This House believes the Death Penalty should be Abolished

1. "Sure, there's a chance that they might find someone else's DNA at the crime scene, but they wouldn't necessarily just find a random piece of DNA (such as someone's eyelash) and use that to prove the person it belongs to committed the crime. Certain pieces of DNA evidence (such as fingerprints on the murder weapon) would be more relevant than others. " I would like to point out, a person who framed another would have critical pieces of evidence such as the framed person's fingerprints planted on the murder weapon. DNA is accurate, but it cannot tell whether the person did the action willingly or not, or if the evidence was planted. "Plus, DNA evidence would be used with other pieces of evidence, such as eyewitness accounts, possibly a signed confession, etc. Even if you argue that innocent people might be killed, that doesn't show that capital punishment is immoral in practice. What if there is no doubt? What if the person confessed, was pointed out by several eyewitnesses, his fingerprints were on the gun, and the bullets definitely came from his gun? " Some people pay 'witnesses' to give an account in order to frame the innocent. If innocent people are killed, capital punishment should be wrong because this system punishes innocent people, not only that, but in an irreversible way. If the person confessed, then he/she is guilty! Even if there is no doubt, it doesn't mean we should keep the system to punish them alongside innocent men. 2. "Capital punishment is not about 'teaching others not to kill. ' It's about administering justice. " As you say, capital punishment might be about administering justice. But should we administer justice in a way that it kills the innocent and does not discourage people to commit crimes? No form of punishment will help the society if they do not discourage people to commit crimes. The crime rate will not fall, and the number of executions will rise. It is not all about justice. We should consider the innocent people who are being killed as well. In fact, death penalty makes the murder rate rise. " In 1958 the10 states that had the fewest murders "fewer than two a year per 100,000 population -were New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Utah, North Dakota and Washington. Four of these 10 states had abolished the death penalty. The 10 states, which had the most murderers from eight to fourteen killings per 100,000 population were Nevada, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Virginia. .. - all of them enforce the death penalty. " (McClellan, G. , 1961). So here we can see that the states which enforce the death penalty have the highest murder rates. So, if we abolish the death penalty, we can make this number go back down. 3. Most murders are done in the heat of passion Justice Stewart held in the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia: ". .. We may nevertheless assume safely there are murders such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of death has little or no deterrent effect. " (as cited in Carrington, 1978. p. 87). So here it says that murders are done in the heat of passion, and that the threat of the death penalty does little or nothing to discourage it. You say that death penalty is the administering of justice, however, every law should have the ability to minimise crime and through that create a safer society in which people do not often commit crimes and there is no need to rely on the police to scare the criminals. 4. "By killing the murderer forfeits his right to live. " I quote from the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human rights Article 3 "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. " (. http://www.un.org...) So yes, murder is wrong, as it violates a person's right to live and his/her security. However, this also means that the murderer cannot be executed as he/she is a human being and therefore has the right to live. You bring up interesting points and rebuttals, and I hope through debating you I will improve my skills!