightsIn this argument, Con basically claims that since a criminal takes another’s life, they forfeit their own rights in return. My opponent misunderstands the meaning of “unalienable” rights.unalienable: impossible to take away or give up (Merriam-Webster)These rights are “endowed” to us by our creator, they are inseparable from us; they are a part of our humanity. The government did not give them, and therefore cannot take them away, no matter the circumstance. It is the government’s sole duty to protect your rights, no matter what you do, that is why they are unalienable rights.Con then says that punishment in all forms is a violation of human rights. I would remind my opponent that Capital Punishment is a form of punishment, and therefore (as Con explained for me) is a violation of human rights.InnocenceIn this contention I argued that any risk is too great that an innocent will be executed via Capital Punishment. Con in turn claims that deterrence offsets this risk as deterrence would make up for the innocent lives taken by Capital Punishment.This is not a numbers game, or a mathematical equation. Even if Con is right (which he isn’t), and Capital Punishment does deter crime, this does not prove that his side is more just. Con uses this ‘we should sacrifice the few for the many’ mentality, and that this ideology inherently overrides the interests of those directly affected by the imposition of what Con calls is justice. We shouldn't value life on the basis of numbers, but rather whether the justice system is imposing penalties that directly devalue those lives. Con then wraps up by proposing reform of Capital Punishment. My opponent’s burden of proof is that we should keep the current system of Capital Punishment, therefore my opponent must defend the current system, proposing new regulation does nothing for him, it is completely useless for Con’s case. But more importantly, what the voters must realize is that no amount of reform will ever give The Death Penalty a 100% success rate. There will always, no matter what, be a chance of execution of innocents, and this chance is too large when innocent lives are in danger.I now leave you with a quote,“You can release an innocent man from prison, but you can’t release him from the grave.”-Scott LangleyPrejudiceIn this contention, Con focuses on one statistic, while dropping all others. Let me clarify my evidence; what the study did was compare two murders that are extremely similar, one by a black person, and one by a white. In this these cases, a black criminal was 4 times more likely to receive a death sentence than a white person that committed the same crime. Con challenges this very statistic, and claims that this is due to ‘blacks being more violent’. Con clearly misread the statistic.Con then again suggests reform, which I already explained is useless in the previous contention.LawyersBefore I start on this argument at all, I have to address something that Con said.However, this seems impertinent to the discussion: whether your lawyer is good or not does not impact on the justification of the death penalty as argued in my opening argument…This is completely relevant to the debate, and I am saddened by the fact that my opponent could not recognize that.The fact that criminals are issued inadequate representation when on the subject of death shows how much of a broken system Capital Punishment. It follows that since this is such a broken system, it should be abolished.Con then argues that judges do not sentence criminals to death unless there is sufficient evidence that leaves no doubt of the criminal’s guilt, and therefore representation would not matter. This statement is completely false and is not found in the justice system.Soffar was arrested in 1980 for an infamous robbery-murder at a Houston bowling alley. After trying to turn in an acquaintance for the bowling-alley murders, Soffar eventually implicated himself after being subjected to a three-day marathon of aggressive, unrecorded interrogation, which culminated in a false confession, typed by police, that the officers convinced a worn down Soffar to sign…In 1981, Soffar went to trial represented by a Houston lawyer known both for having slept through his clients’ capital-murder trials and for having stacked up a long list of clients sentenced to death. Based on his statements, Soffar was convicted and sentenced to death.https://www.aclu.org...In June 2012, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals threw out the death sentence of ACLU client Manuel Velez, ruling it was based on the false testimony of a state expert. The court found that both the expert, A.P. Merillat – whose false testimony resulted in the reversal two years ago of the death sentence given to another ACLU client – and the prosecutor, should have known the testimony was false, but presented it anyway, leading to an unjust death sentence.https://www.aclu.org...Evidence above proves that criminals are sent to death row based off inadequate evidence, contrary to Con’s claim.Con then says that several cases have been repealed because of faulty lawyers and that this somehow fixes the issue. It does not, if you would have read my statistics you would have seen the amount of cases that are completed and filed away, and then later the lawyer is fired because of inappropriate behavior. These are the kind of people that are a major factor in cases involving life and death.Near the end, Con suggests again that the system can be reformed and therefore this problem would be fixed. My opponent forgets that his job is to defend the current system of Capital Punishment, by abandoning this system and suggesting reform as he has done, he has thus abandoned his burden of proof.ConclusionThis is my last round of argumentation. I thank my opponent for debating this topic with me, it has been very insightful and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. May the best debater win! Thank you!Actual R2 Graph: