Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Removed

Thanks, Thett. Opponents Errors: Observation 1: She engages in the classical lex talionis argument in supporting capital punishment. There are several flaws with this: 1) it implies it is a morally just act without any objective moral measuring stick. Through observation alone this type of thinking actually escalates violence instead of quelling it. As Gandhi once said 'an eye for an eye and the world goes blind'. 2) My opponent claims that it is unjust to put the so-called 'benefits' of the accused above that of the victim. What benefits does the accused possibly have sitting in a 6x8 cell for over 20 years? What benefits does the accused have when after trial is over and he is sentenced to death he may also be taken to litigation where the onus of proof is far different? The law provides plenty of benefits to that of the victim and nothing to that of the accused, especially if his life is on the line thus my opponent contradicts herself. Observation 2: Consider the effects this could have upon those individuals who were falsely accused and ordered to death. Also consider the number of appeals that appear within courts to reverse a death sentence and that economical impact upon society; Mr and Mrs John Due Taxpayer pays far more for judges, jury, more expert witnesses, et cetera just to 'be sure' yet slip ups still happen. Observation 3: The state is NOT responsible for the procreation of the individual, so why then shall it have the right in determination the death of the same individual? Indeed, death is never needed. Remember when you were a child? What did you fear most? Your mother yelling and screaming at you? Or your mother giving you the 'I'm disappointed in you' speech? The former causes a fighting response while the latter makes you regret the decision very quickly. Shame is -statistically speaking- far more effective. Observation 4: It would be quite arrogant of anyone to claim that the legal system does not need reforming as I shall show later. Rebuttal: Capital Punishment Deters Crime It does not, I shall show this by objective facts. First, "The murder rate in Canada has dropped by 27% since the death penalty was abolished in that country in 1976." [1] "A New York Times survey demonstrated that the homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty." [2] And finally "84% of current and former presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies reject the notion that research shows any deterrent effect from the death penalty."[3] Logically as well I would like to point out that most of these people possibly suffer from a psychological illness, and thus disregard thinking about the death penalty while committing such nasty acts. Furthermore, if nothing more is death, then as a criminal why wouldn't I just make it worth it and go on a killing spree? In regards to Westley Lowe, that's a subjective opinion and that's it. It should be disregarded as a source, here are his credentials: http://deathpenalty.procon.org... He is nothing more than an author, and because he has no background in law, his opinions are irrelevant to the debate at hand. Her second source she projects as unequivocal objective facts. Yet in her source it's self it clearly shows ambiguity, they do not know the EXACT numbers. Also the article also refereed to other studies showing "in 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and non-negligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions."[4] Thus, in the formulation of a crime you need the guilty mind and guilty action (actus reus and mens rea) so a little thought experiment here: if non-negligent homicide does not require guilty mind then should that individual be liable and put to death for committing a death without intent? If we're drunk and I playfully wrestle with you, only to have you fall down a set of stairs and break your neck should I be put to death? NO. Her sources (5,6,7) can be disregarded outright, as they are nothing more than broken links and thus cannot be used. I shall show ONE superior source, in which keeps inline with ceteris paribusï¿½ as my opponent has asked, here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... The source shows neighbouring accounts of murder-rates to those of the closest non-CP state. Non-CP states have held consistently lower crime rates than those that do have it. While it is true my opponent has a valid claim that the death penalty MIGHT serve as a deterrent, my source also accounts for this that they do NOT take into consideration those of non-death penalty states. Thus her argument is negated with OBJECTIVE FACTS. Other factors may have contributed to decreased crime (I.E Abortion, rehabilitation, social programs). Rebuttal 2: Recidivism While she may claim they were convicted of a felony, she does not take into account those who were falsely accused and killed as a result. My opponent must apologize to the following people she has caused harm too: Steven Truscott – Convicted of rape and murder at age 14, sentenced to death, spent 20 years in prison only to be found innocent. Carlos De Luna – Convicted of stabbing a woman at a gas station, innocent Jesse Tafero – Convicted of murdering an officer, no gun powder on her thus innocent, death by electric chair taking over 13 minutes Salem Witch Hunt trial victims -http://listverse.com... -http://en.wikipedia.org... Finally, what about John Michael Sisco? According to my opponent this man should be heralded as a hero. For he brutally sexually molested, tortured, beat his roommate who was convicted of paedophilia in Toronto. Should this man be set free? - (WARNING! Article is HIGHLY graphic ..what your about to read is barbarism)http://www.thestar.com... Clearly 2 things are apparent: 1) Two rights do not make a wrong, and 2) at the VERY least, death is not the worst thing so why not abolish it? My opponents point is negated. Interesting isn't it? I bet anyone reading that had empathy for a paedophile... Rebuttal 3: Justice Actually the death penalty Internationally, and legally within the US is illegal and unconstitutional. According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights (which the US has signed onto) Article 3 AND Article 5. Stating "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" and "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".[5] The US Constitution holds the same thing in the 8th and 14th amendment. As stated by a US Supreme court Judge William J Brennan "I therefore would hold, on that ground alone, that death is today a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Clause... I would set aside the death sentences imposed... as violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments."[6] The resolution is upheld, and my opponent should exercise some prudence. Illegal, more crime, and morally incomplete, the death penalty should be abolished. I shall show further morality, legality and economically next round why CP should be taken down. Thought experiment here on consequentialism as morality: if the ends justify the means then isn't it immoral to have CP? If we have it, we run the risk of ALWAYS killing the innocent. Without, we do not..thus the ends justify! Thank you! Sources: 1 Amnesty International or http://www.nodeathpenaltywi.org... 2 Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden, "Absence of Executions," New York Times 3 Michael L. Radelet, Ronald L. Akers, Northern Illinois University 4 http://www.cbsnews.com... 5 http://www.un.org... 6 http://deathpenalty22.wikispaces.com...