The death penalty is just

"That means when the government kills the criminal, then they themselves have sentenced themselves to death." --> I have 2 responses: 1. The government is a mechanism, not an individual. 2. The government, i.e. the justice system, is a legitimate means to distribute justice to people that have hurt society and individuals in that society. Then the government loses their right to life as well. --> The government does not have individual rights. The government does not have the right to life. That is a negative right that people have. When one violates an intrinsic right of another individual, then the government must take action against this right violation. Overview arguments: -->My opponent makes a crucial mistake. He is trying to turn my arguments in a non-turnable way. I.e. he is arguing individual autonomous arguments against a non-individual, which is the government. --> you can extend my arguments, because my opponent is using circular logic to prove his point. "Are you saying that all punishments must be dealt with in the reciprocal action? No, it is not just to steal from a thief or to rape someone who has raped. This is because we must set an example, not take an eye for an eye." --> I am saying that all punishments must be proportionate. I.e. all punishments must in some way put the scale of justice back in balance, and uphold the social contract. You in essence are saying that all punishments are unjust. If this were true, then bad actions are not bad because their is no way of showing negative reciprication. Furthermore, your rape example is unwarranted on the fact that rape violations (that do not end in death) can be punished by jail. Essentially, it all comes back to right violations. Killing another human violates every right. Therefore, the justice system, an institution that deals with right violations, must do the same because the rights must be weighed equally between everyone. In this case the victim and criminal. Eye for an eye is legal equivalence, but I am arguing legal proportionality, which is the basis of the US justice system. "However, when one is put in jail, they can be taken out at any time. The death penalty is irreversible." --> Yeah, so is the time in jail. It isn't different. If a person died in jail as an innocent, then according to you, we should ban jail. "Ruben Cantu, a 17 year old teenage boy in Texas, was wrongfully accused and executed on the charge of murder. However, the eyewitness there recanted (to revoke the claim) after the execution that he was pressured by the police to identify Ruben as the killer. This is just one of the many cases of innocent deaths by the death penalty system. Out of 86 death penalty exonerations (withdrawals) in Death Row cases, 45 of them have been eyewitness errors, just like Ruben's case. 10 cases were actually because of snitching. 17 cases of government misconduct. 8 false confessions. 9 junk scientific proof cases, and 29 other miscellaneous cases. Is this enough proof?" --> first off, my opponent does not tell you that the 17 year old wasn't claimed "innocent". He was claimed possible innocence, under a veil of ignorance. Anyone who knows law, knows that they are two completely different things. --> He then goes on to say that people have been exonerated. Turn this argument against him. The checks are so great that the chances of an innocent being killed are slim to none. He dropped my point about Application vs. principle. Extend this for the remaining rounds. "We are not debating whether or not the UN is a perfect organization. The UN does not have to be right all the time" --> My point proven. Just because the UN says it's wrong, does not make it wrong. They are fallible. --> furthermore, he says "The UN opposes the death penalty. End of discussion" If it was the end of discussion, then my opponenet is claiming that the UN's inaction was moral, just, and infallible. "Who's going to shed the government officials' blood? They're killing people too. Ok, so the criminals are executed. However, according to the Old Testament, "He (The government) who shedeth man's (criminal's) blood, he too shall have his blood shed." Again nobody's going to shed the government's blood." --> He is reffering to a person, and a government is not a person. A government is a legitimate authority in dealing with violations of the social contract. Furthermore, the quote means that an individual who kills an individual deserves to be killed himself. And thats where the government comes in.