The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

In closing, I'd also like to extend a thanks to my opponent for a very healthy and intensive debate. To make a final address to our winding contentions/objections: 1&3. Here we basically agree that the underpinning issues are 'neutral', except that I contend that all things neutral, I have the advantage as it would mean no reason to actively change the laws to make what is currently legal, illegal, has been established. One part I do not believe is neutral, and goes to my arguments favor, is that capital punishment better suits the concept of justice than does life-imprisonment, drastically so. The idea of someone being able to live, in despair or even in possibly in enjoyment, after robbing someone else that right completely, is an utterly reprehensible disservice to the victim, to society, and an inequity of punishment compared to the crime. To murder someone is literally to rob them of everything, the damage is infinite and unfathomable, and any quantity of time they are allowed to exist on earth is a violation outright of fairness. It would be like sentencing someone to two weeks of community service for burning down your home, except infinitely worse. 2. This is certainly the strongest argument made against capital punishment. Do innocent people currently die in our system? Yes. What can we say about these cases? It's first, difficult to tell for certain, as once an execution is performed, there is seldom a bother to spend resources in any further investigation, but glancing at the list of what few innocent people *known* to be innocent and have been executed, and the list of exonerated death-row inmates, there is a very common theme found: 20+ year old crimes turning up reliable DNA evidence unavailable at the time[1][2]. Bare in mind, it seems as though it can be the case that one's innocence can indeed be proven (not to say the onus is on them to prove it), so does it not follow that guilt can be proven as well? If this is the case, if even in only a tiny fraction of cases, it's sufficient to say this argument succumbs to itself when thought out. 2b. Another thought worth mentioning in respect to this: All punishment inflicted by the legal system is permanent, and unretractable. No amount of time we may put an innocent person in jail can be undone. 20 years spent on death row is 20 years that can never be given back, even if found innocent. The advantage of life-imprisonment in this case wouldn't be that anything could be 'undone', but further punishment staved. This is the crux of the argument, which isn't something I strictly disagree with, for because of this its clear whether you support the death penalty or not that reforms to the standards in court needs to be improved. However, again, I do contend that its utterly conceivable that guilt can be proven (lest we believe that nothing at all can be proven), and that a court can be permitted to recognize such a proof, and following from that, there is absolutely a time and place where a death sentence is appropriate. 4. On the figures you offered: I don't imagine anyone believes the court system should be 100% about cutting costs at the expense of justice, and it would seem only a very impractical cost should be avoided, one that would literally be worth investing that amount of money in other things and accept perverting justice. Looking at the data you provided, even the most expensive system is about 1/10 of 1 percent of California's GDP, or 200 million to 2 trillion[3]. Are these the horrible numbers that make it so unthinkable and outrageous to pursuit? And don't forget that the money spent on these systems aren't thrown into a void, they stimulate a very valuable sector of our economy and provide useful jobs to judges and trial lawyers. Let's re-evaluate now some of the high-lights: Does tDP bring justice?: Yes (+1) Does LiP bring justice?: No Does tDP, limited to empirical and rational *proof*, kill innocent people? No Does LiP, kill innocent people? No Does tDP cost negligibly more in an unfair system? Yes (+1) Does LiP cost more in a fair system? Yes When carried out, can tDP be reversed? No When carried out, can LiP be reversed? No (see 2b above) (+.5) In closing, without being too overbearing with a summary of everything you've only just read, The death penalty is the only proper ethic response to a murder. The burden of proof is paramount, though not insurmountable, and when it is done, there should be empathy, no anger, no pity or any such thing for the murderer, just a humble leveling of things he or she could not come to respect in others; a quiet removal of the worst possible type of person from our midst. For this, I ask you vote 'CON'. [1] http://www.aljazeera.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...