Death Penalty

Thank you to mongeese for presenting this debate. I look forward to a good one. Resolved: The death penalty should be used at times as punishment for a crime. I affirm the resolution. All rights reserved. First, I will give refutations of my opponent's contentions to the use of the death penalty, then I will argue in direct support of the death penalty. 1. Financial Cost ---------------------- My opponent argues that the cost of death penalty trials and appeals make the death penalty impractical as a punishment in comparison to the lower costs of non-capital trials appeals. On the face of it, this assessment is correct - it does cost more, as evidenced by his source. However, this contention is not with the idea of the death penalty itself, but rather with the expedition of justice in our legal system, and to a lesser extent with the salaries of public counsel, the amount of luxury given to American prisoners, and the amount of rights Americans are at-large are afforded. (The scope of the debate is, I would assume, wider than the consideration of America alone, but this is the most convenient and pertinent example to use, as well as the sole concern of this contention of my opponent.) If justice is to be served, and the purpose of the death penalty (or any other punishment) is to see to that, then financial cost is, first and foremost, irrelevant. This is necessary for there to be any notion of "justice" (http://dictionary.reference.com...) to be possible. Suppose A murders B after planning it for five years, and C steals D's wallet. A and C are taken into custody and charged with their respective crimes, capital murder and theft, on the same day. Both are found guilty during their initial trials. For C, justice is relatively swift and uncontroversial - D pays restitution to C and serves a nominal sentence, perhaps six months in jail in addition to a year of probation. For A, justice necessarily requires more time if it is to be administered with proper rights afforded to the accused, as in this case justice requires the ending of a life by the state and thus requires closer scrutiny, which naturally takes longer than considerations regarding imprisonment only. Justice here is what is prescribed by the state as the proper punishment for a crime. In our legal system, the death penalty is a possibility as a punishment for certain crimes. Therefore if justice is the end sought, and the death penalty is the proper punishment for a crime, or justice, then each case must work its way through the system until that end is achieved, regardless of the means. 2. Risk ---------- My opponent here argues that the death penalty is too "risky" a form of punishment to be in use, in light of the fact that a person convicted of a crime may be found innocent at some future time, and if they have been executed, they cannot be released. I would respond that if the convict cannot prove their innocence, by whatever means, with the ample amount of time and resources provided to them by the system and evidenced by the contention of cost already mentioned, then they are guilty and thus deserve their punishment. Certainly, the convicted should use DNA evidence - a technology which should help expedite the trial and appeals processes, as this this would cut much of the cost already mentioned. My opponent quotes the ultra-liberal ACLU: "In the U.S., as of June 2002, 108 people including 12 death row inmates, have been exonerated by use of DNA tests." First, there were nearly 7,000 people under the death sentence in 2002 [1]. That only 12 had been exonerated by DNA evidence since it began to be more widely used, circa 1986, [2] hardly constitutes "risk." Second, if there have been some errors, mistakes in distribution do not necessitate the repeal of the death penalty. Does the fact that 96 people sentenced to other punishments than the death penalty had been exonerated by DNA evidence mean that their respective punishments are too "risky" to be in use? Hardly, if "risky" means such a high probability of being incorrect that the odds do not favor taking the risk. In that sense, the death penalty is far from risky as well. =============== I have affirmed that the death penalty should, at times, be used as punishment for a crime. As it already is a punishment, the status quo is with me. As the instigator and reformer, my opponent bears the burden of proof. Therefore, let me simply say this. The death penalty should probably not be used as much as it currently is. It does not follow, however, that it should not be used at all. Trials and appeals should be handled more expeditiously if possible; neither is this a reason to not put to death those deserving of such punishment. Some criminals deserve such punishment, and justice requires that they get it; if the criminal deserves the punishment, it would indeed be unjust to punish them in any other form. This in itself is reason enough for the death penalty to be used in certain cases. 1. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...