Death penalty is bad

Hello once again I am Forever 23 and I am here upon this platform to bring forth the premise which is that death penalty have more benefits than it does losses. My roadmap will include addressing my opponents next few points since I have addressed her 1st two in my 2 speeches. Next, I will introduce a point of my own. So without further ado, please allow me to begin. Her third point was that false executions may happen. After, my opponent gave many reasons of why unreasonable murder may happen and examples of how it has. However, that does not mean that we must completely do away with the death penalty. It just means that we must add more regulations and help the investigation system. The idea of capitalist punishment is not flawed. The court and investigation system however, may be flawed. Therefore, helping the system will solve this problem, not doing away with the penalty. She has mentioned the following: 1. inadequate legal representation. 2. police and prosecutorial misconduct 3. perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony 4. racial prejudice 5. jailhouse "snitch" testimony 6. suppression and/or misinterpretation 7. community/political pressure to solve a case. Every single one of these has a solution. But that solution is not banning and abolishing death penalty. That solution is making changes and corrections to out system. Now onto repeating my own points: 1. Death row is put on people who committed terrible crimes 2. People should get what they deserve 3. It upholds public safety 4. Makes sure criminals don't commit further crimes. Now onto a new point: The death penalty provides justice. I quote from http://www.denverpost.com...; The repeal of the death penalty as a discretionary tool used by publicly elected prosecutors creates " in fact, mandates " injustice. Granted, repeal will not happen in Colorado this year, since the House Judiciary Committee last week killed House Bill 1264. But such a proposal is almost certain to be revived in the years to come. Colorado's criminal code is crafted to provide DAs the tools to seek justice through prosecuting and plea-bargaining based on numerous factors specific to the individual cases they pursue. It is common sense that a criminal's sentence potentially may be enhanced based on the heinous nature of their act, the number of victims, the age and type of victim, and whether the offender is a repeat offender. A third DUI is punished more harshly than a first. A crime spree involving numerous burglaries leads to a longer sentence than a single break-in. Assaulting a child is more aggravated than the same assault on an adult. A convicted felon who commits a new crime is incarcerated longer than a first-time offender. One size does not fit all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is justice. If Colorado were to repeal the death penalty, first-degree murder would become the only crime for which no distinction is made for the number of murders committed, the aggravated nature of the murder, whether the victim is a child or an at-risk adult, or even whether a previously convicted murderer kills yet again. Repealing the death penalty would result in acts similar to those in Newtown, Conn., or the acts of Tim McVeigh being punished no differently than a single murder of one gang member by another. Each murder after the first would be a freebie. This is not justice. Currently, defense attorneys initiate contact with prosecutors on murder cases for which the death penalty is a potential outcome and request to plead guilty to life in prison instead of facing death. Without the death penalty, dozens of additional lengthy jury trials will be necessary with the predictable, numerous and lengthy appeals lasting many years. That cost is never considered in an evaluation of the death penalty's fiscal impact. Without the potential for a death sentence, there is no incentive for a murderer on the run not to kill again in order to avoid being caught " even if that murder is of a police officer or 10 police officers. There would be no incentive for a defendant awaiting his murder trial not to try to kill a key witness, the judge, or perhaps the prosecutor on his case. There would be no disincentive for inmates serving life sentence from killing each other or prison guards, because the result of such evil would be ... the loss of cable TV? Less Jell-o at dinner? No more shooting hoops outside? This is not justice, and it makes our community less safe. The death penalty as a tool to achieve justice is not a partisan issue. President Obama's Department of Justice is currently seeking death in two separate prison murders in Colorado. These are not the murders of prison guards by an inmate, but rather murders of inmates by other inmates. Why should the penalty for murdering a federal prisoner dramatically exceed the penalty for killing one of Colorado's prison guards? Colorado's death penalty is a local issue, not a national one. Attempts to use national statistics from defense attorney-commissioned studies and dramatic anecdotes of questionable accuracy from any other state obscure the reality that Colorado is different. The approximately 30 capital cases brought in every metro area jurisdiction against white, black and Hispanic men since 1986 demonstrate that our elected prosecutors prudently exercise discretion as to which few murder cases truly warrant the pursuit of the death penalty. Which killer currently facing death in Colorado deserves a lesser sentence?" http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org.... I quote, "When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind. Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an "eye for an eye" and a life for a life. Although the victim and the victim's family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer's crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim's family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims. For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on protecting lives. Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept of the need for retribution in one case: "In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die."" Judges. I know that you want to live in a safe environment. In order to uphold the correct ideals, vote con. Thank you.