Death Penalty in Society, does it have a place

"I would like to say that I never advocated the "eye for an eye" policy but simply for a just punishment for such a hanus crime. My opponent over exaggerates the situation, there are better solutions. Like in Louisiana recently the governor passed chemical castration as a punishment for convicted rapists, a just punishment for the crime committed. The punishment has to be a fair punishment to prevent further intrusions. Also if you kill most killers it wont solve everything but it will be a good start to solving the problems." My Response: Killing a killer is the eye for an eye mentality. Even if you have never mentioned it specifically, that's what it is. The eye for an eye mentality is hypocritical. A better solution is to put him in jail without parole. This can be equated with your castration example. We shouldn't kill killers and we shouldn't rape rapists. That's my point. Legal equivalence is an evil mentality. Life in jail without parole is much better then killing them. "Nothing is ever fool proof we are humans we do make errors there is nothing you can do to stop that from happening. If we can get to around 99 percent certainty then that is leaps and bounds better than a lot of the other policies that the government does. Even if one innocent person dies then it would be a sacrifice for the betterment of society, it is a core democratic value called common good." My Response: So essentially you would justify the killing of an innocent member of society for possible safety. I ask any member who wishes to vote this question. would you want to be that one person? Would you want to be an innocent cruelly convicted by a government not looking at you as an autonomous individual but as a non-unique member of a greater society? "It is not a racist punishment, the people have been tried and found guilty. If there is more ethnicity's on death row that does not necessarily institute that it is a "racist" punishment. This assumption only promotes racism which is bad" My Response: I'm not saying the punishment itself is racist. The application of it has been sued for racist means. Take lynching for example. They were killed for no reason. The death penalty had been used as a mechanism of this. "Any right can be taken away if the consequences call for it. If its such an unalienable right shouldn't be taken away what should we do for those who take it away? The death penalty is the correct way of dealing with those who have been convicted for doing such. Also the government isn't the one who necessarily will take away the life the power lies within the court and more specifically the jury. Also as I have stated humans make errors but 99 percent is still better than what most policies do and it is the right choice." My Response: Yes, rights can be taken away. However life is different. Life includes all rights. Thus when the government violates the right to life, they have violated every right against this person. Life is the right of all rights. That should never be taken away, no matter what crime has been committed. "Let me reiterate and reword my previous argument. The morals in the death penalty lie in the fact that you are making the world a safer place. The morals are what you use to help keep bad people away from those who have not committed such crimes. Our morals are needed because the death penalty is far from cold blooded murder." My Response: Morality is not consequential as you make it appear. Morality is an imperative and is deontological. You have failed to address that, thus this point still stands. "So my opponent calls me ignorant yet he provides no evidence to prove my argument. And now any stats he might use I cant even refute so right now I refute them all :P. The fact is that is a choice they make, the statistics are real the fact remains that the cost between lethal injection and life in prison are astronomically apart. Logically think about how much each would cost with any use of your brain it is easy to see that you will save money by using the death penalty." My Response: I don't need to show it, look it up. The cost of all the appeals processes make the death penalty more costly then life in jail. You also didn't respond to my point about appeals in death penalty cases vs. those in jail cases. "If the death penalty is so fallible why has it been in use since the beginning of time. In these cases that the supreme court has dealt with every case but one has allowed the death penalty to continue. That one time it wasn't was the time in the 1970's that I listed in contention VII and that was a disaster in itself. But now we have gotten to the point where there are almost no wrongful convictions as you keep trying to find. This is a time tested punishment that has worked but never to the fullest of its ability." My Response: LOl, slavery was used since a long time ago. It doesn't make it right. You want to sue the death penalty to it's fullest extent. Ok, then let's televise it too, for everyone to watch. You wish to create a society full of scared people. You wish to strip their autonomy away so that temporary safety can happen. "That is my point exactly Texas may have the highest murder rate yet has the most executions. The problem is that's still only less than 100 deaths a year. With plenty more on death row and even more with life in prison. What needs to happen to make it a deterrent is to kill several hundred a year. Criminals would have to think twice for fear they might get the death penalty over life in prison. The rates are also much lower in other countries because there are less people in prison to begin with. The US has one of the largest populations in the world so even if we only have 1 percent of something that still can be the same as 10 percent in another country." My Opponent: Stats contradict. My opponents argument cannot be proven or dis proven. It is non-unique. You can drop it. Reasons for negation: 1) My opponent wishes to create a society where the government takes away your autonomy and where you are only seen as a part of a greater being, not an individual. This merits an immediate negation. 2) Innocents can be killed, my opponent has conceded this. This also merits immediate negation. The government cannot condone an action that kills innocent members. 3) My opponents one contention is non-unique, thus doesn't stand. He has no points that affirm the resolution. 4) The death penalty is a hypocritical action, and should not be sued by the government. Thus, I negate. Thank you ladies and gentlemen