The death penalty should be abolished

Thank you for your arguments. Counter-argument (CA) 1: You posit that if keeping society safe is the ultimate aim, then life imprisonment (LI) "isn"t the right option but the right option" (?). Your reasoning also is unclear. I can only assume that you perceive LI to be a more "humane" method of dealing with serious crime, because it does not involve taking a human life. There is a serious flaw in the logic here. Both the death penalty (DP) and LI involve sending a person to his death. The difference is that the DP almost always does not inflict unnecessary pain on the death row inmate (especially in the case of death by lethal injection, see Source 1) LI, on the other hand, condemns a prisoner to a torturous lifetime in prison with the presumed end that he/she would die there. It is assumed that these prisoners would die of old age the way the rest of society would. This could not be further from the truth. In 2009, 303 people committed suicide in American prison and 488 people died of disease. Given that you value human life so much, each of them is akin to sending a prisoner to a painful death. In prisons in England and Wales, in 2014, there were 60 deaths in prisons related to suicide and homicide. Clearly, prison is no more painless or humane a way of dying than is the DP. Sources: 1.Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) 2.U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. . 3.inquest.org.uk. INQUEST, n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. . CA 2: You say "you cannot compare his survival to money". The demand of LI, is that the average taxpayer pay for the living costs of someone else. I assume that you are quoting the U.S. Constitution, when you say that all human beings have the right to life. If that is the case, then I would put to you that all human beings also have the inalienable right to property, and if this property is being used in a manner that benefits other people unnecessarily, then it so follows that they are also unfairly being deprived of their right to their property. I would request you to substantiate your response, if you insist on making an ethical argument. Prisoners do not pay enough tax to cover the cost of maintaining a prison, the balance is still paid for by the taxpayer. That point is irrelevant. "A nation has enough money if its economy is doing well to invest in research and other things." I was merely giving examples of public and merit goods, which governments invest in whether or not the country is in good or bad shape. I would remind you, that the rate of crime increases when the country is in bad shape. That being the case, the marginal cost of prisoners increases, because each one adds to the list of people who are not contributing to the maintenance of prisons concurrently. Reform programs are in effect in prisons. As I mentioned in my opening arguments, prisoners sent to their death are deemed to have close to zero chance of reform. That being the case, costly reformatory programs are not wasted on them, and are instead tailored towards those with a higher chance of reform, including those not on death row. "Everyone can contribute to society" As I have mentioned in my opening arguments, this is factored in during the judicial process that sends a person convicted of a capital crime to his death. Your point is also largely self-defeating. If in fact you are advocating LI in place of the DP, then there is still no chance for people to "come out and change the world". If that is not what you are advocating, then I look forward to examples of people convicted of capital crimes that have returned from prison and changed the world. 3. If someone is willing and able to commit murder, as you say, without a second thought, then I am very sceptical about any chance for reform. The DP serves as a deterrent not to all types of crime, but specifically the ones you have mentioned: premeditated crime. Your rebuttal makes very little sense. I presume that you are referring to genocide, in your example of the president of a country. In such a case, the crime is committed nonetheless because the President does not expect to be held accountable for his crimes, by virtue of his power. You may notice that this is the case almost exclusively in dictatorial regimes, such as the Sudanese or Cambodian genocides. The DP does not serve to deter crimes of passion, for example, but this is accounted for in the judicial process. Studies have shown that the DP has a deterrent effect and even that between 3 and 18 innocent lives are saved by each execution, by deterring potential criminals. This effect is most pronounced in states where criminal execution is swift and sure. It must be noted, that many states fail to see the effects of the DP precisely because the long-drawn and uncertain nature of it eliminate the strictness of its effect, and leave the prospects of being executed relatively vague to the potential criminal. If it is true that there is a deterrent effect, then to still favour abolition of the law is to prioritise the lives of criminals over the lives of innocent people who are killed by them. This cannot be any better than DP itself. Sources: 1.Mocan, H. Naci, and R. Kaj Gittings. "Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences And The Deterrent Effect Of Capital Punishment*." The Journal of Law and Economics 46.2 (2003): 453-478. Print. 2.Liptak, Adam. "Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate." The New York Times [New York City] 18 Nov. 2014, New York Edition ed.: 11. Print. CA 4: I am surprised that you would dismiss my point as "highly amusing". I might remind you that countries do not legislate by quoting Mahatma Gandhi. To make the distinction clear to you, practically any punishment is unconstitutional if given to an ordinary citizen. Imprisonment, for example, denies a civilian his fundamental right to liberty. Your point, unsubstantiated as it is, makes zero sense. Statutes have an exception clause saying "right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice". These distinctions are drawn by courts. I will substantiate my own points nonetheless. I quote Ernest van den Haag, late Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University, as saying the following: "Execution...is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of." This might convince you that my point is not irrational. Sources: 1.Johansen, David. Property rights and the constitution. Ottawa: Library of Parliament, Research Branch, 19911992. Print. 2.van den Haag, Ernest. "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense." Harvard Law Review 1986 (1986): -. Print. CA 5: What you are suggesting once again is increasing the tax burden on the taxpayer, thereby punishing the taxpayer economically, for a crime committed by another person. It is a fundamental tenet of justice that one does not pay for the crime of another. Yet you advocate exactly this. CA 6: "The crime rates in Singapore have never been scarily high". You are mistaken, Singapore"s had high crime before legal reforms in the 1950s-60s. I took Singapore as an example, because it allows examination of DP without the multitude of pressures that affect legislation and judicial proceedings in large countries (e.g. national ideals) that are not universal. As mentioned earlier, deterrence is not observed in USA because the process of implementation of the DP is long, drawn out, and open to appeals. States such as Texas which have implemented swifter measures have seen pronounced results. Source: 1.Singh, Jarmal. "COMMUNITY POLICING IN THE CONTEXT OF SINGAPORE." The United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI). N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. . I thank my opponent for his arguments once again and anticipate his responses. I have defended and hence reiterate all my original points.