This House believes the Death Penalty should be Abolished

Thank you for agreeing to this debate. So here I go. First, I would like to state that the death penalty is an act of murder. It is the act of taking someone's life away forcefully, which is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. The crime of murder (or other serious crimes such as kidnapping) carries our harshest of sentences such is our disdain for the crime. However, the death penalty is nothing more nothing less than "legal" murder carried out in a cruel and calculated manner by the state. Secondly, the death penalty cannot be reversed once carried out, which raises a number of issues. These serious flaw issues have again recently been highlighted in a report by the American Law Institute. Judges and juries do make mistakes. No legal system in this world can boast of cent percent discipline when it comes to crime investigation. There are chances that lack of proper investigations may land a wrong person in the conviction box, and even send him to gallows. One also has to understand that execution of an individual cannot be rectified if the person was found to be innocent after the execution. On the other hand, a person serving a life term can at least be set free once his innocence has been proved. There are indeed such cases where the "criminal" is innocent. Since 1973, more than 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the US, due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. Imagine what would have happened if their lawyers did not present the evidence in time. Sometimes innocent people cannot be saved. I quote from David Dow, Texas death penalty lawyer, author of "Autobiography of an Execution". He said: "Learn about the Michael Richard case. He was mentally disabled. On the morning of his execution, in 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on the constitutionality of lethal injection. Lawyers in my office scrambled to file a petition for Richard raising the issue, but he was executed because we did not finish by the time the court closed at 5. The court would not stay open late for us. I think if we had been able to get the petition filed, he would still be alive today." If the death penalty did not exist, Michael Richard, an innocent man, would have been alive. Justice Harry Blackmun was 85 years old and near the end of his tenure on the Supreme Court when he declared in 1994 that he could no longer support the imposition of the death penalty. "The problem," he said, "is that the inevitability of factual, legal and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution." I quote from Anthony Graves, a man who was exonerated from Texas' death row in 2010: "I know how easy it was for them to take my freedom and set out to kill me. I feel that if it was that easy, I"m sure there have been many mistakes in the past, that many men and women on death row are innocent. It"s not an infallible system. Anyone can be sentenced to death for a crime they didn"t commit. That alone is a reason that the death penalty should be abolished." He says that it is highly possible that an innocent man could be put to death for a crime he did not commit. That is not only injustice, but also cannot be reversed.. There is no way to give a person back his/her life. Now, you might say I only quoted from the people who would gain from abolishing the death penalty. Let me quote Bob Curley, who lost his son to murder: "When something like this (the murder of a loved one) happens, you feel violated, and your sense of what"s right and what"s wrong gets thrown out the window for a time. It"s not something that you get over, and there"s no closure. I have channeled my anger in a positive way by working to prevent child sexual abuse, and the death penalty convictions of innocent people." Even he, a person who lost his son to murder, worked to prevent death penalty convictions of innocent people. Those people would most likely have been charged with crimes such as murder. Influenced by his loss, he probably would have stood on the opposite side, but did not. You cannot say family of victims of murder like the death penalty. Some of them say the bloodshed is not a way to honour their beloved's life. (Please see: http://mvfhr.org...) Thirdly, the death penalty is unfair. It is not fair of the state to murder the murderer when it does not rape the rapist or burn the house of the arsonist. If death penalty is legalized on the grounds of tit-for-tat concept of justice, then all other crimes should be punished accordingly. Those in favor of capital punishment also ask why the taxpayers should have to take the burden of housing a convict, and providing him with the necessities of life. Instead, executing him will save a decent amount of money, which can be channelized towards the development of the nation. However, I would like to point out, as I mentioned above, what if the person was innocent? Can money give him back his life? I do not think so. Also, the cost of death penalty is actually higher than the cost of letting a criminal live. Most of us fail to realize that executing a death sentence does not save a lot of money. This is because, the cost incurred prior to and during the trial, involves an endless stream of appeals, legal wrangling, etc. For such trials, special motions and extra time for jury selection are required. Investigation charges also rise exorbitantly, especially by the prosecution. Lawyers and judges need to be paid, as well as simple things such as electricity. Thus, a lot of money is used during the process. Some also say that the death penalty stops people from killing. I think otherwise. Most murders are done in the heat of passion, wherein a person fails to think rationally, so to think the fear of death penalty will reduce homicides is unreasonable. If the government wants to send a message that killing is wrong, how can it convey the same by killing a person? Killing to convince people that killing is wrong, doesn't sound right, does it? "An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind", is what Mahatma Gandhi said. Death as punishment for death is not the solution. A murderer who has mercilessly killed people once, may escape from prison and end up killing others. Life imprisonment means chances of parole, which gives the criminal a chance to get back at those who testified against him. He can also take revenge from the victim's family. This leaves the victim's family living a life of fear all the time. Death penalty ensures the murderer can commit no more crimes in the future. That, however, does not mean we must keep the death penalty. Couldn't life without parole be considered? That can also effectively stop the criminal from taking revenge or murdering again. Is the death penalty really that effective? The time frame between the sentencing of convict and his actual execution is quite lengthy - at times spanning a decade or even more. By the time this execution is carried out, only a few people (mostly the victim's and criminal's family members) keep a track of the trial. As time elapses the deterrence effect of sentencing a person to death starts decreasing. Even those in support of death penalty agree with this fact, and argue that the legal fraternity should speed up such trials and execute the convict at the earliest so that the deterrence effect as a consequence of death penalty is maximum. But then, speedy trials would again mean more chances of an innocent person being sent to the gallows, and that is something which we can't afford to do. I look forward to hearing your arguments and rebuttals!