The Death Penalty is a just punishment in certain cases.

I would like to begin by noting that my opponent's definition of justice and mine have actually been different, and I will start by making the distinction and the comparison. Under my opponent's system, of punishment equal to offense, a murderer would be killed. Under my system, of liability equal to offense, a murderer would be forced to pay an amount equal to the victim's life, as defined in my opening argument. My first objection to my opponent's system is that it is impossible to follow through on: a murderer of two cannot be reciprocally murdered twice. Therefore, it is impossible to follow. My second objection is that my opponent's system leaves the world worse off and punishes the victim. This is because just amends are not made. Two wrongs cannot make a right, the saying goes. By murdering the murderer, society prevents the only person that can be held liable for his crimes from compensating his victims; instead, the damages must either be paid by the victim, the victim's family, or society through taxation. None of these alternatives are just, for they are punishing society or the victim for the offender's crime. My opponent's objection to my proposed justice system is that "the bounds of law encircle only the offender and victim and therefore cannot extend to the family. " This is reliant on the authority of precedent [1], and otherwise has no basis. Further, one who murders someone also offends the family of the victim and the victim's friends, so my opponent's premise in his objection is false. My opponent also objects that prisoners can be paroled. Under my proposed justice system, an offender would not receive parole for any reason while they still owe the family money, for they are still liable, so this problem is inapplicable to my case. Regarding prisoner escape: My proposed system does not use public prisons, but a free-market labor contracting system involving bidders for offender labor. The companies will be liable for catching escaped offenders and for any damage they may do while escaped, so they will have every reason to maximize containment, and with today's technology, the chance of escape would be essentially zero. My opponent's attempted counterexample is inapplicable to my case, because it occurred under a public prison system, where the government isn't liable for prisoner escape and has no motivation to keep prisoners contained or productive. My opponent's source [2] gives no evidence that prison escape is forever possible. In fact, only one prisoner escaped a federal prison between 1997 and 2001 [3], and it has already been presented why the private system would be even more effective. My opponent makes the baseless assertion that all five of his examples would have been better off using the death penalty. Besides the lack of support in this claim, his comparison pertains only relative to what did happen, parole, which neither side supports. While my opponent would prefer to murder each of the prisoners in each case, I would prefer they be put to productive use under a maximized security prisoner factory, where their sold labor will pay the damages they cause. My opponent lastly presents an argument of deterrence, basing it on a source that shows that this point is, at best, unproven [4]. There is even an argument that the death penalty's existence increases prison murder [5]. The best summary of the deterrence argument is presented by former U. S. Attorney General, Janet Reno: "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point" [4]. == Conclusion == Vengeance is perhaps the most uncivilized of the natures of man: it destroys when it should repair. The death penalty is an instance of such vengeance: the offender is killed, leaving the victim to fix the damage. Capital punishment is never just because liability for damage falls upon the innocent rather than the criminal. My opponent has provided no counterexample, and can he not, for in all cases, amends of any kind are preferable to no amends. Therefore, the death penalty is in no case a just punishment. The resolution is negated. Vote CON. == Sources == [1] . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.slate.com... [4] . http://deathpenalty.procon.org... [5] . http://www.fadp.org...