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

INTRODUCTION The resolution maintains that the death penalty is a just punishment for convicted murderers and killers specifically. That is to say that those in favor of the death penalty typically justify the extreme taking of one's life because the one convicted has also taken the life of another. It is 'an eye for an eye' case here, but that mentality doesn't stand. 1. HYPOCRISY If taking the life of another is deemed the most offensive crime (and the only crime that currently warrants the death penalty as a consequence in the United States), then wouldn't those in favor of the death penalty be committing the same crime? Taking the life of another? The 'eye for an eye' mentality is flawed, at least in our legal system... For instance, if I chop off someone's finger, I will be punished under the law. I will probably have to pay an exorbitant amount of money to the victim via a lawsuit, as well as be charged with jail time which seeks to both punish me and keep other innocent citizens safe from my finger cutting ways. However the victim in this case will not be able to chop one of my finger's off as payback or retribution; that would be considered cruel and unusual by the law. But in some states, the law would not deem it cruel or unusual to inject someone with substances that will end their life. So, let me get this straight. It's more cruel to cut off a finger than to end one's life. But cutting off another's finger doesn't warrant the death penalty...? This backwards logic is certainly flawed, to say the least. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE On that note, the death penalty is often supported by religious individuals who feel that God is the only entity who has the 'right' to take away the life of a human being. In that case, what gives anyone the right to take away another's life, even if that person has committed the same crime? Isn't this the same God who preached about tolerance, forgiveness, compassion and pity? This 'eye for an eye' concept breaches the Christian doctrine that so many Pro-Life (ironically enough)/Pro-Christian politicians who support the death penalty proclaim. In addition to falling under the category of hypocrisy, it also brings up moral and spiritual questions regarding forgiveness instead of revenge. 3. COST Not all of those in favor of the DP have moral reasoning in mind. For some, it's a matter of cost. One would assume that killing someone instead of paying for their life in prison would be cheaper, when in fact, it is the opposite -- calling upon the death penalty is more expensive than allowing someone to live the remainder of their lives secluded in prison. One could argue that this is a result of the current legal system in terms of appeal after appeal, etc. However to disregard the right for appeals in our legal system would a) be a violation of our rights, and b) could cause innocent, though convicted murderers to be condemned to death. So onto my next point... 4. MISTAKES Throughout history (even recently) people have been convicted of crimes that they did not commit. If a person is unjustly incarcerated - even for many years - and is eventually set free, that is a great victory for justice and morality. Consider Nelson Mandela who was in prison for 2 dozen years. He was released and went on to serve as President of a nation, and will forever live in infamy for the good he has done. If Mandela were killed instead of jailed, his legacy would have never been able to be lived out. Granted Nelson Mandela didn't KILL anyone, but then again, in this example I am also talking about an innocent person who was convicted and also didn't kill anyone. 5. CORRUPTION In addition to racial and other types of discrimination that have been noted, it also must be presented that the DP can be a tool for corrupt law officials who wish to legally end the life of another for ulterior motives. 6. DETERRENT We've seen over and over again that the death penalty does NOT deter crime. People kill others for several reasons. One: in a fit of passion. The death penalty cannot deter a crime of passion. Two: Mental illness (including homicidal maniacs or serial killers). They are dangerous and unfortunate souls who should not be allowed to menace society, this is true... but whether killing others is legal or not is not going to stop them. And the third reason: they have something to gain. However the DP doesn't deter this way of thinking either, as most people are blinded by acquisition and believe that they will get away with it. Further, with the exception of Michigan, the top 20 states for which homicides occur (per 100,000 people) HAVE ALL LEGALIZED THE DEATH PENALTY. That means 19 out of the top 20 states with the MOST MURDER have legalized the DP. Meanwhile, consider this: there are 13 states without legalized capital punishment. Eight of those 13 states fall within the BOTTOM 20 regarding homicide. The rest fall somewhere in the middle. This is just one example of proof that the DP does not deter crime. [1] 7. POPULAR OPINION Studies show that most people DO NOT favor the death penalty when "life without parole" is offered as an alternative option. A Field Institute Survey in CA - a state with legalized capital punishment - showed that 82% of people approved of the death penalty... until life without parole was offered along side the DP, in which case approval for the DP dropped to 26 percent. And after all, shouldn't the values of American citizens be considered when determining which laws to enact? 8. VALUE OF LIFE Person A: 50 year old male. Thief. Drug dealer. Drug user. HIV positive. Person B: 25 year old male. Upstanding citizen; beloved in the community. Say Person B killed Person A, because Person A raped Person B's little sister. To some, Person B may have been justified, assuming Person A caused Person B's sister A LOT of emotional and physical damage. They may not feel that Person B - an otherwise amazing individual - deserves to die; they might even find his actions justified. Others may keep in mind that Person B could possibly be innocent. Plus, Person B was extremely popular and incredibly pious + generous; surely given another chance he would repent and go back to his good ways. Why should he die for taking the life of a sick, dangerous man who is twice his age and has caused others nothing but harm? If your answer is that it doesn't matter - a life is a life - then you should agree with me that NO LIFE SHOULD BE TAKEN (if we can avoid it). CONCLUSION There is absolutely no reason why the death penalty should be condoned. If it does not deter crime, is not cost effective, and of extremely questionable morals, than it should not be permissible by the United States government. Furthermore, the facts point to the fact that revenge is the ONLY way to make capital punishment a "just" option, meaning that my opponent will have to prove why revenge should be the sole principal for which we base our laws. Now I'm not big on quotes, but I feel this is a good way to end a round ~ "The Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria, in his highly influential treatise On Crimes and Punishments , asserted, 'The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men.' True, and even if the death penalty were a 'useful' deterrent, it would still be an example of barbarity. No society can safely entrust the enforcement of its laws to torture, brutality, or killing. Such methods are inherently cruel and will always mock the attempt to cloak them in justice. As Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg wrote, 'The deliberate institutionalized taking of human life by the state is the greatest conceivable degradation to the dignity of the human personality.'" [2] SOURCES [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] http://users.rcn.com...