This House believes the Death Penalty should be Abolished

I apologise in advance for my terrible arguments, as I am not as experienced as my opponent. So here I try my best to rebut my opponent's points and explain my own. 1. "According to Pro's logic, we should do away with all punishment. Does it really matter that capital punishment is irreversible? What about a man who is wrongly convicted, spends 20 years in jail before finally being reversed when the truth comes to life? Does it really matter that it was merely twenty years, rather than the rest of his life, that was taken away from him? Should we, then, abolish life imprisonment, following Pro's logic?" I would like to explain my 'logic'. I think that we should abolish the death penalty as it is irreversible, and that actually matters. When the innocent person is set free, he can witness his ledger being washed clean and cleared of any wrongdoing he was not guilty of. He could then be released and spend the rest of his days doing what he wants. There is still a chance of the innocent man regaining his social status and see justice done, as he was accused of a crime he did not commit. 2. "A dead murderer can't repeat their offence." Well, certainly, a murderer cannot do anything if he is dead. However, an innocent person who is executed cannot do anything and live life as well! I understand your point about modern science such as DNA, which is very accurate. But people can still be framed using the same piece of 'evidence' such as a planted fingerprint or hair strand. We cannot make sure that no innocent person will be executed. Justice Harry Blackmun was 85 years old and near the end of his tenure on the Supreme Court when he declared in 1994 that he could no longer support the imposition of the death penalty. "The problem," he said, "is that the inevitability of factual, legal and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution." (http://m.deathpenaltyinfo.org...) So here Justice Harry Blackmun, an experienced and knowledgeable person in the legal world, says that there would definitely be innocent people punished. Why should we allow that to happen? There are also other ways to reduce the risk of a criminal repeating their offence. You mentioned that a criminal could kill fellow inmates or guards so life without parole would not be effective. I would like to point out that no jail in the world would allow a criminal, especially one whom committed such a serious crime, to roam free within the prison. They would either be escorted by guards while being handcuffed or stay locked up in their cell in solitary imprisonment. They have no weapon of any sort, but the guards have guns. When such dangerous criminals are not in their cell, we could have them handcuffed and escorted by three or more guards as an effective way of preventing them from killing again. When they are in their cell alone (solitary imprisonment), they cannot really do anything as there is no one for them to kill. 3. "Justice must be done." Is killing the murderer the only way to deliver justice? Can a life term without parole not do the same? When serving a life term, prisoners lose their freedom. They cannot eat exactly what they want, read whatever books they want to read or live where they want to live. At the same time, as mentioned above, they cannot repeat their offence. A life term without parole is a suitable punishment for the crime of murder. The murderer took away his victim's right of doing what he wants to do, so if we lock him up, we are actually taking away his right of doing what he wants and preventing him from repeating his offence. The murderer then experiences the lack of freedom. Is this not justice? You argued that he should not live because he did not let his victim live (he took away his victim's life). Yes, a criminal should be brought to justice, but does that mean, that in our pursuit for justice, we should resort to extremes (taking the life of a criminal away is the ultimate punishment one can receive), and wrongly punish the innocent? 4. Killing is not the way to teach others not to kill As I mentioned in the first round, killing a murderer is not the way to teach the society not to kill. How can you teach someone not to do a certain thing when you are in fact doing it yourself? It is just like a parent lecturing his/her child on the harms of smoking while smoking a cigarette, or an older brother telling his younger sister not to play video games because they hurt eyesight while playing Wii. It does not work out. Most murders are done in the heat of passion, (such as when a boyfriend sees his girlfriend cheating on him) wherein a person fails to think rationally (such as in a state of anger or when drunk), so to think the fear of death penalty will reduce the number of murders by a huge fraction is unreasonable. The murderer would most likely not be thinking with a clear and logical mind, and in his moment of fury, I am sure the news of an executed murderer is not the thought that flies into his mind. This piece of news would not stop the murderer in any way. If the government wants to send a message that killing is wrong, how can it convey the same by killing a person? Killing to convince people that killing is wrong, that doesn't sound right, does it? Can the death penalty really prevent, educate or frighten people into not killing others? I look forward to your arguments and rebuttals!