Death Penalty in Society, does it have a place

"It isn't really a hypocritical theory, it is law. Law is the guidelines for which societies are ruled and it is through these laws that a minimal peace is created. The death penalty is a form of punishment for those who choose to break the law, causing chaos and in this case death. It is a guarantee that someone will never have the chance to commit the crime again." My Response: Ok, then if you universalize my opponents action we should rape rapists and torture torturers. The eye for an eye mentality if very hypocritical. Punishing is not just if done in the same way. My opponents failure on this attack it that by universalizing his decision, he will make it worse then it is. My opponent then mentions incapacitation. Ok, let's kill all criminals so they will not commit the crime again. That will solve everything. "The killing of innocents has dramatically dropped in the past two decades. Those who were once on death row and were innocent have been released because of some of the newest technology; DNA. DNA testing is an almost 100 percent way of checking whether a person committed a crime. Also with the court trials just to figure out whether the person is guilty or not helps weed out the innocent and guilty. So by the time sentencing comes around there is around a 99 percent chance that the person did the crime." My Response: Ok, the checks are good. That doesn't make it 100% fool proof. Even if one innocent person dies, then the government has their death on their hands. Also, what about the people before the past 2 decades? Do they have no human worth anymore? Really in itself by looking at the number of people by "race" is racism in itself. The way I perceive it is that several hundred "people" are killed by the death penalty. By drawing lines you promote racism and a division between races. So ethnicity doesn't matter, what matters is whether a guilty person is sentenced and put to death. My Response: Yes, racism does matter if the death penalty is a tool sued for racist means. The areas in which the death penalty is most frequently used still are rated the highest racist states in the country. Ex: Texas and Louisiana. It is arbitrary, final, and thus cannot be reversed. My opponent has not responded to that fact, thus extend it. "I would like to point out that you have the right to life and all other rights within the constitution but you lose all of them once you severly violate another persons rights. So in this case the inmate violated someone elses right to life under the constitution. Thus the inmate loses his protection under the constitution." My Response: I argue differently. No one should lose their right to life, no matter what their crimes. Also, link this to another point I made. If the government kills an innocent, then they have lost their rights as well. It is a circle of losing rights, it would never end. Right to life is an inalienable right given at birth and ought not to be taken away. "This is probably one of the most black and white arguments in the death penalty debate. It is a moral action because you are terminating the life of some of the worst humans on the planet. If they had the chance they would probably continue committing crimes and harming other citizens. By implementing the death penalty you help make the world a better place and allow people to sleep better knowing that they are just a little bit safer" My Response: Ok, then lets kill all criminals. If society wishes to sacrifice morals for temporary safety, then indeed that society has collapsed. Also, you didn't even refute the point itself, so extend this. The cost for one injection is 86.08, this is a one time usage. To keep one person in prison it costs 74 dollars, for one day. Multiply this by 365 days and by an average life span in prison of 45 years then add all the medical expenses for that life that is total to over 2,000,000 dollars. Now that is at face value 86: 2 Million. I took court costs out because both life in prison and death row are entitled to the same appeals, life in prison just gets then their entire life. So in the end enacting the death penalty more often would save the federal government untold billions which would greatly benefit us in this time of economic downturn. My Response: My opponent is very ignorant by using this point. The reason why less people appeal in jail sentences, is because 90% of the time it was a plea bargain. They have already claimed guilty. Therefore, they don't need an appeal trial. The death penalty cases cost a lot more. This is a fact. "Interesting point but just in the last 4 months the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Baze and Bowling v. Rees. They came to the conclusion that lethal injection is humane and does not violate the 8th amendment. This point adds to why lethal injection should be used more often." My Response: Ok, so what. The Supreme Court allowed slavery for a long time, and was that just? The Supreme Court is a human and fallible institution. Thus, what they say can be questioned. Also, the criminal justice system is a human institution, thus can make mistakes. I.e. kill innocents with the death penalty. His case: Contention VII It has been speculated that the death penalty is a deterrence to crime this has never been proven because the death penalty has never been enacted to the fullest of its ability. So once we implement it to its fullest we can see crime deter because of the fear of facing the death penalty. There was a time in the 70's for 4 years where the death penalty was banned everywhere in the US during this time the murder per capita in the US more than doubled until its reimplementation. My Response: A deterrent effect cannot be proven or disprove. He is using a non-unique argument that doesn't affirm or negate the resolution. All stats contradict each other. Examples: The countries without the death penalty have the lower crime rates compared to the US. I.e. Britain, France, and Germany. Also, Texas who holds the most executions have the highest murder rate in the country. The deterrence point does not affirm the resolution. Thus, you can drop it under non-uniqueness. Even if you do buy his argument, that doesn't justify the use of the death penalty. Safety is important yes. However, safety at what cost. Killing criminals, torturing them, even televising it. Security done with immoral means should not be used in an enlightened society. We must leave this evil mentality behind us as a society.