To be suggested.

1. "his assertion is invalid insofar as the theoretical purpose of any judicial system is to punish the criminal. Society is punishing the criminal because the criminal has violated a civilian's rights. Self defense and punishment are two very different ideals. " In most cases, yes. But in this case, the murderer has committed an act so terrible (one that can be repeated over and over) that there is no other reasonable punishment. The killer has taken away the greatest right, the right to life, and the only justification is to do the same to him. I now re-analyze the definition of just: giving each their due. This is where the "golden rule" comes from: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you want to go kill people, you should be prepared to die. It's only just, anyway; the killer gave someone their "due", so he gets his "due". "Most importantly, my opponent fails to show how life imprisonment cannot serve as a sufficient punishment. " While in jail, you can still murder (other inmates, officers, etc. ). Furthermore, if you have a cell phone or pager, you can give orders to someone outside of jail to kill someone. A judicial system that cannot prevent crime is useless. What is punishment if you didn't learn your lesson? Putting a killer in jail is about as good as scolding a toddler or giving the kid a time-out. "My opponent assumes that we must default execution despite the reason for the murder. (I. E. What if I murder a suicide bomber to save several civilians? ). " I thought I already implied this, but I'll elaborate. The death penalty should only be used in cases of unjustified, first-degree murder, especially if there are multiple victims. In the case you presented, this would be justified homicide. " . . . due to his constant argumentation that include mutual exclusivity between imprisonment and execution within the same society. " What are you saying here, that I mean to either have one or the other? This is not true. What I'm saying is the death penalty is a more efficient and fair way to punish first-degree murderers. "My opponent calls for an "eye for an eye", which means my opponent advocates a position in which society disciplines the accused in a punishment that is tantamount to their illegal action. As I stated earlier, at first, this rhetoric may sound appealing, especially when applied to the death penalty. BUT, whenever this principle is applied to other crimes, like rape and robbery, this "equivalence" punishment is either insanitary or unreasonable. " The best way to teach someone not to do something is to do it to them, and see how they like it. Rape is different, however. You can't just go around raping rapists. I know I sound like a hypocrite, but think about rape. I mean, with killing, at least the victim won't have any lasting, terrifying feelings or an infection, among other things. The psychological effects of getting raped are possibly some of the most unparalleled feelings you can experience. Here are the pros and cons of raping a rapist: + equal punishment - does not prevent them from doing it again - spread of infections - who would be willing to rape someone? There are more, but I'm lazy. .. 2. "Many states, like here in New York, have found a way to take care of this problem. The solution is called solitary confinement, a special form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is denied contact with any other persons, excluding members of prison staff. " I wasn't aware of this (I live in Baltimore, where the crime is not efficiently handled :P). However, they can still kill prison guards. The only solution to this would be to cut off all contacts with other humans. This would be virtually impossible with the number of killers, among other things like the issue of food, mail, etc. And this still does not solve the issue of phones and pagers. (Regular mail can be used to orchestrate murders too. ) "The death penalty does not deter crimes any more than imprisonment, my opponent NEVER argues against this point. " My argument was that while in jail, the murderer can still murder. The death penalty is the only surefire, efficient way to prevent that person from killing more people. A first-degree murderer is generally too dangerous to come into contact with anyone. The basic idea behind death penalty deterrence is this: The person has killed. The person can still kill anyone he comes into contact with. This possibility be prevented by killing the killer. Now, you may argue that by this logic, anyone could be a killer, and so we should kill everyone. However, the murderers have already proved themselves as a danger. 3. "This claim has yet to be properly confirmed because he has not offered you an analysis proving why anyone deserves death. " Just ask the murderer. Why did the victim deserve death? Apparently he had a reason that appealed to him at the time. Since the reason, in his situation and from his perspective then, justified the action (giving the victim his "due"), we can only give him an equal "due" as punishment. "Furthermore, within my this entire rebuttal I offer offered you at least three reasons for as to why the death penalty is an unjust punishment. " You mean these points we're arguing right now? You haven't won those yet ;) "Furthermore, as I stated in my last rebuttal, a just society cannot put someone to death in order to prevent them from committing future crimes. " Only in the case of murder. I still stand by "giving each their due". I have shown why, generally, a prison does no good here. "A just society would not advocate a principle of prevention. A principle of prevention could be used to justify the judicial system to do whatever it wants, just as long as future crimes are prevented. Meaning, we could kill all minorities in order to ensure some future murders would be prevented. " I apologize for not elaborating on this earlier. I did not say that prevention justifies the punishment. I said (earlier this round) that a judicial system that does not prevent crime is inefficient. I did not say Prevention -> Justice, I said Justice -> Prevention. =============================================================================== I urge you to vote Pro, because I have shown why the death penalty is a just and efficient way to handle unjustified, first-degree murder.