Capital Punishment Is Justice Best Served Swiftly

As far as the inefficiency notes are concerned, we both agree that they are essentially irrelevant; as such, they will play no part in the debate. One thing before we begin: notice my opponent's slimy tactic here. "Now that someone has indeed accepted the debate, I can reveal the statistical support for my arguments". My opponent has clearly adopted a strategy based in deception and omission. Conduct point to Con. Now then, on to the good stuff! (And I appreciate my opponent's conformity to my numbering/lettering format) 1. Morality a. The assertion underlying my opponent is making is that murdering another man is a forfeiture of the right to life on the spot; if this were the case, then any law abiding citizen would have the authority to take the murderer's life, as he would have forfeited that right. Remember that, according to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be deprived of life (among other rights) without due process first; this means that a man doesn't automatically "forfeit" his rights. On top of that, my opponent still fails to prove the legitimacy of the status quo; a court may decide on the death penalty, but that is hardly adequate justification. Responding to murder with a second murder is hardly moral; again, two wrongs do not make a right, regardless of the legality. b. On my analogy, Pro argues that I shouldn't compare human life to material things. A couple of arguments here: i) First of all, I'd like to direct you to Pro's 4th argument, *WHICH HE DROPS*: he argues here that the death penalty is justified because it is saving money that would otherwise be used for life imprisonment; if anyone is trying to put a dollar value on human life, it would be Pro. ii) Pro also mistakes my intentions here. I am simply saying that, while "proportional", so to speak, murdering a murderer makes as much sense as stealing a thief's possessions. Proportionality =/= Justification. c. Pro's response validates my point completely. Both Pro and our "justice" system would condemn these men to death without providing a chance for contrition, repentance, or redemption. Pro is making an entirely unwarranted generalization about murderers which presupposes a mental capacity inadequate for rehabilitation. The cynical mindset of the justice system is what needs to be put to death. 2. Retribution a. Pro ignores the main argument that I'm making here. The purpose of the justice system is, ideally, to make an impartial decision - not to satisfy the lust for vengeance possessed by the victim's loved ones. The "bonus" of satisfying the family is hardly adequate reason to support the death penalty. b. Pull through the Bazemore evidence, discussing how the victim (or the family) is peripheral in the process, so a retributive system of justice can't advocate something based on the level of satisfaction enjoyed by the family. 3. Deterrence a. Sure, I'll grant my opponent that there's a correlation; however, we all know that correlation doesn't imply causation, especially considering the maelstrom of recent evidence that I provided in Round 1 suggesting the opposite of Pro's claims. My opponent's graph might just come down to this: the decrease in violent crimes in NON-death penalty states could simply outweigh the increase in murder rate in PRO-death penalty states. That would support the data from both of our sources (as executions rise in death penalty states, violent crime rates fall in non-death penalty states), but the argument overall would still go Con. b. After reading through Pro's evidence, I came upon a most interesting quote regarding these so-called "findings": "'We just don't have enough data to say anything,' said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were 'flimsy' and appeared in 'second-tier journals.'" Look at the evidence I've provided here. 88% of expert criminologists concur that the death penalty doesn't deter violent crime, despite what these "flimsy" studies might suggest. c. Pro's response here has nothing to do with my argument, which was that, when faced with the death penalty, would-be murderers often adopt this "go-for-broke" mentality, since they have nothing left to lose, and no opportunities to look for once the death sentence is given. As far as the response he makes, I've already given a situation above that satisfies both his evidence and mine, showing that this argument goes Con. My multiple pieces of long term evidence show us that states with high murder rates didn't just recently "revert" to the death penalty. The trend is clear, and it supports the Con position. 4. Cost Again, I would just like to point out that Pro has dropped this entire argument. Don't allow him to come and "pick it back up" in later rounds. To briefly recap: a. Ethical justifications are not based upon economic gains (especially noting my opponent's earlier argument that human life cannot be compared to material goods). b. Even law enforcement admits that the death penalty is "the least efficient use of taxpayers' money". c. Refer to all of the statistics I posted in Round 1, all showing that the use of the death penalty is actually far more expensive than the maintenance of a LIP inmate. 5. One Other Thing a. Once again, we notice that my opponent's logic is flawed, and he draws huge non sequiturs from his misrepresentations of findings concerning the death penalty (findings which, may I remind you, were conveniently and deceptively omitted from his Round 1 arguments). If you want reliability in evidence and reason, you'll vote Con here, too. In conclusion, Con clearly has the conduct, argument, and source points (Spelling and Grammar hasn't been an issue thus far). You might not think so, Pro, but I would contend that this debate has already been decided. In spite of that, good luck in Round 3. :)