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

I thank the readers and the judges and also my opponent, and I have appreciated this opportunity to debate with him. 1. Rights I acknowledge the explanation by PRO - that it was supposed to be from the prisoner's point of view. Well, that is sort of obvious, because of course, in the prisoner's eyes it isn't going to be good for him to lose his freedom. But from society's point of view it is VERY JUST to throw him in prison. My opponent still could not seem to bring himself to state that throwing a criminal in prison is a "just" thing to do. PRO clearly did not show why it was NOT "just" regarding a criminal being thrown in jail (whereby his right to liberty was taken from him). This makes it clear that rights can be revoked through the law as penalties. .. to be meted out upon the guilty to the extent that they have offended. This is what a JUST society does. It matters not whether the right to be taken away is property, or liberty, or life. These are within the scope of authority of the law and are justifiable. In response to quote by PRO: ". .. my opponent has failed to refute the main point that capital punishment is more unjust than life imprisonment. " --> I would say rather that PRO has failed to show why life imprisonment is more just than capital punishment. It is not CON's burden to show that anything needs to be changed. The status quo already allows the death penalty, and the burden of proof is on the instigator to show some reason why that policy should be changed. PRO has not met that burden, while in the meantime, CON has shown that capital punishment is completely just, making it certain that this point is rebutted completely. ===================================================================== 2. Costs A. I am glad my opponent finally (grudgingly) acknowledged that there was a benefit in having capital punishment. "This is a very small benefit which is outweighed . .. " --> Well, any family member who has had someone murdered by a convicted murderer who was out on parole for some reason wishes they had that "VERY SMALL" benefit so that their loved one was still alive: Also the actual dollar costs are disputable, for example, in this realistic scenario, capital punishment is much cheaper: Cost of Life Without Parole: Cases Equivalent To Death Penalty Cases $34,200/year (1) for 50 years (2), at a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus $75,000 (4) for trial & appeals = $3.01 million Cost of Death Penalty Cases $60,000/year (1) for 6 years (5), at a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus $1.5 million (4) for trial & appeals = $1.88 million . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... (1/2 way down page) But why should money even be a factor at all when considering that people's lives hang in the balance? This contention itself is a minor point if it is a point at all. If there is even ONE life saved because a convicted murderer was given the death penalty rather than allowed to murder again then I would say that the small difference in cost was worth it (if it even would have cost more in the first place, which is disputable). What is important is that a just society chooses to do what is RIGHT regardless of the cost! ====================================================================== 3. Innocents Well. .. .Cutting right to the heart of the matter here: 1. "No determination of guilt is infallible. " --> "No imprisonment system is infallible, there would always be a chance for a convicted murderer to murder again. " -->The imprisonment system has a 99.5% accuracy rate. The court system, at least when it comes to murder, has closer to a 90% accuracy rate (see previous rounds for data). " -->In reviewing the sources from PRO it has been found that the source DPIC used by PRO in Round 1 is a questionable source: Opponents claim that 69 "innocent" death row inmates have been released since 1973. ("Innocence and the Death Penalty", Death Penalty Information Center, July, 1997). Just a casual review, using the DPIC's own case descriptions, reveals that of 39 cases reviewed (Sec. A, B, & C, pg. 12-21), that the DPIC offers no evidence of innocence in 29, or 78%, of those cases. Incredibly, the DPIC reviews "Recent Cases of Possible Mistaken Executions" (p 23-24), wherein they list the cases of Roger Keith Coleman, Leonel Herrera, and Jesse Jacobs - 3 cases which helped solidify the anti-death penalty movements penchant for lack of full disclosure and/or fraud. For the fourth case, therein, that of Coleman Wayne Gray, the DPIC makes no effort to claim innocence. Furthermore, the DPIC and most opponents fail to review that the role of clemency and appeals in such cases is to judge the merits of death row inmates claims regarding innocence and/or additional trial error. Indeed, the release of those 69 inmates proves that such procedures worked precisely, and often generously, as intended. Also contrary to opponents claims, clemency is used generously to grant mercy to death row murderers and to spare inmates whose guilt has come into question. In fact, 135 death row inmates have been spared by clemency or commutation from 1973-95 (ibid. ). This represents 43% of the total of those executed during that time - a remarkable record of consideration and mercy. . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... (under letter A. 3rd and 4th para. ) PROs other source (in Round 2) admitted that in 1998 there were 6,530 prisoners in the USA who had escaped from state penitentiaries in that year. Since that was the year chosen by PRO it was probably a "good year" for keeping prisoners in, the number could very well be much higher if other years were examined. In my opinion (and hopefully the readers and judges opinion as well) that is too many convicted criminals that have been allowed to escape. The simple fact of the matter is (quoting myself) "there would always be a chance for a convicted murderer to murder again. " 2. ". .. my opponent has illuminated the fact that my own perspective was unreasonable. Point 1, though, still stands. Furthermore, the killing of a person, even a felon, is not a justified response to a minute chance of that person killing someone else. --> actually that is an EXACTLY JUSTIFIED response to a murderer, it is the taking of a "life for a life" this is the DEFINITION of justice. 3. "I have given a number as to the prison escape rates (0.5% and dropping) while my opponent has offered no citation. " --> CON will now add in some other statistics for comparison: "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives. " (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153) Using a 75% murder clearance rate, it is most probable that the actual number of lives saved would have been 1026, or fifty times the number legally executed that year. This suggests that some 10,000 persons have been murdered, since 1971, by those who had previously committed additional murders (JFA). See B.5. . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... 5. "And just to be safe, we should execute every person who even has the chance of ever murdering someone. " --> a key distinction needs to be made here, don't execute EVERYONE! , only the CONVICTED MURDERERS! !! because they have proven themselves willing to murder, and able to murder, AND they are guilty of already murdering an innocent victim. ================================================================= I congratulate my opponent on putting up a formidable defense of the resolution. I would, however, have to conclude that the resolution has been negated.