The Death Penalty Ought to be Banned

Closing Remarks: Why do humans organize into societies? Some would say the foremost of the duties of the government is to protect the life. And in essence, this is what capital punishment is about. Looking from the prospective of the United States, does our capital punishment protect the life of our people or take the life of our people? Before we begin, my opponent slipped this statement into his arguments, hoping it would go unnoticed. "In the US and China, the death penalty is legal, and in China, it's a powerful deterrent to crime." - Irrefutable fact." And then he just goes on as if by calling it a Irrefutable fact, it would become so. That the death penalty is a "powerful deterrent" to crime is NOT an irrefutable fact. Just because my opponent wishes it was an irrefutable fact does not make it so. I challenge all readers to scrutinize his arguments, and they will find NOTHING to support this "irrefutable fact". My first set of arguments surround itself on the words "cruel and unusual". Our founders drafted the 8th Amendment to restrict the powers of our government by specifically banning the use of cruel and unusual punishment. So IS capital punishment Cruel And Unusual? After lengthy discussion, my opponent finally responds with a link. Americans were asked the following question: "Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?" They were NOT asked if they thought state sanctioned execution was cruel. It is a fundamental principle, taking away someone's right to life is awesome. It is why we have the criminal justice system in the first place, to prevent this cruel act from taking place. It is why the death penalty exists in the first place isn't it? To prevent the death of others? But of course to persuade you the death penalty ought to be banned, it must be cruel AND Unusual. Here my opponent and I argued whether or not it was unusual. I argued that the United States is a Southern Democracy. In this community, the imposition of capital punishment was unusual. My opponent replied that compared to China, it was not unusual. Because somehow Eastern philosophy embodies the death penalty. But in which community do we belong. Are we a communist police state or a democracy? Is our country and government organized following the principles of Montesquieu or Confusious? If the voters believes that we belong in the same group as Communist China, then by all means, I concede this point. And by extension, whatever Communist China believes to be appropriate punishments become usual in the United States. But I for one believe that as Americans, we hold kinship with the countries of Western Europe, with Canada and England, with Democracy, Moderated Capitalism, and most of all, a healthy respect for human rights, human liberties, and the value of human life. ---------------------------- Putting that aside, we have the issue of "false positives", or innocents on death roll. My opponent has brushed it off as irrelevant, saying that it is a consequence of our justice system, not our punishment system. `And were it a incarceration, he would be right. Because those who were falsely incarcerated could be freed. If there was some egregious wrong doing, they could even be recompensed for the harm they were caused. But if they were executed, there is no justice. There is no compensation. Execution is permanent, it makes for wrongs that cannot be righted. My opponent argues that they should be executed because he doesn't want to pay to keep them in prison. I assume that he means only for prisoners with life sentences. And I responded with the challenge, "Why not revert back to whips or the rack?" I mean I don't see the need to have prison at all using his logic. Why not just beat our convicts repeatedly? To this my opponent had no reply. Because there is no reply. Following his brand of logic will reduce America to the type of police state we abhor. One we must be ever vigilant in defending against. ---------------------------- My third argument was that furthering diplomatic relationships was more than killing convicts. My opponent has lent credence to my point with the unambiguous statement that "the British government, by and large, is A LOT more liberal than the US." Because they are a lot more liberal than we are, they care greatly about human rights and how every individual is entitled to the right to live. Take a look at this, from the EU Website: http://www.eurunion.org... My opponent's claim that the EU does not care is baseless. In fact, Abolition of the death penalty is a requirement for countries seeking EU membership. China has never ever posted information on its government website saying it was concerned over the lack of executions in the European Union or how it feels the United States is not executing or torturing enough prisoners. The idea that China only befriends countries that execute prisoners is ridiculous and both unsupported and unsupportable. ---------------------------- During this debate, I have made 3 independent points supporting the resolution that the Death Penalty ought to be Banned. Through cogent arguments, I have justified and defended my points against my opponent. Should I have triumphed in even One of these points, I have won the debate since my opponent has raised no true independent points of his own. And since I have prevailed in all 3 points, I am the clear winner of this debate. -Hear me Roar!