The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

(Before I do anything else, my opponent and myself have agreed to withdraw rule five from this debate). I thank my opponent for his refutes, although I must ask him to cease his ad hominem attacks against people who are anti-death ("dishonest...anti-death penalty zealots") - it comes close to a breach of conduct. Contention 1: Innocent Executions. My opponent and I agree that at least two people (the Meeks) were wrongly executed. My claim that "The US government has executed innocent people before" I will change to: "The US government has probably executed innocent people before." I will also point out that existence of facts are not always helpful, for example: Claim: Alien life probably exists. Fact: There isn't a single documented case of alien life. That's not evidence to the contrary; that's appeal to authority. The same can be said for: Claim: The US government has probably executed innocent people before. Fact: There isn't a single documented case of a wrongful execution in the United States. I appreciate that my claim has changed slightly, but nevertheless, I thought pointing that fact out isn't evidence to counter my refined claim. As for my three examples, I will say one thing, and give another. I will say: My opponent appears to cite his opinion on case one and two. (In three, he consents). In one: "For me, this is a case of the media..." In two: "I am far from convinced this is a case of an innocent man being executed." Opinion does not equal argument, and there is enough evidence to suggest that these people weren't guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, which is what the American sentencing system runs (at least in part) on: "beyond a shadow of doubt"[1]. So, whether guilty or not, these people should not have received the death penalty. I will give two more examples of probable wrongful sentencing and/or executions. 1) Johnny Frank Garrett[2]. 2) Jesse Tafero[3]. My opponent states that detaining someone is legal kidnapping because you are holding them against their will by force. This does make it legal kidnapping. I fail to see the point? I am stating facts here, nothing more. Execution is legal murder. They both end in killing of a person, one is legal (execution), one is illegal (murder). Therefore, execution is legal murder. If my opponent wants to contest the objective logic - and not the moral context, which I wasn't stating at all - I would invite my opponent to do so. My opponent states that: "a lack of perfection is hardly a basis for abolishment". I agree. My point is that this lack of perfection results in (probable) innocent deaths occasionally and when compared to alternatives that don't allow for this error of "we killed an innocent", it has no reason to continue on these grounds alone. Which is better? a) No room for innocent deaths at all or b) A little room for innocent deaths? (When referring to the same outcome - justice. Clearly, in things like roads, a little is preferable, but this is because it is backed by a host of reasons that completely trump alternatives). "Claim: But there is also potential for death row innocence, too. As of 21st December 2012, 142 inmates on death row have been released. It is clear from this that the possibility is high that some of our criminals weren't really criminals; they would have died alone, in disgrace, and innocent." I will consent the word " high" and edit it to "...possibility remains that some of our criminals...". I was referring to the fact that many cases close due to lack of funding and reason - across the board of all convictions every year and that from *everything*, the possibility is high. I apologise for the phrasing; it did seem like a ridiculous statement in that context. I extend my refined arguments. Contention 2: Cost. My opponent ran out of characters, so I'll extend the contention. Now for new contentions. Contention 3: It fails as a deterrent. It has been consistently demonstrated how the death penalty is not a deterrent for murder over alternatives. Every year between 1991 and 2011, without fail, the total murder rate in death penalty states has been higher than murder rates in non death penalty states[4]. While a punishment should not be for a deterrent alone; it should be in part. This part, is not met with the death penalty. You get scratched by a cat as a punishment (in a sense) for annoying it. The scratch serves as a deterrent in part; you are deterred from annoying the cat again. Well, it doesn't work with death, apparently[4]. Contention 4: It violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. The 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents the use of "cruel and unusual punishment". People can be executed in the following ways: 1) Shot by firing squad. Or 2) Poisoned by lethal injection. Or 3) Poisoned by gassing. (A little like in Hitler's concentration camps). Or 4) Electrocuted by electric chair. Or 5) Neck snapping/asphyxiation by hanging. Now "cruel" is defined as: "causing pain or suffering".[5] It is painful to be shot, poisoned, electrocuted, or to have you neck snapped, or choke to death. The death penalty causes pain. It also causes suffering by waiting for your death, particularly by lethal injection. Therefore, the death penalty violates the bill of rights. Now, my opponent didn't cite his sources because he ran out of characters; I will assume he will cite them in a comment or in his response(s). I am sure, though, that my opponent can appreciate that should he fail to do so, I will be forced to assume that he cannot back up his statements that need sources. But I'm also sure that won't happen! :D That's all for now; I will add more contentions in round four! Until then, the floor's open to my opponent. Take it away, my friend! Source(s): [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.skepticaljuror.com... [3]http://www.theguardian.com... [4]http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5]http://oxforddictionaries.com...