The Death Penalty Should Be Eliminated

I am pleased that this is turning out to be such a good debate.Rebuttals-My opponent argues that the death penalty is just; the punishment fits the crime. In Con's own words: "Any crime should be punished proportional to ho serious they are." However, there are numerous problems with this argument. The penalty for rape shouldn't be rape; the penalty for arson shouldn't be arson; and the penalty for murder shouldn't be death. We live in a civilized society, which means we have to reject the ancient eye-for-an-eye punishment. When a government doles out vengeance and claims that it is justice, that government has stooped to the level of the killer and has devalued human life and dignity. If you want to punish a murderer, then do with him what you do with other crimes: Put him in jail and let him rot. And for such a unique instance, put him in solitary confinement for twenty three and a half hours a day. If you don't want him to have such a nice life as Robert Macy describes, feed him cheaper food, don't give him television, and don't allow him family visits. Some even argue that life imprisonment without parole is worse than death. There is a huge problem with making this issue emotive such as Macy does. We forget that we are a civilized nation with a working justice system. I realize that revenge is hot and may make the victim's family feel good, while the law is cold and takes a long time. But in order for justice to truly prevail, we need to actually administer justice rather than reverting to barbaric instincts.-My opponent goes on to cite outdated studies in his argument that capital punishment deters crime. This argument can be dismantled quite simply:First, statistically. A vast majority (88%) of criminologists do not think that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, while only 5% view it as effective[1]. This is just some of the evidence that capital punishment has little to no deterrent factor. More statistics prove this point. American states that utilize the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states that do not have the death penalty[2].Second, with common sense. It is extremely hard to discourage someone from murder, especially the severe murder that Con talks about as the only type of murder that warrants capital punishment. Almost all of the murders that resulted in the death penalty were committed by those who were either: 1) convinced they would never be caught, 2) under the influence of some kind of substance, 3) killing in the "heat of the moment"; by passion, or 4) killing by compulsion; due to a mental disorder. It is quite impossible to deter these crimes, especially indirectly by law. I not only question the notion that "everyone fears death" (exact words of Con), but I reject it wholly, for reason stated above. I iikewise reject the notion that potential killers ponder the idea of killing someone and weigh the factors of the situation. Even if there is such a situation where that does happen, it does not matter if the killer hesitates or not, because the crime is still committed. And there is no way a government can know whether that thought process took place, much less make a policy that is more or less based such an assumption. The fact of the matter is that capital punishment has very little deterrent factor, if any at all.-Con's response to my morality argument makes me very worried that he does not understand my point, or worse, that he may have missed the point all together.I fully understand that we may have reached a simple moral disagreement, but Con continues to characterize my argument quite incorrectly. I concede that I misspoke in Round 1 when I said that "all forms of killing... are wrong". I meant to imply that all killing is not morally right (which is not the same). I apologize for this. However, that does not change my argument. Putting aside the unnecessary example that Con provided (one that has no bearing on this debate), the base of my argument is that with capital punishment, the state not only kills someone, but they kill someone who is of no immediate threat to anyone. 63% of Americans support the death penalty, forcing more than a third of us to kill against our will. The situation is unique in and of itself, and any comparison is a fallacy. To Con's point of "You can't outlaw something just because you personally think it's wrong", I disagree. If murder is a crime in the US (which it is) and killing is wrong, then it makes no sense, morally or in any other way, to punish murder with murder.My opponent has clearly displayed a lack of understanding of the paradox of the death penalty when he claims that it requires three conditions to be true. That notion itself holds no value because it was made up on the spot. But, to be fair, I can analyze the "conditions" now:1. Not all killing is crime. But the murder of an innocent person is crime. If the state kills an innocent person, we are all guilty.2. Taxpayers are not guilty of crimes the state committed. No? I believe I already addressed this. 3. Not every convicted killer is put to death. I did not concede this point because I had no idea that it was a "condition" at all. Like the first "condition", however, this is also irrelevant. Again, if the state kills one innocent person, we are all murderers.Con goes on to say that the paradox doesn't exist because I conceded one "condition", but both of those accusations are untrue. That doesn't even address the morality of state-sanctioned murder of anyone, guilty or not. Government shouldn't be in the business of killing people.My Case-Capital punishment is unconstitutional. Thurgood Marshall, the late justice of the US Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia said this: "[Capital punishment] violates the Eighth Amendment because it is morally unacceptable to the people of the United States at this time in their history. In judging whether or not a given penalty is morally acceptable, most courts have said that the punishment is valid unless 'it shocks the conscience and sense of justice of the people.' Assuming knowledge of all the facts presently available regarding capital punishment, the average citizen would, in my opinion, find it shocking to his conscience and sense of justice. For this reason alone, capital punishment cannot stand." The killing of a human being by the state is cruel and unusual punishment. But it is not just the Eighth Amendment being violated; since capital punishment cuts off an chance of exoneration, then due process is also nonexistent and the Fifth Amendment is also violated. -There are innocent people on death row. Since 1973, over 140 people have been exonerated from death row, including two from 2012 alone[3]. That's too big of a risk for any government to take. We shouldn't trust prosecutors and the sometimes-biased judicial system from being right 100% of the time, because, as humans, we err too often. We should not take this risk with innocent lives. Conclusion Based on valid questions of morality and constitutionality, the death penalty is an abomination and an embarrassment to our otherwise civilized country. It is arguable that life in jail with no chance of parole is an even greater punishment than death. There is no substantial evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent; in fact, there is evidence supporting exactly the opposite. It is unconstitutional, immoral, and risky. We should at least give convicts the rest of their natural life to prove their innocence. Because we are now beyond reasonable doubt that we have killed an innocent person and for that, we are all murderers. Sources 1: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 2: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 3: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...