Death Penalty

There are many flaws in the argument above.My opponent is using subjective statements instead of facts in some cases. Lets take a look at the first source in your first argument in round 2. That source is full of subjective statements that have no statistical proof. According to your source, "The Death penalty is barbaric and uncivilized". Actually it is the other way around. The death penalty establishes order and keeps things organized, while barbaric would be to let things go unorganized, unpunished. The statement that the death penalty is barbaric is a very subjective statement and should be completely disregarded but as a mere emotional standpoint. Now, my opponent states that "the life in a prison is horrific and is much more intimidating than death." Well this is very untrue. For terrorists and other extremely dangerous criminals, prisons are not very nice, and neither should they be, but the average jail/prison is quite comfortable. Full working electricity, toilets, tv, weight room, a bed, air conditioning, these are things that different prisons have. How is this horrific? Numerous homeless people commit a crime in order to go to jail because there they would have a bed and a solid three meals a day, but yes that is a jail and not a prison for there is a difference. You must remember, many criminals come from poor backgrounds and poor conditions anyways, a lot of these people are use to violent and unsanitary conditions, so prisons must be worse than real life and if prisons are so terrifying, is that why the majority of criminals are repeat offenders? In source 1, that article is a complete manipulation. Read it, it says that U.S. prisons are worse than prisons in Guantanamo Bay, lets take a look at what the prisoners in the Bay have. " In addition, inmates have free access to a state-of-the-art gym, a number of movies they can watch in the on-site media room, various newspapers and books, and even video games." It then goes on to state that U.S. prisons do not have these luxuries. So are you implying that U.S. prisons should allow of these things? Things that many American families cannot enjoy? In that article there is no evidence that alone states the horrific conditions, it just compares it to the Guantanamo Bay conditions, which are extremely comfortable. That article more states that conditions in Guantanamo are way to relaxed.You are also missing the point of prisons, prisons are a source of punishment, they are suppose to be somewhat bad, but saying that living in an environment where conditions are controlled, meals are basic, etc. is worse than death? That's not even comparable. My opponent stated that injections can be painful because sometimes the vein is missed, this is a possibility anytime you get a shot or any type of injections and the ratio in which the vein is missed to where the vein is hit is relatively small, so not many people "suffer" through that pain. My opponent stated that death penalties take up a lot of court time in which another manipulation has occurred. If someone was being sentenced to life in prison, this would also take about the same amount of time. Either way, the court will take a very long time. You say that criminals actually do not have that much time to get their personal affairs in order. Your rebuttal is incorrect. Criminals have plenty of time to get their affairs in order, it does not take a lot of time nor a lot of effort to do so, a few phone calls and arrangements and all is good, the people he killed did not even have a minute to say their goodbye's. You state that too many people are wrongly executed, here's what you're missing. In one source, 2 people went to go commit a crime, one wanted murder and the other for drugs. I'm not gonna explain it all other people can take a look, but in the end the man who went for drugs was executed because the man who actually killed the people testified multiple times that the other one helped. In one of your other sources a man was accused and sentenced to death in 1993 and then another investigation was put in place and he was found guilty again! And finally in case three a man was found to be illiterate after his death and if the jury had known so they would not have found him guilty.Point one, in case one the man who was executed was planning on committing a crime in the first place, but was caught in a bad situation. It's HIS fault he was going to go commit a crime anyways. He shouldn't have been doing that in the first place, he caused his own death. Point two, in case two it proves nothing. If an investigation was done and he was found guilty, then 14 years later found guilty again, obviously there is information in the report that was enough, for only one but two convictions. That case does not state enough of the case to make a fair assessment of what actually happened.Point three, if an entire case can go on and a man be illiterate and it was never discovered then his attorney along with himself need some work, because if that is such a main point it would have been discovered and noted. How did that man sign any contracts having to deal with his attorney? That story seems a bit shady. Point four, all three cases state very little facts and only tell one side of the story and does not show what each prosecutor used as his case, therefore on all of these cases it's a little unfair to just take the articles word, always two sides to one story.Point five, on all cases people lied about their testimony, blame society for that. The court simply rules on the amount of evidence given and then it's done. If people lie then it's not the death penalty being "misused", the court decides based on soul evidence whether the accused should be guilty or not guilty. Another point to make on all cases. You state that it is a much worse punishment to stay in prison for years than to be sentenced to death. In some of these cases, these people were found not guilty many years later. So if death is better than prison, is it not better that they were executed because death is not nearly as bad as prison according to you, is that not correct? Because it would be torture to stay in prison, correct? These people didn't have to "suffer in the horrific conditions of prisons" isn't that right? Instead they died, and that's not nearly as bad, so be happy that they didn't have to suffer, isn't that your view?You asked me to explain justice. Justice in the court of law has no emotion. It is a firm and fair punishment to a crime. Justice is when a criminal is punished for his crime due to being convicted becuase of evidence. Would it be justice if someone was sentenced to death and it was carried through, but yet someone who commited the exact same crime lived just because a family didn't want him to die? No that is not fair and nor is that justice. Justice has the same punishment for everyone, no exceptions.You have a concern that race comes into play and that minorites are more likely to be sentenced to death than whites. This is not true. In the court of law everything is based on evidence. Cases all throughout history, even during extreme racial times were still favored to the minorities because they had the most evidence. The statement that vrace comes into play is once again a subjective statement. I also want to go right back to the point that you say prison is so much worse than death. So if these minorities are being sentenced to death and thats wrong, you would rather them be sentenced to life in prison? Your statement about racial affairs is saying that the entire justice system is corrupt and that again is a subjective statement. I have run out of room for the rest of my argument and all of the sites i used, i do apologize.