The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

I will address my opponent's contentions first and then offer my contentions and refutes. Opponent's Contention 1: Justice. My opponent contends that: "the best way to view justice in this context [of ethics,] is a punishment inflicted of and severity of the crime committed" This is saying that: If you murder; you deserve to be executed. Interestingly, my opponent only proposes this for murder. He doesn't state that: If you rape; you deserve to be raped. Instead, he states that: "a rapist [should receive] a heavy prison sentence. " It is interesting that this only appears to apply for execution and nothing more for no stated reason. If, as my opponent states: "Equivalency is the marking characteristic. " Then this should follow to: Murder = you deserve to be executed (legal murder). Opponent is Pro. Rape = you deserve to be raped. Opponent is Con. Why is my opponent choosing that genuine equivalency should apply for murder only? Why does my opponent pick and choose why murder should have the literal legal equivalent of death for death, but not rape for rape? Indeed, this points to my opponent's personal opinion of what should be literally "equivalent" and nothing more! Instead: "a rapist [should receive] a heavy prison sentence", but not 'a murderer should receive an indefinite prison sentence'? My opponent, despite his contention, does follow his own logic. I would ask for clarification. My opponent also proposes three points on why execution is justified ethically: 1) "a forfeit agreed upon for breaking the social contract [law]" 2) "a deterrent" and 3) "as a means for society to protect itself from someone violently unwilling to respect the rights of others" I will break these down. 1. This works for whatever punishment you decide to implement into the legal system. For example: '[Sentencing people to life in jail is justified ethically because it is] a forfeit agreed upon for breaking the social contract [law]. ' If that was the law, I could use that against you just as illogically for you trying to make life sentencing illegal. This doesn't work as an argument for justifying why the death penalty should remain legal. It's a neutral argument. 2. It doesn't work as a deterrent[1]. Not at all. As you can see, it doesn't work when compared to states without the death penalty, the states had a lower murder rate if it didn't have the death penalty. My opponent's consents (kind of) that it doesn't always work as a deterrent, but source one would suggest that it never worked over not having it implemented. 3. Jail works just as well. While this by itself just works as a "neutralizer", it doesn't give your position an advantage over mine, or vice versa, in any way. From this: "Does capital punishment meet the criteria? I assert that it does. " Doesn't hold. Contention 1: Value of human life. Aha! Yes, I didn't think that through. True, I consent that: a) executing the executioners doesn't hold and b) the government's authority is legally justified if the person is found guilty in the current legal system. However, if my opponent would suggest that: Government has right, therefore, it's ethically justified because they have that right; it doesn't work. It's appeal to authority fallacy. Legally and ethically don't hold hands. Contention 2: Innocent executions. My opponent consents that we do, indeed, execute innocents: "You're absolutely right in observing that by our current system, we execute innocent people. " But the argument (for the voters), wasn't whether we do or not, it's whether it's a risk we want/need to take over alternatives. My opponent (appears) to make an appeal to probability fallacy. It's unlikely, therefore, go right ahead! I contest this fallacy. Yes, it runs off "beyond any doubt" - at the time. Allow me to elaborate. X is innocent, but is found guilty *beyond a shadow of doubt* and is executed. "Beyond a shadow of doubt" isn't infallible[2], they are mistakes made[2], so should we institute an absolute punishment when there isn't absolute certainty? I see no reason why we should when compared to alternatives such as life in prison that have so many advantages, like cost, for example[3]. (I'm not quoting here, but, to clarify): "because it's unlikely" is appeal to probability fallacy and "because it's not happened many times before" is appeal to majority fallacy. Contention 3: Encouraging murder. Another strong counter. This is indeed a "neutral" argument, as it works both ways. I'll consent that this helps no one's cause either way. Contention 4: Cost. Maybe I made my argument unclear. By "cost of the death penalty" I did mean the process, too, not just the actual execution. I apologise if I made that unclear. My opponent bases his argument off a red herring fallacy - pondering about the (should be) processes of other punishment systems, which is irrelevant, as this contention was about cost of the death penalty system. Whether or not another system *should* or not be x or y is totally irrelevant to my contention of cost for the death penalty. Indeed, my opponent's argument largely hinges on the fairness of the system in general, thinking that I was talking about the execution itself; I wasn't. My point stands: The death penalty (including process) cost is very high when compared to other alternatives, such as life in jail[3]. This cost, upon summing all reasons up, isn't justified when compared to other options. I think this will, indeed, become extremely heated; I await your response(s)! Source(s): [1]. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]. http://www.deathpenalty.org...