Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment.

Oh the flaws… An overview of my opponent's last round would show that he has not stuck true to the resolution in any manor. His entire refutation of my arguments basically showed how the "jail" system is flawed and killing them is the better alternative. Well, having two unjust forms of punishments and A) (death penalty) is better than B) (life in jail) does not take away from the fact that they both may be unjust. He is using the ends to justify the means in that he says that the criminal MIGHT kill another while in jail. Who is he to warrant this possibility? Who is he to say that since this might happen than killing this other person is the better alternative? Certainly this may happen, but something else that may happen is my opponent kill me, does that mean that we should end his life? NO… that would be unjust. In reality, my opponent's entire last speech gave excuses toward the use of the death penalty and showed no real reason as to why the death penalty is just. The only important line of arguing is if the punishment itself is just or not. I advocate that the death penalty is unjust and I will prove it through the following line of argumentation… 1) The death penalty is an eye for an eye. --> If an eye is unjust (killing), than why are we doing it? What is the overwhelming reason that we can advocate doing to the criminal what they did to us? It IS like raping a rapist. Someone kills someone so we kill them. That is a good excuse, but excuses DON'T make things just. Death does not give people their due EVER. 2) The due of the killer. --> The killer is due life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The guarantee of each person that is in America. When they go against America's beliefs, then they are due to have those basic rights restricted, NOT taken completely away. They are due the proper punishment (which is not the unjust action of the death penalty). They are due the thoughts of what they did while they rot in prison for the given length of life they have left. My opponent claims that prison is like a vacation, but that is not what we are debating. My thoughts toward what is the true just due for the criminal is a consistent amount of solitary confinement mixed with a necessary amount of regular jail time (It's not my job to determine how much, instead I would put that burden on the judicial system). This would allow for the criminal to re-think and give him the chance of rehabilitation. The point I am trying to make with this is that there are better ways of punishing these criminals. Solitary confinement is an extremely underrated form of punishment. The death penalty is an overrated form of punishment as the only suffering we put them through is like a pinch in the arm. 3) Costs of the two forms of punishment. --> Besides the cost of people's lives being lost, there is a greater cost and that is money. When someone is put on death row, a number of appeals begin being in process (it is a significant part of the process). After these appeals, the amount of money spent on the death penalty in question is around 2 MILLION dollars. (1)"Total cost of death penalty is 38% greater than total cost of life without parole sentences." However, the amount of money needed in order to put someone in jail for life is around 500 thousand dollars (which can be made up through service of the inmate under surveillance). I really don't think that there is any argument against the fact that being in jail for the rest of your life is a greater suffering when compared to the death penalty (pinch in the arm compared to sitting and rotting in jail for the rest of your life). In other words, it is CHEAPER to have the punishment that is of greater suffering. "If you do the crime, you do the time"… You know, there is a reason it says that and not, "If you do the crime, you go through extremely expensive appeals and then get out of it through a 2 minute injection into your arm that has been made to give you the littlest amount of pain possible." It is truly ridiculous when you think about it. My opponent claims that the death penalty is deterrence, but I am curious as to where he warrants this. (1) "Janet Reno stated at a Justice Department news briefing in January 2000 that: "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent, and I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." Although my opponent will probably spend the next round saying all of the things that I dropped and didn't specifically attack… it really doesn't matter. Not because I don't care about his arguments but they just didn't seem to apply to the resolution at all (first paragraph)… I would like to flow through one thing that my opponent said, murder is the ultimate crime. Therefore I would like to agree that we should give the ultimate penalty, and that simply is life in jail. The death penalty is pinch and sleep and DONE and that is it… that is simply unjust. Not to mention that MANY innocent people are put to death, (1) "Over 123 people have been found innocent of the crime they were sentenced to death for." Because of this, I urge my opponent to prove that the deterrence is great enough to outweigh the 123 innocent people. If not, the death penalty IS unjust. Well, I may have not been very specific, but I did cover his "voters" and what I saw as important. (1)- http://www.nyadp.org... P.S.- Sorry if I seem like a jerk. I just feel like being extreme and over-obvious. You're a great debater and I thank you for this round. Good luck round 3! Thanks