The Death Penalty

As my opponent as presented his defense, I'll respond to it after I share my opening statements, as that's the structure I've presented. Here are my opening statements.A. Our Unalienable Rights In The Declaration of Independence, we see this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." [1] According to The Declaration of Independence, we are born with unalienable rights and we must secure these rights. One of those rights happen to be life. The Government shouldn't be able to take life through capital punishment as unalienable rights may not be taken away. [2]B. CostThe costs of a death row inmate are far higher than the costs of any other prisoner. Seattle University found that it costs $1 million more for a death penalty case than a case where a life sentence is the verdict. This is because of the costs for defense, prosecution, multiple trials, etc. [3]This isn't unique to Washington though. California has spent more than $4 billion in death row since 1978 and they spend an additional $184 million a year. It's estimated that taxpayers in California pay $90,000 more per death row inmate. [4] California can save $1 billion every five years if the death penalty is abolished. In turn, if these states were to get rid of capital punishment, they'd save a lot of money.C. InnocentsNo matter how good the defense is, we can never know for sure if someone is innocent or guilty. 144 people have been released from death row after being proven innocent. [5] They were the lucky ones. It's estimated that 4.1% of executed inmates were really innocent after further further investigation. [6] This proves that even though it's a long process to sentence someone to death, it isn't a flawless system. When you make a mistake in a life sentence, you can always acquit the person and they'll be free. If you kill someone then you can't do that; they're dead. D. Racial PrejudiceWhile some may argue that the severity of the crime you commit is a large factor in your sentence, race also takes hand in the verdict. "While white victims account for approximately one-half of all murder victims, 80% of all Capital cases involve white victims. Furthermore, as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims." "In April 2001, researchers from the University of North Carolina released a study of all homicide cases in North Carolina between 1993 and 1997. The study found that the odds of getting a death sentence increased three and a half times if the victim was white rather than black." [7] This shows the prevalence of racism and how it can affect your sentence. This makes for an unbalanced system that favors one race over the other. E. It Doesn't Provide ClosureMany of those for the death penalty provide the argument that it gives closure to the victim's family and helps the coping process. In fact, only about 2.7% relevant cases bring closure [8] because the aspect of revenge was later contemplated by the families. In the case of the Boston Marathon Bombing, the remaining culprit Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death. Only 15% of Boston residents wanted him to be executed. [9] In another story, two parents who lost their 8-year-old son urged against it in an open letter. [10] "We understand all too well the heinousness and brutality of the crimes committed. We were there. We lived it. The defendant murdered our 8-year-old son, maimed our 7-year-old daughter, and stole part of our soul. We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives. We hope our two remaining children do not have to grow up with the lingering, painful reminder of what the defendant took from them, which years of appeals would undoubtedly bring." [11]In other words, they knew it would cause trauma to those who lost family in the bombing like themselves. It only extends the grief rather than cure it. In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished. Too many factors are involved with the sentencing, those that you wouldn't see in any other case.Now here's my response to my opponent's defense.In what 19 crimes is the death penalty just? Is this a fact of your opinion? Is there any source for this information? Sense you haven't brought them up, we don't know why or how it's just. Just - based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. [11]Just is a subjective term, as is right or wrong. Again, we don't have the list of these 19 crimes so we can't sufficiently examine whether or not they're just. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttals. Citations[1]http://www.archives.gov...[2]http://www.dictionary.com...[3]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4]http://deathpenalty.org...[5]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[6]http://www.newsweek.com...[7]https://www.aclu.org...[8]http://deathpenalty.org...[9]http://www.bostonglobe.com...[10]http://www.bostonglobe.com...[11]http://www.google.com...