The death penalty should be illegal in the united states.

1. Established and done. 2. Obviously you cant read. This is what I stated in defence:: This is not true. The death penalty is not yet a permanent solution, and has obviously had some "issues". Here are a few. - Most of our allies in the war on terror have abolished the death penalty and believe it to be a human rights violation. - Many countries refuse to cooperate with extraditing suspected terrorists to the United States for prosecution until they receive assurances that the U. S. will not seek the death penalty - Finally, serious racial and geographic disparities have been identified with the federal death penalty and these problems have not been addressed. So I am saying there has been debates on the death penalty and it is not yet permanent; thus it has problems. above I named a few. in defence to this, you are saying that what I said is "irrelevant" and refuse to come back with an argument that is defending that the death penalty is "the solution" to justice. Thank you. 3. "Do we stop other processes of the justice system because they can be wrong 10 or more percent of the time? " This is not what we are talking about, we are debating the resolution The death penalty should be illegal in the united states. Could you point out where I said 95%? ? I stated that 2.5 to 5% are wrongfully convicted but could be as high as 9%. If indeed I said this in contention 4, could you keep a little bit more organized so the audience doesn't get confused. I will state again, that even if the %ages have decreased, this does not mean that the problem goes away, or this is any less of a problem. 4. No, you didn't say a handful of people die from DP each yet? here is the whole paragraph I've copied and pasted for you from round 3. (second line first sentence) (4. ) As I said in the last round (which my opponent ignored), the continuation of point 3 noted in point 4 is as follows -- Only a handful of people actually die from the death penalty each year. There are A LOT more murders and homicides committed than the number of actual people who make it to the end of death row. In this case, we have to implement the philosophy that we should choose the approach which achieves the maximum amount of justice, even at the sacrifice of a few (Utilitarianism). Plus, as I said, with technology and other advances, our likelihood of killing an innocent person is far less than in the past. I also said that one had about 20 years to overturn a wrong conviction because it takes that long for the person to actually be put to death. Pro said that you can't overturn the conviction once someone is already dead. .. but like I said, they have over 20 years to get it right. You also said "the figures add up to exact 'Fail. ' We established that the sources are irrelevant, because they are statistics about how many people have been executed by the death penalty, instead of how many have been wrongly convicted. In round four I came up with a statistic that confirmed how many people have been wrongly convicted. (below) "In a small random DNA sampling, University of Michigan Professor Samuel Gross found that, of Death Row cases, 2.5% to 5% are wrongfully convicted but it could be as high as 9% . http://www.amfor.net...; Next time, keep your information organized, because while you are attacking arguments that have already been Resolved. .. .they were also "yesterdays arguments" posted way back from round 3. You have already attacked and I have already resolved. Moving on. Also, I am not saying that you should let a murderer or whoever roam the streets. (since we are now attacking arguments from round three, I will present my own. ) In round three, contention 4, you stated You cannot let a convicted murderer roam the streets free on the basis that the verdict might have been wrong. I never said that would solve anything. In the 3rd round you said that the victim had "20 years to get it right. " In response, I said that in jail, the convict would have no opportunity to get it right because they are, in jail. 5. No, not the whole argument, took your advice and stopped copying and pasting. 6. Done away with contention six. 7. Even if you state to leave them be would be immortal and dangerous to society, you still avoided the question. I assume you support the death. 8. . .. .. . 9. When you deprive another of a life, it is the ultimate crime and injustice. I did not ask you if the death penalty achieves justice. I asked if you think that the death penalty is excluded from depriving another one of life and if it is the ultimate crime and injustice. (I implied) Nice debate interesting. Learned a plethora :].