Capital punishment is justifiable

On to the debating. .I'd like to note that my arguments are not to justify capital punishment as a whole. In fact, I believe the system, as most states have it, is inherently flawed, can be discriminatory, and has to high of a risk of killing innocents. However, that is completely separate from the issue of specific instances being justifiable or not— which his resolution deals with. My opponent has not argued this concept and has made blanket statements of overall capital punishments opposed to using my contentions to uphold specific instances. But first thing is first, upholding my case. * Upholding motion #1In my opponent's rebuttal of my first motion, he produces a number of graphs that illustrate a very important picture in today's debate. My graph presented above was to illustrate the affects of the death penalty on capital crime after the fact, and my opponent's graph intended to create a side by side comparison of states with & without the death penalty in present time. When we're studying the effects of a specific punishment on crime you don't look at the total crime while you're first implementing the punishment, you look after the fact to see if the punishment worked. In my opponent's first graph, a truth is revealed contrary to his overall message. Though his graph has no label on it's y axis, I'm assuming it has to do with a number of times something has happened in those years. A brief examination (with the knowledge that one is supposed to look at the future effects on present punishments when considering deterrence) of his first graph will reveal that the following years showed a drop in overall numbers, which is what my graph was showing. What's important to note is that he said that his second source upheld the idea that his 1st source stated, which is the death penalty only enhances crime, but it actually disagrees entirely. You can see that his graph doesn't accept this notion, his graph shows that crime/punishment went down in the following years. So, my opponent's 1st and 2nd sources are at complete odds. What my opponent's 2nd graph neglects to accept is that the time period of the 1950's-the late 1960's is in a time period that was historic for civil unrest. Taken into consideration, it is no surprise that there will be more crime during civil unrest than there would during the honeymoon phase. His 3rd graph, about handgun crimes, only illustrates that we live in a culture that glamorizes violence. That is no surprise and is accepted as the truth by both my opponent and I, however handgun crimes have nothing to do with the policy I've set forth with administering the death penalty. I set forth a criteria for administering the death penalty, one that was adopted by the state of Massachusetts, and it only accepts specific crimes that apply, not just murder crimes. *Upholding Motion #2I set forth the criteria for which punishment is to be met, according to our criminal justice program, and my opponent has completely sidestepped the idea. The purpose of our criminal justice system, as defined by the US department of Justice (Source #2 in my first round), is to allow for rretribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. When dealing with terrorists who target thousands, serial killers who target children and those who apply torture to their murder victims, only 2 of the 5 criteria can be met: retribution & deterrence. My opponent has completely disregarded the idea in it's entirety to focus on one portion of the idea. My opponent's entire side of the debate is to essentially equate capital punishment with murder, and deem it wrong because the actions are the same. This, however, presents a false equivalence—a mad man is not the same as a madman, and retribution for family members is an important part of our criminal justice system. *Upholding Motion #3My opponent states that I have used an argumentum ad populum fallacy, in considering the opinion of others in a democracy. The problem here is that, "argumentum ad populum," is Latin for "appeal to the people," and the job of a democracy is to do just that. As I've shown, and my opponent's evidence has agreed with, is that deterrence does play into the equation overtime. I've also shown how capital punishment is an essential part of our criminal justice system. What lies next is the combination of the two deeming the act moral, and the final question presented the act to the people for the voting. That's not appealing based only on numbers excluding all other factors, that's showing that in some instances it is justified because it saves innocent children from being tortured & murdered and it deals with terrorists in a way that our government (voted on by the people) see fit. My opponent has decided, in his latest round, that expert opinions reign supreme on the subject of capital punishment. But I ask, who's more of an expert on the study of crime in the field than law enforcement personnel and police chiefs? In the most extensive survey ever done on the matter, it is concluded that though capital punishment was ranked #7, it made the list of deterrence against capital crime by police chiefs nationwide. It should also be noted that 92% of all police chiefs surveyed nationwide stood in agreeance with the acceptance & legality of the death penalty. [1]"I appreciate the passionate beliefs of people on both sides of the death penalty debate. I fully understand the concerns and deeply held convictions of those who would like to see the death penalty abolished in Connecticut. However, I also fully understand the anguish and outrage of the families of victims who believe, as I do, that there are certain crimes so heinous — so fundamentally revolting to our humanity — that the death penalty is warranted. " ~Mary Jodi Rell, 72nd Governor of the U. S. state of Connecticut. [1]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...