Resolved: A just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

So after two rounds of nonsense, my opponents saves his conclusion to introduce what look like arguments. These are really really bad arguments and I'm not sure if they even warrant addressing... but here goes. The first argument is thusly: "people form societies to preserve themselves and the death penalty preserves them from murder. Not only does it protect the lives of citizens it saves the children as well. They might get paroled and destroy another family!" If murdering somebody would prevent another murder that is self-defense. If somebody comes at me and tries to stab me, it's only right that I can defend myself with whatever force I need to protect myself. Nobody would argue with this. If killing somebody is a protective action then there are a plethora of arguments to use. However, we're talking about people who have been on death row for a decade. They aren't about to kill somebody and there is no change between locking them away from society forever and murdering them. Paroles don't accidentally occur. We can lock them away forever. We aren't taking that off the table. People in prison are harmless to me. Murdering people is wrong. --- Secondly, my opponent finally argues that tyrants must be killed. He oddly uses the example of the only society that comes to mind as being better off when a tyrannical bloody tyrant was in charge. If Saddam were not killed but rather sent to the Hague to stand trial and be imprisoned... Iraq would not be less unjust. It wouldn't matter one jot as far as Iraq is concerned. Saddam's hanging was poorly executed, cruel, unneeded, the result of an extremely questionable court system, and still murder. --- Thirdly my opponent argues that the Death Penalty prevents lifetime imprisonments. Murderers fill our stressed out prison system. They might escape. Sometimes they are released. Lifetime imprisonments fail to give people their "due". Death Row and murderers are a small fraction of the population. The majority of prisoners are non-violent drug offenders. If you let out the potheads and sent the tweakers for treatment, you'd easily free up room. It is cheaper to house a person for their entire life than to go through the court battle which ensues trying to have them put to death. They don't escape. Name a murderer who escaped prison. Go ahead. Name anybody who has? I mean here and there a long long time ago... but we're really good at the locking them away bit... especially the murderers who get no leeway. As for the claim that they are released, I'm not concerning myself with that. What if a person, in passion or greed did kill somebody and we were sure he wouldn't do it again? Should we honestly lock a person up forever who won't commit another crime? There are some people on death row in jail for murdering their husbands who came to beat them again... is such a person actually a risk to society? Is murdering that person a just end for a just society? Is a needle in their arm their due? ------ For the readers of this debate, I'm sorry. I thought it would be better too. My opponent seems to have just wasted time some claiming repeatedly that just societies must murder people before finally coming up with some really bad arguments in his conclusion. It's cruel, barbaric, unneeded, expensive, ineffective, and wrong. Killing people is wrong. Innocent people get rounded up in the system from time to time and taking their lives, just as taking anybody lives, is a travesty. We lock them away and throw away the key. They are not a danger to society. Further, a lot of his argument stung of eye for an eye mentality. That a just society is one that gets revenge. If you hurt somebody we'll get you! You kill somebody and you get a torture chamber. We'll make sure you get your comeuppance, we'll give you your due. My opponent's view of a just society is a barbaric society. I suppose if we get rid of the death penalty we'll be among the ranks of the unjust societies of the rest of the westernized world... and if we maintain killing people as a punishment, we can count ourselves among the just societies of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Lebanon, Mongolia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Vietnam, and Yemen. Our justice will be the envy of every hangman and execution, and rights abusing country in the Axis of Evil. -- What the hell kind of nonsense arguments were these anyway? There might be better arguments in favor of the death penalty, but we saw none of those here. I oppose the death penalty because I am always against killing people, in all cases at all times... the fact that the death penalty is an unmitigated disaster, cruel, unneeded, expensive, poorly executed, shunned by just nations and embraced by the worst of human rights abusers is secondary to my opposition. Killing people is wrong.