The death penalty is morally reprehensible and irrational in several ways.

==Topical Analysis== The resolution states "in severely ways," thus my opponent placed the burden on himself to prove more than one argument by the end of the round, plus a mitigation of any of my points in the NC. ==AC== A. No Backsies --> Due to technological advances in criminal forensics, it is possible to have 99% accurate DNA testing. This makes exoneration of the proposed guilty very effective while on Death Row. Death Row is as long as it is because mistakes are trying to be mitigated as much as possible. The ACLU writes "In the U.S., as of June 2002, 108 people including 12 death row inmates, have been exonerated by use of DNA tests. The increasing use of DNA testing to help confirm the innocence or guilt in capital cases is one among many reforms that will help ensure that innocent people are not sentenced to death. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is an essential molecule that is part of every cell in our body. Essential, because it enables an embryonic cell to become and exist as a functioning being." National Geographic writes "In 2004 the U.S. Congress passed legislation that encourages all states to enable post-trial DNA tests. The legislation also provides funding for such tests. Half of the [U.S.] states have processes to allow [DNA] testing" even after the appeals process is exhausted, Dieter explained." Thus, adequate funding for such technology mitigates the harm posed by the AC. B. Eye for an Eye --> Proportionality and equivalence are not the same thing. The death penalty is not instituted simply for revenge. The death penalty links to justice because justice seeks to reconcile right violations that have been done against the victim. If not, the government is protecting and favoring the rights of a criminal before the rights of the victim who has been harmed. As opposed to other crimes, murder is unique because it is the only crime or variation of other crimes which violate all rights of the victim. Life is referred to as the "mother" right, since all rights spring from the necessity and prerequisite of life. E.g. I cannot own property if I am dead. Thus, the exercise of such rights rest on life. As such, the only way to balance the rights violations of the victim with the rights-denier (the murderer) is the death penalty because all other punishments will give the murderer rights preferences. C. Heat of the moment --> I am not defending the idea of deterrence. His argument lacks offense D. Irrationality --> The death penalty does not make the government equal to the murderer because the action is reactionary as opposed to the original murder. The death penalty is necessitated based on an aggression against society and its individuals. Moreover, it can be seen as a point societal self-defense. Plus, murder is unlawfully killing an innocent, but the death penalty is (1) lawful, because it has been legislated as such and (2) is done against a criminal and not an innocent. ==NC== Contention 1: Kant's Scale of Equality Immanuel Kant, Right of Science: But what is the mode and measure of punishment which public justice takes as its principle and standard? It is just the principle of equality, by which the pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to the one side than the other. It may be rendered by saying that the undeserved evil which any one commits on another is to be regarded as perpetrated on himself. Hence it may be said: "If you slander another, you slander yourself; if you steal from another, you steal from yourself; if you strike another, you strike yourself; if you kill another, you kill yourself." This is the right of retaliation (jus talionis); and, properly understood, it is the only principle which in regulating a public court, as distinguished from mere private judgement, can definitely assign both the quality and the quantity of a just penalty. All other standards are wavering and uncertain; and on account of other considerations involved in them, they contain no principle conformable to the sentence of pure and strict justice. It may appear, however, that difference of social status would not admit the application of the principle of retaliation, which is that of "like with like." But although the application may not in all cases be possible according to the letter, yet as regards the effect it may always be attained in practice, by due regard being given to the disposition and sentiment of the parties in the higher social sphere. Thus a pecuniary penalty on account of a verbal injury may have no direct proportion to the injustice of slander; for one who is wealthy may be able to indulge himself in this offence for his own gratification. Yet the attack committed on the honour of the party aggrieved may have its equivalent in the pain inflicted upon the pride of the aggressor, especially if he is condemned by the judgement of the court, not only to retract and apologize, but to submit to some meaner ordeal, as kissing the hand of the injured person. In like manner, if a man of the highest rank has violently assaulted an innocent citizen of the lower orders, he may be condemned not only to apologize but to undergo a solitary and painful imprisonment, whereby, in addition to the discomfort endured, the vanity of the offender would be painfully affected, and the very shame of his position would constitute an adequate retaliation after the principle of "like with like." But how then would we render the statement: "If you steal from another, you steal from yourself?" In this way, that whoever steals anything makes the property of all insecure; he therefore robs himself of all security in property, according to the right of retaliation. The equalization of punishment with crime is therefore only possible by the cognition of the judge extending even to the penalty of death, according to the right of retaliation. This is manifest from the fact that it is only thus that a sentence can be pronounced over all criminals proportionate to their internal wickedness.