This House believes the Death Penalty should be Abolished

As Con, I will be arguing that the death penalty should not be abolished. I will briefly make my case, then I will respond to Pro's arguments. -Opening Argument-My support for the death penalty rests on three key points. Contention One: By murdering someone in cold blood you forfeit your own right to live. The law is established to protect its citizens. If you murder someone in cold blood, how can you expect the law to protect you? Is it really fair, or right, to murder someone then turn around and claim that you shouldn't be killed? If the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, is it really fitting that a murderer should be allowed to live out the rest of his life in a jail cell rather than be deprived of the fundamental right to life that he has taken from someone else? Contention Two: Justice must be done. The death of a family member or friend is always hard to deal with. Capital punishment is not about revenge, it is about justice. Should we expect a wife to be happy that her husband's murderer is rotting away in a jail cell because he ruthlessly took her husband from her? Is it really fitting to tell someone that even though their loved one was murdered, we're just going to lock the murderer away for a long time as punishment? This is not a fitting punishment for a murderer. Contention Three: A dead murderer can't repeat their offense. Even though escape from a maximum security prison is rare, it does happen. If a murderer hasn't been put to death, they run the risk of escape and repeating their offense. Even if they don't escape, they can still murder other inmates. Even though I do support the death penalty, I think it should be greatly restricted. With the advent of DNA testing, there is less and less likelihood that innocent people will be incarcerated and put to death by capital punishment. While reasonable doubt is enough for a murder conviction, I do think that no doubt should remain in order for someone to qualify for capital punishment, just so we minimize the risk of an innocent person being executed. Pro's Case:Pro's definition of capital punishment as murder is incorrect. Murder is to intentionally take innocent life without strong moral justification. Pro says that capital punishment is the act of taking someone's life away forcefully, but surely you are justified in forcefully taking someone's life in an act of self-defense. So forcefully taking someone's life is not always wrong. He also says that two wrongs don't make a right, but that begs the question. The case at issue here is whether or not capital punishment is wrong in the first place. The fact that capital punishment can't be reversed is one of the reasons I believe it is appropriate punishment for taking a life, which is a crime that can't be reversed or "repaid. " It is also true that an innocent person may be executed by mistake. But we take risks all the time that put innocent people at risk. Does Pro believe that there are wars that can be justified? If so, then surely it's inconsistent for him since wars put innocent people at risk. If not, there are other actions we take that put innocent people at risk. Cars are legal, even though we risk innocent pedestrians being hit. We allow two-story houses, even though innocent people may fall down the stairs. 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? Now, as per Pro's own rules, most of his arguments should be thrown out because he only sourced one. I can't check on any of these quotes to see if they are genuine, but even looking at the quote by Bob Curley, it does not indicate that Bob is opposed to the death penalty, per se. Bob is not working to end capital punishment, he is working to overturn the convictions of innocent people. Two very different things. The only thing he did source was a link regarding some families of victims of murder. So no, I can't say that all families of victims like the death penalty, but I can certainly argue that some of them do. Pro's source only shows that some families don't like it, not that all of them do. Besides, I'm not sure it's any less justice to put a convicted murderer to death, even if the family wants a lesser sentence. Capital punishment is not unfair. It does not support a "tit-for-tat" system of justice. Most crimes that are committed can be restituted by a cash award, and a fitting punishment of time in prison. Even in the case of rape, we don't "rape the rapist," but we do negate his right to bodily autonomy by locking him away in jail. I did not make the argument that capital punishment saves taxpayers' money (as I'm not convinced that's a legitimate reason to allow it). However, his rebuttal to this argument I never made should be discarded since he did not support his contentions with facts (how am I supposed to know that putting a criminal to death actually saves taxpayers' money? ). The death penalty does, in fact, stop people from killing. Killing is a crime that most people find unthinkable, but becomes easier as you do it. Don Marquis, in a famous essay about why abortion is wrong from the position that killing robs us of our future of values, argues that killing someone habituates someone toward that immoral behavior. [1] In other words, the more you commit an immoral act, the easier it becomes to do it in the future, and it may even become habit-forming. Regarding his argument about parole, as I indicated earlier even if a life sentence without parole is considered, that still gives the murderer a chance to kill other inmates or officers. Whether or not the death penalty is effective in deterring criminal behavior is irrelevant to my case. Punishment, while effective as a deterrent, is about giving the criminal what is due to them. Why do we gives rapists 10 or more years in prison, when after only a few years the only one who will really remember it will be the victim? Length of time seems irrelevant to the effectiveness of the punishment. I have given three distinct reasons why the death penalty should not be abolished, and Pro's case has not stood up. I look forward to our next round. [1] Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral, 1989.