capital punishment

"if a man has been brutally murdered for whatever inconsequential reasons, will his family be satisfied by watching the convict rehabilitate and one day coming out and ENJOY the sunset or for that matter see his children grow? " This is far too personal, and the law should never, and does never, allow personal emotions to get in the way of what is right and what is wrong. It doesn't matter whether or not that one family finds solice, what matters is that murder is not morally right, and that Governmentally sanctioned mass-murder of criminals is even less-so. "life imprisonment is not putting somebody behind bars for the rest of their remainder life. the imprisonment is not even for a major chunk of his life. " This is a problem with the justice system; it is not an argument for the death penalty. My opponent is essentially saying that because a Judge gives a life sentence, and that 'life sentence' doesn't even take a major chunk of the criminal's life, that we as a society should murder the criminal. This is clearly wrong. Besides, if the judge deems the crime so heinous as to warrant and ACTUAL life-imprisonment, he can hand out several consecutive 'life sentences', which will ensure the criminal never does see the light of day. "YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW. . this five word dictum just about sums evrything up. the criminals must realize that to be fit to survive in the society again is to pay back with what they have taken. " My opponent's assertion here seems to be that if a man takes a life, his life should be taken. So why don't we extend this notion to ALL crimes. .. someone breaks into your house, his punishment is that you get to break into his. Someone rapes your daughter, he must be raped. And so on. It is at best impractical, and at worst barbaric. It brings to mind the phrase that 'an eye for an eye just leaves everybody blind. ' "giving them a chance to repent and improve themselves is out of the question as even innumerable efforts by them cannot make good the loss. " My opponent has provided no argument as to why a criminal should have the chance to repent, improve themselves, serve their punishment, and once again become useful to society. This is clearly a much better alternative to taking a human life, and my opponent has not attempted to show otherwise. "we should take a leaf out of the book of the Gulf countries, where harsh punishments are meted out to as trivial cases as a petty theft. there at least the people there think twice before putting their toe over the line. " My opponent has not provided any proof for the assertion that harsh punishments for trivial crimes is good for a society. If my opponent is talking about the Gulf countries I think he is talking about, I don't think we should be taking civility lessons from them. "but in rare cases like murder, rapes, terror strikes, etc. the law should not bat an eyelid before sending them to the gallows. people's faith in judiciary will also increase when they realize that the law empathizes with them and has given the harshest punishment possible to the guilty. " Cases of murder and rape are by no means 'rare', and the biggest problem with sentencing somebody to death is the flawed nature of the justice system. Innocent men are sentenced to death all the time, and this is the true unspeakable crime. It is amazing to me how people view a person killing a person as 'cold-blooded murder', but a group of people killing a person as 'what needs to be done'. My opponent has again asserted that the death penalty is 'the harshest punishment possible', but I provided several good arguments in Round 1 to show that a life in prison is far harsher a punishment on those truly deserving of it. My opponent failed to argue these points. I have made several points to show that capital punishment is really no punishment at all to the one deserving of it, and these arguments have all gone unanswered by my opponent. I have also argued that murder is wrong, no matter who is doing it, and that due to the fallibility and corruption evident in our justice system, they are the last group of people who should be given the legal right to murder.