The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

Revisiting the First Contention - Innocent Executions I would say that I thoroughly refuted this point and I'll further demonstrate the weakness of this as an argument for eliminating capital punishment entirely. I will first address the reply from Round 3, which I haven't addressed due to the 10,000 character limitation. I believe that an objective observer would agree with this assessment that your contention failed. First Reply: My opponent and I agree that at least two people (the Meeks) were wrongly executed. My claim that "The US government has executed innocent people before" I will change to: "The US government has probably executed innocent people before." I will also point out that existence of facts are not always helpful, for example: Claim: Alien life probably exists. Fact: There isn't a single documented case of alien life. That's not evidence to the contrary; that's appeal to authority. The same can be said for: Claim: The US government has probably executed innocent people before. Fact: There isn't a single documented case of a wrongful execution in the United States. I appreciate that my claim has changed slightly, but nevertheless, I thought pointing that fact out isn't evidence to counter my refined claim. My Rebuttal: I thoroughly examined each of the 3 examples you provided and thoroughly refuted the claim that Cameron Willingham and Carlos DeLuna are examples of innocent people being executed. I agreed on the case of Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin, both of whom were executed over a century ago. I pointed out that a 100 year old case is essentially irrelevant to the debate about capital punishment in contemporary America under a modern criminal justice system. Now you qualify your claim by adding the word "probably." As to your example using alien life, I would point out that you fail to observe rule #6, and you falsely claim this is an example of the fallacy of appealing to authority. This is clearly not the case despite inserting "probably" into your statement. You made a claim that has no documentation or evidence. No evidentiary basis exists to claim an innocent person was executed in the last 60 years and no evidentiary basis exists that alien life exists. Your just using the subjectivist fallacy and "probably" is hardly sufficient as an evidentiary basis. I even went as far as to show that even assuming the false claim that 143 people were exonerated, you've shown that the the very lengthy appeal process worked, and that it would further show capital cases had a success rate in 98% of cases. Second Reply: As for my three examples, I will say one thing, and give another. I will say: My opponent appears to cite his opinion on case one and two. (In three, he consents). In one: "For me, this is a case of the media..." In two: "I am far from convinced this is a case of an innocent man being executed." Opinion does not equal argument, and there is enough evidence to suggest that these people weren't guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, which is what the American sentencing system runs (at least in part) on: "beyond a shadow of doubt" My Rebuttal: It is rather odd that my opponent takes me to task using the subjectivist fallacy saying that "opinion doesn't equal argument." You never offered any argument. You simply provided me with three names. I was at least generous enough to just go ahead and offer my examination of the details of their cases. In the first example, none of the evidence was considered, just the arson investigation techniques of the time and none of these investigations into those techniques ruled out arson. In fact, if you had even taken a look at my source, the interview his lawyer gave, he said the defense tested the state's case and recreated the fire producing an exact same result and that it was evident that arson was the case. This wasn't the only evidence put forward at trial and the jury didn't find reasonable doubt (not beyond a shadow of a doubt) thus convicting him. You really fail to address my examination of each case in detail and so I end my rebuttal. Third Reply: So, whether guilty or not, these people should not have received the death penalty. I will give two more examples of probable wrongful sentencing and/or executions. 1) Johnny Frank Garrett. 2) Jesse Tafero. My Rebuttal: Saying these people, regardless of guilt, shouldn't have received the death penalty is simply your opinion. I would argue that in the case of Cameron Willingham, being guilty of setting a fire and killing his three children, is precisely the sort of case that merits capital punishment. The same would be true in the case of Carlos DeLuna murdering robbing a convenient store and then murdering the female clerk. And then, you dump to more names on me. Names, not arguments and again I'll examine the case of each. Case 1) Johnny Frank Garrett - As Ann Coulter observed, "Years after juries have rendered their guilty verdicts, criminal defense lawyers are still hard at work, hatching new theories of innocence and dredging up phony "new" evidence. Once the police, prosecutors and victims have all moved on, the defense bar can spin its lies to gullible reporters without contradiction. Evidently, it never occurs to journalists that a criminal defense lawyer might lie to them.