Death Penalty

Firstly, I'd like to make a few apologies to my opponent. One, for not showing up for forfeiting the second round; my internet was not working at the time I had to respond. Two, I'd like to apologize for comparing 5% of criminals to 5% of elementary school students. It had nothing to do with comparing the innocence of children to criminals, but rather to get a good mental image of how large 5% really is. With that out of the way, I shall continue. Life without parole may be expensive with the additional costs, but the Death Penalty, in fact, costs significantly more than a life sentence. According to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, the ""additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California"s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually." The Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission says the death penalty in Indiana costs 38% more than life without parole. And the Palm Beach Post estimates that Florida would save $51 million each year by abolishing the Death Penalty in that state alone and using life on parole to punish 1st-degree murderers instead. Contrary to my opponent's belief, we actually use 5 methods of execution in the United States: Lethal Injection is used in 35 states, Electrocution is used in 9 states, the Gas Chamber is used in 4 states, Hanging is used in 2 states, and the Firing Squad is used in only 1 state. So I'm not exactly sure why my opponent claims that the Firing Squad is humane if we're only using it in one state. Although Lethal Injection is the primary method of execution and seemingly the most painless, it is not always that way, according to a study in North Carolina, California, Florida and Virginia. The study reports that "Even when administered properly, the three-drug lethal injection method appears to have caused some inmates to suffocate while they were conscious and unable to move, instead of having their hearts stopped while they were sedated... the typical "one-size-fits-all" doses of anesthetic do not take into account an inmate"s weight and other key factors. Some inmates got too little, and in some cases, the anesthetic wore off before the execution was complete...". This does not sound "100% humane," as my opponent claims. This also brings up the question of if the Death Penalty is Constitutional. It seems to violate the Eighth Amendment, which states that cruel and unusual punishments must not be inflicted. I would also like to oppose my opponent's claim that modern DNA testing can make us "absolutely sure if the accused is innocent, and absolutely sure if he is guilty". DNA testing doesn't always work, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. They quote, "Although invaluable, DNA testing cannot always be put to use. In many cases, because of the nature of the crime, a DNA test cannot identify the murderer. In other cases DNA samples were not collected at the crime scene and preserved in a state suitable for testing today, or DNA testing of sufficient sophistication either was not available or not performed. And most significant, in some cases relevant samples may no longer be at hand because the evidence was destroyed. Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing." I'm also confused at my opponent's claim that "justice is not important," when in the next paragraph, they say it is a "humane means of justice" (which we have learned, using facts and research, that it is not humane, anyways). So to sum it all up, the death penalty is more expensive than life on parole, not always so painless, and not always able to be served to the right people in mind. So why do we still have the Death Penalty?