Capital Punishment should not be Used as a Punishment in the United States

Alrighty, in this round, I'll be going over the contentions presented and showing that I win every single one... Hobey ho! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro Contention 1: Safety Basically what my opponent is attempting to refute is that there is not a correlation between death penalty states and non-death penalty states. This is false. Just because you have evidence that says there is a rise and fall of homicide rates that followed a similar pattern means nothing. It just means there were more in this year, less in that year, and so on, and so on. What my opponent obviously doesn't see is in point A when Van Wormer says 'the AVERAGE homicide rate in the twelve states prohibiting the death penalty is considerable lower than the AVERAGE homicide rate in the thirty-eight states where execution is legal. THE EFFECT IS INTERACTIVE.' This clearly states that violence causes violence. I'm afraid my opponent cannot argue with an expert of the field on this one. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro Contention 2: Deterrence Apparently my opponent does not understand credentials. My opponent is a college student, whereas my source is a Ph.D, has written numerous articles and books, and has been a professor... (http://www.uni.edu...) It's obvious who you should listen to. If Van Wormer says this is happening, it's probably happening. There are even 25 case studies provided, not to mentions those not provided. 'Most people are not so violent and lacking in regard for human life that they would by psychologically capable of doing such a thing on purpose.' This would be a valid point... if we weren't talking about criminals. I think we can all agree that criminals do not have the same mind-set of what is right and what is wrong as the average American. 'Just because a former director of the State Department said it, it doesn't make it true.' Regardless, he is an expert of what he does. We must trust his opinions. {Case Studies} 'As I said, situations such as these are entirely possible. However, they are obviously the exception rather than the rule'. These situations are not only possible, they are true. All 25 of them. And when we stop these criminals we are stopping deaths of the future victims, not only ones they have already killed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pros Contention 3: Justice Now, there are two points I would like to state in accordance with this contention. a) My opponent didn't even touch the victim's justice and the justice the family of the victim is due. b) Notice I do not say all murders are like this. I believe that even if we are able to save one life, we are doing a good deed. Banning capital punishment saves the lives of potential victims. This is justice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cons Contention 1: Safety a) In cases when a person is unstable enough to kill again, they are put in solitary confinement. This helps with the worry of inmates being harmed. b) It is at the point in which society is unsafe where we must look at the safety debate. My opponent worries about the safety of inmates, whereas I look at the safety of innocents and the public at large. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cons Contention 2: Justice a) A murderer should be punished in a way we know is going to work. We have no idea what life is like on the other side. But we do know what solitary confinement is like, what prison is like, and the effects thereof. We get justice for the criminal by forcing him to stay in jail. b) You still do not look to the victims and the victims' families justice. I provide for this, and this is why I win the justice debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cons Contention 3: Cutting Expenses a) As I said before, we know what prison is like. They may get food and shelter, but it is a horrifying experience, no matter who you are. Jail is made to keep criminals away from innocent people. This is something that is generally agreed upon. We must protect innocent people. b) "They get free food, shelter, legal counsel, and medical care while the poor sleep on the street, starve, and die of disease." While this is true, the poor have an opportunity to better themselves through hard work and devotion. People in jail are stuck where they are. This is a huge difference. They may have food, but it isn't good. They may have shelter, but it is cramped. They may have legal counsel, but a lot of the time it is a lawyer working pro bono who doesn't care one way of another. And even the poor can get medical treatment of some sort. c) Either way you look at this issue, it is obvious that the cost-benefit analysis shows innocent people staying alive (PRO) versus taxpayer's money (CON) that PRO wins every time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCLUSION!!!! All in all, one thing is obvious; innocent human lives are always held at a higher standard than anything. When we jeopardize this with an anti-deterring punishment, we are pushing this standard down. This cannot be allowed to happen! Vote PRO!!! Thanks