Capital punishment as a form of justice

I am ecstatic that con keeps on thanking me for my timely responses, however, I have this strange feeling that that comment of his is coated with sarcasm. Anyway, getting back to matters at hand.....ouch!!! your arguments strike me to be exceedingly blunt, con. Such attitude and you'll never make a good politician. Anyway, let me begin my rebuttal by pointing out to you the futility of my opponent's arguments. 1) The Death Penalty wastes both time and money No, I do not concede that in the present day scenario death penalty costs more than life imprisonment. The argument that those charges are exorbitant is baloney. Let me remind my worthy opponent that in the case of life imprisonments, the same tedious procedure of appeals and employing lawyers is prevalent. The case still reaches the highest authority of the state or nation and that the case is still played out as is done during a death verdict. Yes, I am not going to go to extent of calling your argument trash because I certainly do agree that your California argument is valid, but keep in mind that it is more or less an isolated case. The article itself states that the administration of justice in California is the slowest in the whole nation and moreover, the additional charges of death penalty, according to it is about 75,000$ per person and not millions of dollars. Let me assure you that that in itself is a meager amount when compared to the billions of dollars blown up in NBAs , football leagues and baseball tournaments. Let me also inform my opponent that in my country, India, the judicial setup is quite efficient. We have verdicts by all 3 forms of courts done and dusted within 5 years. My opponent has argued that prisoners are oppressed against and that they live in dingy rooms with barely two square meals a day. In Kerela, India, that certainly does not seem to be the case. Prisoners, including life timers are treated to delicacies of the highest quality. Source: http://newindianexpress.com... Now, before we proceed any further, let me state a fact. In a great number of cases, death penalty helps in reducing the appeals filed. Don't be horrorstruck when I say this my friend. It is true. Let me illustrate this with an example. Let us suppose death sentence is prevalent in a country. A, someone eligible for death sentence gets off with a lifer. The chances that he'll appeal are low because he would'nt want that verdict overturned. On the other hand, if only life sentences were to be prevalent in that nation, he would fight, because a life sentence is the worse that could happen to him. Thus, death penalty deters appeals. Let me present you with another aspect to rubbish your theory. Ajmal Kasab, one of the key perpetrators behind the 26/11 blasts has had about 27 crore splurged on his security and accommodation by the government. If he had been executed, this wouldn't have happened. Source:http://www.ndtv.com... Now, I'd also like to state that a transition is taking place in the judicial system. Experts have claimed that we will have a faster, more efficient judicial system in another couple of decades. 2) The Death Penalty carries the risk of wrongful executions My opponent seems to concede that we are a lot more advanced now than we were a couple of decades ago. We have DNA analysis, finger print analysis....you name it, we have it. This in turn reduces the opportunity of innocents being punished. Secondly, he claims that we shouldn't be wasting our vital resources in providing individual attention to the case of each convict. That, yet again exhibits his mercenary attitude. He blatantly claims that we execute innocents, yet he is not in favour of doing a thorough research into a person's guilt or innocence. In other words, he claims that the capital punishment, which clears innocent people and executes the guilty should be done away with and provides us with a more economical alternative. Let all those who are innocent be send to prisons, where they will rot for a crime they have not committed, in which case they will see the light of the day after 25 years. I this what we want? No. We require the capital punishment which has, according to him led to more detailed research and which pardons 1 in 17 inmates. In some cases, it goes as far as exonerating them. When I mentioned psychiatric therapy, I was referring to criminals who perhaps have committed a single murder or something like that. Braivik murdered 93 people and he got less than what he deserved. I'm still firm in my stance that he should have been executed. No matter how hard a person tries, he cannot reform himself forever. A murderer, once arrested, might be the very model of justice and truth but the stark reality is that once he is released on parole, he is a danger to everyone in his vicinity. He has struck once and might develop the homicidal urge to strike again. Let me also point out that More killers and rapists are committing another serious crime after they are let out of jail than official figures suggest. This statement has not been fabricated. I request my opponent to read the source I have provided. Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk... So, in totality, the idea of people on parole or probation not committing murder is stupid. 3) The Judicial system is not built solely on punishment My opponent seems to think that death makes no difference to terrorists and murderers and that we should commute their sentences to life. Well, let me tell you, that is a wrong assumption on your part. A few days ago, Ajmal Kasab filed a mercy petition to the President of India after the supreme court upheld his death sentence. Source: http://dawn.com... Secondly, criminologists do agree that the difference made by the implementation of capital punishment isn't great and that it reduces the crime rate by around 3.47%. However, in terms of crimes committed all over the world, that amounts to a drop of around 500000 murders at the very least. Capital punishment saves 5,00,000 innocent lives every year. Conclusion After comparing the quality of arguments provided by my opponent with mine, I think that it should be quite evident that I have successfully countered all his arguments and made my point clear. I certainly do not view the judiciary to be a vehicle for vengeance but even if I did, it wouldn't make any difference at all. The motto of the Indian Jurisprudence is "An eye for an eye" and that certainly is an effective way of delivering justice. Just remember that today, at this very moment when you are reading this, someone may be enduring his last moments. Remember that no one is safe in this crime plagued society. Remember that tomorrow, it might be you in place of that faceless stranger, that it may be your son, your daughter, a member of your family who experiences such torment. But all that stands b/w these faceless assassins and your family is the thin strand of capital punishment. Thank you Back to con.