[1]" No one need look further than the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit in Garrett v. Lynaugh - "The evidence against the accused was overwhelming. Garrett was seen running from the direction of the convent on the night of the murder. Prints found on the handle and blade of the kitchen knife recovered from under the victim's bed and prints from the bed headboard matched Garrett's. Pubic hairs recovered from the scene were determined to have the same individual characteristics as Garrett's. The steak knife found in the driveway of the convent was of the same manufacture, design and make, and had the same degree of use as another steak knife recovered from Garrett's residence." It continues, "The state also offered the testimony of Lonnie Watley, an inmate and trusty of the Potter County Jail during Garrett's pretrial incarceration. Watley testified that Garrett originally denied committing the offense, but eventually admitted to breaking into the convent and killing the nun." Further, "Garrett testified in his own defense and denied raping or murdering Sister Benz. Garrett testified that he entered the convent two days before the murder looking for items to steal. According to his testimony, he entered the convent through the front door shortly after noon and proceeded into the medication room and the cafeteria, where he picked up the kitchen knife. He testified that he then went into several of the bedrooms. In one bedroom he bent the knife in prying open a locked drawer. He explained his fingerprints on the headboard of Sister Benz' bed by stating that he grabbed the headboard so he could lean over and reach a cross on the wall. He testified that he heard a noise in the convent and fled. Garrett testified that he went to his mother's house at approximately 10:20 p.m. on October 30 and did not leave until later the next morning. The state sought to impeach Garrett with an oral statement that he allegedly gave the police shortly after his arrest on November 9, 1981. Two police officers testified that, after they reduced Garrett's statement to writing, Garrett agreed that it was true but refused to sign it until after he consulted counsel. After consulting counsel, Garrett declined to sign the statement. In the statement attributed to Garrett by the police, Garrett admitted breaking into the convent by knocking out a window on the bottom floor. He admitted going into a nun's room. He stated that: There was a nun in bed and she acted as if she was going to scream. I covered her mouth so she couldn't make any noise. I started choking her until she passed out. I had sex with her. I left the convent the way I came in. [2]" Case 2) Jesse Tafero - another case that bodes poorly for your claim. Tafero, his friend Rhodes, and his wife Sonia Jacobs were sleeping in a car when approached by officers. The officers were met with gun fire, first by Jacobs and then by Tafero. Two officers were killed. They were later apprehended at a roadblock. All three had powder residue consistent with discharging the gun, and Tafero was in possession of the gun. There is no disputing that everyone in that car was legally culpable in that crime. To the extent people argue that Tafero had any "innocence" was that Rhodes said he fired the shots and then recanted. Most of the focus by anti-death penalty advocates was Tafero's execution by electric chair, which had a mishap and claiming that Sonia Jacobs was later exonerated, which is a complete lie. She entered an Alfred plea to second degree murder. She was not exonerated. Fourth Reply: My opponent states that detaining someone is legal kidnapping because you are holding them against their will by force. This does make it legal kidnapping. I fail to see the point? I am stating facts here, nothing more. Execution is legal murder. They both end in killing of a person, one is legal (execution), one is illegal (murder). Therefore, execution is legal murder. If my opponent wants to contest the objective logic - and not the moral context, which I wasn't stating at all - I would invite my opponent to do so. My Rebuttal: You fail to see the point because your argument is based on a faulty moral logic; rape and sex both end in sexual contact but no one argue that rape is the equivalent of sex or that a shoplifting is the equivalent of shopping because both leave the store with a consumer good. This is an equivocation fallacy. Again, character limitation. My opponent has failed to make an adequate case. I will knock down the last two contentions, race and "right to life," make a small rebuttal, and conclusion in Round 5.