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

A society is not "acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good" unless there are no criminals. But since there clearly are criminals (hence the resolution), my explanation will be accepted. If this is to be a point of further contention, I ask that my opponent explain why idealism is in this case superior to realism, or if there is even a distinction. ======== 1. The Right to Life A. My opponent has not given reason why it is just to revoke fundamental rights, but has only committed the bandwagon fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...). To elaborate on my original point, I would argue that imprisonment, while unjust, is sometimes necessary for the protection of society. Life, being the most fundamental right, should not be revoked unless absolutely necessary for the wellbeing of society. Since life imprisonment still has the same effect on society as execution, I contend that a life sentence should always be administered instead of the death penalty. B. The topic sentence of this subcontention is a false assertion. Taking away the murderer's life because the murderer took away someone else's life will not help the murdered person in any way. As a great visionary once said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." My opponent is equivocating justice with revenge. Since Merriam-Webster defines justice as "the maintenance or administration of what is just", my opponent is claiming that murder is a morally upright response to murder. It may be state-sanctioned killing, but it is murder nonetheless. Punishment in terms of revoking rights is not only immoral, but unhelpful. The role of prison is not to deter crime; there are much more effective ways of doing that, such as torturing criminals. But what prison truly excels at is separating criminals from the external community, thus protecting society. Punishment is not an effective deterrent to crime (http://www.slate.com...). I do not see how the quote is relevant. ======== Contention 2: The Costs of the Death Penalty A. In a direct sense, my opponent is correct. But indirectly, it is unjust to spend taxpayers' money on a punishment that has not been shown to have any advantages over a less expensive alternative. B. I assert that life without parole is cheaper and more humane than the death penalty, so capital punishment is unnecessary. Furthermore, only about 0.5% of prisoners (and falling) escape, and even fewer escape from federal prisons -- out of 115,000 inmates, only one prisoner escaped from 1997 to 2001. (http://www.slate.com...) And either way, these are reparable flaws with the prison system and do not support use of capital punishment but instead vouch for improvements of the penitentiaries. I fail to see how it is just to kill a murderer. Will it give the victim his life back? I think not. My opponent's primitive sense of justice is disheartening. Also, my opponent seems to never have heard of solitary confinement. This can be utilized for prisoners who are especially dangerous. ======== Contention 3: Execution of Innocents A. No determination of guilt is infallible. Execution of an innocent is never acceptable. B. These types of evidence are not flawless, and my opponent has given no citation as to their accuracy. There will always be innocents who end up being executed, no matter the system. The only way to solve this is to get rid of the death penalty entirely.