Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

1. HYPOCRISY "My opponent never warrants why killing shouldn't warrant the same action." Is that a joke? I believe I have actually pointed out NINE reasons as to why killing shouldn't warrant the same action. They are listed next to numbers 1 - 9 in this debate (in case you missed that). In regard to the finger analogy, this point is flawed as Pro maintains that money could compensate for other crimes. While this may be true in my finger scenario, it is NOT necesarilly always true. Consider a situation in which a man was hit by a car, was in a coma for awhile (lost time of his life), and now has permanent brain damage as well as is paralyzed. He lives in an Assisted Living facility away far from his family (where they believe he'll get the best care, even if they don't get to see him often). This man has been deprived of his memories, the use of his body, and the use of his brain... which pretty much determines/controls everything else, such as feelings, emotions, etc. He is constanrly in physical pain and mental agony - he cannot fully understand what is going on, and is drugged up on a lot of medication (to say the least). So in a sense, he is just breathing - not living. The driver (who originally fled the scene, and broke a lot of speeding and driving laws) has essentially taken the man's life, yet not only is he not being tried for the death penalty, but he was not charged with anything at all. Granted he's going to have a huge lawsuit on his hands, but money cannot compensate for what's happened to the man, his family, etc. HOWEVER, killing the driver wouldn't do anything for the situation either. Killing the driver is not going to bring the victim back; all killing the driver would do is create more pain for the family of those who would be killed. It would NOT erase or even begin to compensate for the pain of the victim's family. It would just create more suffering for the defendant's family. Thus the death penalty is HYPOCRITIAL and does not effectively promote justice. Further, who is Pro to say that a piano player would rather live than not be able to play the piano? Even if that were the case, I know for a fact (because he says it all the time) that the victim in my example would rather die than be in the condition that he is now. And if he died, perhaps the death penalty would have been a factor...? But like I said - it wouldn't change, fix, or solve anything. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE It is a scary thought that the government has the authority to end the life of its own citizen. If the right to life is the 'ultimate' right, than essentially you're advocating that the government can pretty much do anything it wants, or violate ANY rights for the sake of 'justice.' Remember that government was both established and perpetuated by MAN - not a divine, perfect being. Therefore not all of the government's choices can be considered right or just 100% of the time (and most intelligent people know it's way less than that). Going back to Locke and what he said about punishment being meant for retribution, again I pose the question of what the death penalty solves. My opponent agrees that it cannot be considered a deterrent (because of mixed statistics), so therefore, it's essentially about revenge like I have been saying all along. Because killing someone won't bring the victim back, what other retirbution is rewarded in taking the life of another? 3. COST This heading may have very well been 'hypocrisy' again... "Cost should come secondary to principles that are greater" seems to be my opponent's argument here, yet my opponent is against the very social programs that he pretends to care about in his argument. Pro must acknowledge that principles are not and cannot always be put before costs. If money wasn't a factor, why would Pro - or anyone - be against universal health care? Welfare? Social programs? Etc etc etc. People look down upon these institutions because they affect the worth of their own dollar. Thus although it may SOUND NICE to say we can disregard cost as a huge factor in *POLITICS*... hahaha... realistically it doesn't hold any water. And furthermore, who said that the death penalty is the just response?! To me, you are doing something unjust and costing me extra money at the same time. 4. MISTAKES In both 'researched' cases, innocence nor guilt cannot be determined... yet both lives have been ended, so what's the point? Thank you, Pro, for acknowledging my entire criterion: mistakes are sometimes made, and sometimes new information is found too late. Who cares if new evidence determining innocence is EVER found? People aren't going to care to look into it as much once the defendant is already dead. Also, if my opponent wishes to maintain that justice = not good but FAIRNESS, he would have to prove that the death penalty is ALWAYS the fair decision. This cannot be achieved, for he has completely ignored my points regarding crimes committed in the heat of passion, crimes of the mentally unstable, etc. 9. PUNISHMENT "Death is what he deserves and it is the only punishment that is bad enough for an evil eprson that kills." Whoa. That incredibly agressive and presumptious statement speaks volumes about my opponent, and many death penalty supporters in general. It's assumption after assumtion, and ignores all of the causes behind why one kills another. Further, the notion that death is worse than suffering is only an OPINION. It must be backed up with facts or at least more detailed reasoning in order to be considered. 5. CORRUPTION "Prove that corruption and the death penalty go hand in hand." Okay. Anne Boleyn was falsely accused of incest, adultery and high treason, and was beheaded by sword - there's one example. The fact that this happened ages ago is irrelevant; the fact remains that people are wrongly accused, wrongly convicted and wrongfully put to death in the past and in the present. Biasedness and other prejudices always play a factor. 6. DETERRANCE History informs us that most executions were public and brutal, yet crime was more widespread then than it is now. If murders are still occuring AT ALL in states where the death penalty is legal, than my point is upheld. 7. POPULAR OPINION Politico.com is not a valid source. That's like me providing a stat and saying my source is Google.com. For someone who's so concerned about debate etiquette, not providing a direct link to a source is pretty shady/uncourteous. Anyway, even if more states uphold the DP, more populated states like NY do not. And finally, we've both established that majorities are not always right. What's important is that since so many people are against the DP, their reasoning must be taken into account. 8. VALUE OF LIFE ... And my reasoning has been ignored here. Pro says that all lives MUST be considered to have equal value. But my point is that they're NOT. Inherently, as humans, we tend to value the lives of some over others. Therefore some may find is just to kill certain people and not others. For instance, I'm sure some people may not mind seeing GWB be killed, but they WOULD mind seeing someone like Mother Theresa being killed. The point? Pro may think the defendant deserves to die, but what if the defendant felt the victim deserved to die? Why is the victim always presumed innocent? 10. PRO'S LONE CONTENTION: SCALE OF JUSTICE The scale of justice can never be equal. It's flawed all over the legal system, and it's flawed rearding the DP. Except with the DP, you are dealing with someone's life. If killing someone is wrong, then killing them to 'get even' is wrong too. Further, the scale of justice does not apply to life in general, so why only the DP? For instance, low-income individuals are more likely to commit crimes. If we're so obsessed with equality, why not worry about scaling justice in terms of the quality of life and not just the equality of death?