Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

1. HYPOCRISY The govt should not be held to the same moral standards as individuals...? What standards, exactly, should the government live up to then? Pro also said that "killing is the only crime that warrants the same action." However that is a mere (flawed) opinion - no logical evidence was provided to back that up. A debate is more than clashing views; you're supposed to be convincing of your argument... simply stating your view of what you think is just does not cut it. What if I deem the value of my finger far greater than any monetary value that could be paid to me with cash? Pro said, "No, it does not warrant the exact action. Why? Because no other rights have been violated." Oh really? What about my right to play the piano? What about my right to have all of the fingers that I was born with? What about my right to not feel mutilated every day for the rest of my life? There are a lot of rights that are taken away from someone who has their finger cut off. Further, by killing someone, you are taking away their rights, yes... but this includes the 'right' (or rather the ability) to do bad things too. I also find Pro's next justification incredibly hypocritical/humorous. He mentioned, "According to Beccaria, a punishment is only cruel, not based on the action, but based on how much the punishment exceeds the crime." He then went on to say, "Your idea of cruelty of punishment with the idea of cutting one's finger off is more cruel then the death penalty. This is flawed for it wasn't the idea psoed by Beccaria and the 8th Amendment." Okay... so if Beccaria's idea was that the punishment must fit the crime (and not exceed it), how is cutting off someone's finger exceeding the crime if his crime was cutting off your finger first? It's the same punishment - nothing has been exceeded. It's also the same logic that Pro applied to the death penalty - you took a life, so yours must be taken. Similarly, you took a finger, so yours must be taken. There is no unusual cruelty here, yet the government does not apply the same standard of punishment except when it comes to death. Oh. And Beccaria also said "The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men." 2. RIGHT TO LIFE First off, if only God is capable of punishing one who has killed another, then what gives us the right to take someone elses life? We are not God. Shouldn't we let God's will be done, and let Him deal with judgment upon the accused/convicted according to HIS plan? God did not hire us to facilitate the process of judgment. But anyway, like Pro said - religion is too subjective and should not be a factor in this debate. We don't want to get into all of the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of Christian doctrine, now do we? Let's move on to Pro's definition of inalienable. He said, "It doesn't mean 'cannot be taken away.' It means that we are born with it." Actually, it DOES mean that it can't be taken away. In fact the actual definition reads: not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right" [1]. Regardless, again Pro failed to prove why one must literally forfeit their life if they are convicted of killing another. Isn't the giving up of all other liberties - including freedom - via the sentence of life in prison enough? For this criterion, Pro must explain why the 'government' has the right to condemn a person to death. Saying "since they killed, they have lost their own right to life" is not enough, because I can just turn around and say I disagree. Nothing has been proven or disproven here, thus this point must be given equally to both of us, at the very least. 3. COST My opponent feels that the increased cost of legalizing the death penalty has no value. I disagree. You are imposing an unnecessary expense upon tax payers; by sentencing the convicted to life in prison, citizens would still be protected from the defendant's behavior... for less of our hard-earned money. How is it just to use my money to kill someone for a crime they may or may not have committed? 4. MISTAKES "However, there are no examples that people have been PROVEN to be innocent after they are killed." Ahh, my opponent is wrong yet again. In 1976, Jesse Tafero was sentenced to death based primarily on the testimony of Walter Rhodes and was executed. Later, Rhodes admitted that he had lied under oath, and took full responsibility for the crime that Tafero was said to have committed. There's one. In the trial of Wayne Felker, his case was reopened in 2000 after his 1996 execution -- some lawyers used DNA testing to PROVE Wayne's innocence. At the very least, Felker's case would have been postponed or the charges would have been severely lower had the DNA evidence been brought into play sooner. This is just another of many tragic examples in which innocence was established post-execution. Therefore, this point has to go to me, as there is no way my opponent can deny the truths regarding these cases. For sh1ts and gigles, let's entertain my opponent's questioning regarding justice. He offers an example likening the death penalty to cars (uhm, okay). And my answer to that is simple: those two things cannot be equated, obviously. Why? Pro acknowledges the good that comes from having cars be legal. However there is no 'good' that comes from sentencing one to death. At BEST, the only good that is done is removing a potential threat from society. However that same result can be achieved by locking someone up in prison. Here my opponent makes the claim that justice can ONLY be achieved if the convicted life is taken via execution. But because I may disagree with my opponent's perception of justice, I offer a new contention: 9. PUNISHMENT Say John Doe brutally raped and murdered a young girl. How is giving him a final decent meal, followed by a mere injection any type of justice? Assuming that he will pay for his sins in the after-life is a fallacy -- my opponent has already established that religion cannot be a factor in this debate, and after all, there is no PROOF of an after-life or even Heaven & Hell. Why should I leave JUSTICE up to chance? In my reasoning, I can repay John Doe for his crime HERE ON EARTH by locking him up in (pretty bad) jail conditions for the rest of his life, where he can suffer from his own guilt/boredom/etc. Then if there IS an after-life, God can deal with him there as well. But if there's not, at least SOME kind of definite justice has been carried out. With this point, there is no possible way my opponent can win the justice argument (if we are establishing retribution for the crime a necessary part of justice, which we have). And if he's lost the justice argument, he's lost it all. 5. CORRUPTION Most of my opponent's points have been mere statements regarding his opinion. With this example, I am bringing to light actual possibilities regarding the corruption of law officials. This is not my POV, but rather true-life occurences that happen every day in our judicial system. If Pro actually wishes to debate me on whether or not corruption in the legal system exists, very well (I wish him luck). And my point here is that since corruption DOES exist, we must assume that it would also exist to take someone's life. And since that's the ULTIMATE crime... 6. DETERRENT Pro didn't address my reasoning as to why the DP cannot be a deterrent (i.e. mental illness, crimes of passion, etc). More on this after his rebuttal. 7. POPULAR OPINION Pro's stats don't hold weight against mine; he hasn't provided a source (and I couldn't find it to be true). 8. VALUE OF LIFE Pro's entire argument for this point can be refuted by my rebuttal to Point 1. Also, I'll argue against this further in the next round. * PRO'S CONTENTION Flawed. Why is death the only thing that can be universalized? Apply this (again) to points 1 & 8. SOURCES: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...