This House believes the Death Penalty should be Abolished

My case:Contention One: By murdering someone in cold blood you forfeit your own right to live. Pro did not respond to this argument, so I extend it into next round. Contention Two: Justice must be done. I would say that yes, the only way to deliver justice to a convicted murderer is to kill him. The crime is irreversible, so the punishment should be, as well. When a murderer kills an innocent person in cold blood, he doesn't just remove his freedom. He robs that person of all of their future experiences, plans, etc. A convicted criminal may have restricted freedom in jail, but they still get to experience life, limited though it is. The murder victim will not. Contention Three: A dead murderer can't repeat their offense. Pro's argument about how an innocent person who is killed can't live their life is irrelevant to this point. Also, his quote by Justice Blackmun is simply an appeal to authority. I can find quotes by justices who support the death penalty. Sure, there's a chance that they might find someone else's DNA at the crime scene, but they wouldn't necessarily just find a random piece of DNA (such as someone's eyelash) and use that to prove the person it belongs to committed the crime. Certain pieces of DNA evidence (such as fingerprints on the murder weapon) would be more relevant than others. Plus, DNA evidence would be used with other pieces of evidence, such as eyewitness accounts, possibly a signed confession, etc. Even if you argue that innocent people might be killed, that doesn't show that capital punishment is immoral in practice. What if there is no doubt? What if the person confessed, was pointed out by several eyewitnesses, his fingerprints were on the gun, and the bullets definitely came from his gun? Finally, a convicted murderer in prison may not have many chances to kill, but the chances would still be there. Plus, escaped convicts are rare, but criminals still do escape from prison. Pro's Case:If someone was wrongfully convicted of murder and spent 20 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit, he doesn't simply get to "come out" and watch his ledger being wiped away, then do whatever he want. If he was married, chances are his wife has left him. He no longer has a job. He likely doesn't have a house, car, or really anything left to his name. He has to essentially build up his life from scratch again. It seems like according to Pro's logic, we should do away with life imprisonment since there's the chance that an innocent person will be incarcerated. In fact, who's to say there aren't innocent people who have served life sentences who were never exonerated? Capital punishment is not about "teaching others not to kill. " It's about administering justice. You don't punish someone to teach others a lesson. You punish someone because they have done wrong. Capital punishment should not deter someone because it shows them killing is wrong, capital punishment should deter someone because they don't want to commit a crime and be killed for it. Pro says that most murders are done in the heat of passion, but has offered no evidence of this. So I don't know if it's true. As per first round rules, this argument should be rejected unless Pro can support it in the next round. Pro has dropped his argument about capital punishment being more expensive than life imprisonment, which is fine since it's not an argument I made, anyway. He has also dropped his argument regarding the time frame between the crime and punishment. Conclusion:I have supported my three contentions in my argument (in fact, Pro did not respond to one, so it is extended). Plus, I have shown how Pro's arguments don't work to show that the death penalty should be abolished. I look forward to our next round.