A just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

Considering the fact that my opponent has absolutely no case and simply tried to attack my case, this may be a little more difficult. However most of my opponents arguments are simply inapplicable to my case. -Death penalty is only given to people who have committed heinous crimes. Crimes that are so grave and the only commensurate punishment is Death penalty. Really? because executing individuals is a form of the death penalty and basing what you said on the status quo, would not all the innocent civilians in Darfur and Chad then have to be criminals in order for your statement to be true? Next, who decides which crimes or actions merit the death penalty? I never stated in my case that life time imprisonment would equal justice, however i also do not agree with the my opponent when he says that rapist can be given the death penalty. The only way to ever even attempt to justify the death penalty is through equitable justice. Killing rapists is not equitable justice, in fact its so unreasonable that you would in theory have to "Rape the Rapist" for justice to be served. My opponent said that there has been no proof or evidence of a societal breakdown due to division on the death penalty. Um, im pretty sure that many states in our immediate domestic areas are in the supreme court going over cases that determine whether they ought to use the death penalty on rapist as my opponent states. What is there primary division? beliefs from two separate parties. Nelson Mandela stated that without unity division will corrupt, it is obvious that in time the death penalty will lead to a form of societal breakdown. That doesn't mean the "walls of Jericho" have to fall but in that it causes individuals to separate even further, and since something that isn't united can break apart, thus my point. The supreme court recently rejected the request for a rapist in Louisiana to be put to death. My opponent states many times in his case that the death penalty is rightly used on rapist, murderers and ETC! I would like my opponent to explain himself on which of these crimes of ETC are deserving of the death penalty. This is what my opponent stated about my previous arguments: The state has no right nor power to punish a person For that person has a right that the government should protect. So then, if thats the case, lifetime imprisonment should not also be applied. For it takes away the liberty of a person. Liberty is a right. So in lifetime imprisonment the state oversteps their boundaries. SO in his logic, there should be no punishment since "Punishment" does effect or over ride rights. Again, where in my case did i say anything about lifetime imprisonment? On the punishment argument, I simply stated that since the death penalty is not a form of punishment seeing as how it is not temporary. It is instead an ultimatum. Lastly my opponent said he proved that justice is upheld when we give the "right punishment." Who is it again who decides that? We see in all instances across the world that the "right punishment" differs in opinion. So how is it to say that the death penalty, universally accepted, is the right punishment for as my opponent states rapist, murderers ETC. Since my opponent has failed to provide any of his own arguments and thus far failed to prove that the death penalty is under a moral pretense, you must vote Affirmative.