The death penalty should be imposed for those found guilty of rape.

However, I feel as though his rebuttals show a misunderstanding of my original points. "this rebuttal does not contain sufficient evidence to argue that the death penalty is a deserving punishment for those found guilty of this crime" My opponent apparently believes the fact that rapists are more likely to recommit their crimes, as compared to other criminals, is not grounds for an escalation in judicial punishment. I wonder then what criteria he would use to apply the death penalty - he apparently sees no moral difference between a criminal who has raped once and one who has raped twenty times. He sees no difference in fundamental morality between a man who crashes his car while drunk and kills somebody (criminal negligence resulting in grievous bodily harm / injury, as an example of what he suggested in his first post) vs. a career criminal and serial rapist who attacks his victims through violence and intimidation. "A large proportion of rapists will in fact repent and not commit this crime again" You have provided zero evidence to support this contention. In fact, I have provided numerous papers and statistics that assert the exact opposite of what you claim. Therefore, your argument in not even an argument - it is an unsubstantiated opinion that bears little weight in this debate. "Is it not possible that, as human beings, we are capable of mistakes and is it not possible that we could in fact see the wrong of our previous actions and refrain from doing them again? " You make such a claim in the interest of second chances, and I can sympathize with the emotion, however; you ignore the likely possibility that if you are wrong about the rapist's reformation and he rapes again, you directly will be responsible and culpable for the rape. Your desire to give people a second chance should never endanger innocent third parties who have no decision in the matter - I will forgive a drunk for much of his behavior as a human being, but I would never trust him enough to give him the keys to my car. " I would question whether this average is the mean, median or mode average; whether this includes outlying factors such as rapists who would rape victims in excess, or rapists who would only commit the crime once. " And I would encourage my opponent to read the sources I provided, as they answer all of his questions. "I reiterate that my original argument to this response was to raise question as to why rape would be given priority for the death penalty over more severe crimes" And I will reiterate that it is extremely presumptuous to state that rape is a less serious crime than grievous bodily injury or attempted murder. The reason I believe rape is serious crime deserving of the highest punishment, and the evidence I have provided, shows that rapists - as opposed to murders and other "serious" criminals - are very likely to recommit their crimes and therefore are deserving of special judicial considerations. Furthermore, as rape can and is frequently committed in jails and prisons by inmates, life imprisonment or imprisonment of any kind is not an effective deterrent to their behavior. The only two effective methods to prevent harm would be life in prison in an isolation cell, or the death penalty. As I believe extended isolation to be a form of torture and incompatible with human rights - I feel that the death penalty is the more palatable of the two choices in dealing with the dilemma of a serial rapist. "In response to this rebuttal I would firstly like to question the legitimacy of this argument. Simply because you "believe" that offenders of these crimes with mental issues are, without question, in full knowledge of the severity of the crime they are committing are we to then believe that this statement holds truth" You have completed misunderstood my point, I do not believe pathological violence and predatory rape instincts to be in a class of mentally debilitating diseases - or "mental issues" as you put them. A man who rapes because he suffers from schizophrenic delusions does not deserve the death penalty; a serial rapist who rapes multiple people, multiple times simply because he has the inherent impulse does deserve such a penalty. The issue between the two cases is one of agency. "Among mental conditions there are also drug-dependent, or at least drug-related/influenced, cases where assailants would rape without full knowledge of their moral and lawful wrongdoing. " I assume then you would excuse the criminal of every crime that has been committed under the influence of a narcotic? I have yet to see a bottle of alcohol pour itself down someone's throat. When that event occurs, then your argument may hold water. A rapist who commits a rape while drunk is still a rapist - it does not excuse his actions or influence the probability of him committing the same crime again in the future. "There are countless rape cases where offenders do not in fact go through any efforts to cover their tracks in their crime, for reasons including but not limited to that they are incapable or apathetic to understanding the moral line they have crossed. " A yet despite the "countless" rape cases you allude to, you have not provided one actual instance or source of material supporting what you believe to be true. "I do not understand how my opponent believes that this argument is a deflection. " The argument is very clearly a deflection of your stated resolution. The guilt or innocence of the hypothetical rapist has no place in this debate - you asked a very clear question of whether the death penalty should be applied to rapists. This assumes that the rapist is, in fact, a rapist. Your issue with the potential fallibility of the judicial system is a deflection that attempts to hide the weakness of the arguments you have provided. "I would like to close my argument by stating that, although my opponent has decided to argue that violent rapist offenders are worthy of the death penalty, the intended argument was simply about the death penalty being imposed for rape offenders. " The reason I argued for violent rapists was to avoid the inevitable hyperbole that accompanies statutory rapes and date rapes. Both are serious crimes deserving of serious penalties. However, neither warrants the death penalty. As such, I did not discuss them in order to address what most would be to consider the true spirit of the resolution. In conclusion, my opponent failed to provide any sources to support his argument, His contentions, although well worded, were simply opinions unsubstantiated by fact or reality. Indeed, several of his opinions were directly contradicted by the sources I provided - though it appears he did not read the papers which would explain the misunderstanding. Furthermore, my opponent neglected much of the arguments I made concerning a lack of viable alternatives to dealing with rapists, and as such I will claim that he conceded those points but continued the argument because he finds the death penalty inherently unpalatable. In either case, I find my opponents arguments to be largely be opinion in direct conflict with available evidence – the sure sign of an ill-defended resolution.