The death penaltys cruel and unusual punishment

I do understand that this is a sensitive issue, as we are dealing with human lives; but, I think we should avoid letting the emotional nature cloud our judgment.ClarityFor the purpose of the debate, I think it would be best if I outline my arguments in order to clarify my premises and conclusions. My main argument that the death penalty is not cruel or unusual rests on the definition of such a punishment which I outlined in my first post. If you recall, it states that a punishment is cruel and unusual if it is degrading, inhumane, or severe. (Since you did not dispute this definition, I believe it is safe to say that we are agreed on it). So my overarching argument at it's most basic form is as follows:Premise 1: A punishment is cruel and unusual if it is degrading, inhumane, or too severe for the crime committed. Premise 2: The death penalty is not degrading, inhumane, or too severe for the crime.Conclusion: The death penalty is not cruel or unusual.Now, if any of these premises is false, then my main argument will collapse, whereas if both are true, then my conclusion is true.. As I stated above, it appears that we are agreed on the definition of a cruel or unusual punishment; thus, my job is to prove that my second premise is true. Therefore, I focused my attention on 3 "minor" arguments for why the death penalty is not degrading, inhumane, or too severe. Now it is important to note that I am referring to the principles of the death penalty as a whole, which are a swift and painless death. These are the fundamental goals, and I believe that we are agreed on them. The arguments I presented are more inductive, and follow as:Argument 1:Premise 1: The execution is not ment to humiliate the individual, nor showcase his death.Conclusion: It is reasonable to think that it's goal is not to degrade the criminal.Argument 2: Premise 1: The goal is to execute the criminal swiftlyPremise 2: The goal is to inflict minimal pain.Conclusion: It is justified to think that it is humane.Argument 3:Premise 1: Capital punishment is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. Conclusion: It is rational to think that the punishment fits the crime and is not too severe.These are the arguments I presented in my first post, which attempt to prove the second "major" premise of my overarching argument.Your response:I believe it is safe to summarize your rebuttal as follows:Counter 1:Premise 1: The United states is playing God.Premise 2: It forces the criminal to endure a lengthy trial.Conclusion: It is reasonable to think that it is degrading.Counter 2:Premise 1: The criminals endure psychological torture from inmates and waiting as soon as they are sentenced.Premise 2: Stays of execution break their mental state.Conclusion: It is justified to think it is inhumane.Counter 3:Premise 1: The U.S. is in the top 5 of countries with the most executionsPremise 2: The countries above it have a history of abusing human rightsPremise 3: The U.S. is one of the only Western countries which employ itConclusion: It is rational to think that it is too severe.Now before we evaluate whether these arguments are sound, it is important to note that all of the counter arguments you provided are valid except for the third. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises; as a result, we know that it is not sound right off the bat, and can reject it as a counter for my third argument.Therefore, the only counter-rebuttals I was required to make were ones against your first two counters, not your third. My counter-rebuttals could be put succinctly like so:Counter-Rebuttal 1:Premise 1: The goal of capital punishment is justice, and not to "play God"Premise 2: The lengthiness of the trial is not intended to torment the criminal, but rather to be certain of guilt and decision.Conclusion: The conclusion of the counter argument is not justified.Counter-Rebuttal 2: Premise 1: Psychological torment is not an intention of the capital punishmentPremise 2: The inmates' lack of empathy cannot be controlledPremise 3: Stays of execution are not intended to mess with or torment the criminalConclusion: The conclusion of the counter argument is not justified.Counter-Rebuttal 3:Premise 1: The conclusion does not follow from the premisesConclusion 1: The counter argument is not sound.In my counter-rebuttal I also pointed out that there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Essentially, you are not focusing on cruel aspects of the principle of capital punishment, but rather the negative effects of specific parts of the current reality of it. This may point to the system as being cruel, but will not support a claim that the principle of the death penalty is cruel. In other words, my main contention is that you have to prove that the core principles and goals of the death penalty are cruel and unusual, not the results of the current process.----------Your main allegationYour third point brings about your first big contention with my overall claim, which is, that it has no foundation. You refer to my example of hangings to demonstrate that the state did not mean for this to be inhumane, yet it was found to be inhumane. Afterwards, you equate the example to the scenario of a drunk driver, who accidentally kills an innocent person. You then claim this to be evidence of a flawed foundation.Broken down:Premise 1: The state does not intend to be inhumane, but it is anywayPremise 2: The drunk driver does not intend to kill, yet doesConclusion: Neither should get off the hook.However, this analogy fails. First, we have to recognize that the drunk driver is already committing a crime before his accident. As a result, we can conclude that it is not identical to the first premise. The state is punishing the criminal to bring about justice, while the drunk driver is breaking the law, and consequently causes an accident. As a result, the drunk is not off the hook, and the state is the one that sets the hook. Therefore, the conclusion will not logically follow from the premises.But does my argument have a sound foundation? Remember, my main argument is:Premise 1: A punishment is cruel and unusual if it is degrading, inhumane, or too severe for the crime committed. Premise 2: The death penalty is not degrading, inhumane, or too severe for the crime.Conclusion: The death penalty is not cruel or unusual.But as I have just demonstrated, the reasons you gave for your contention turn out to be rooted in a bad analogy, and do not defeat any of my premises. Remember, if any of my premises is disproved, then my entire argument crumbles. At least your first attempt to do this has failed, and consequently my argument still stands.Counter-Rebuttal to "Counter 3" The issue with your response to my counter-rebuttal is that it is not addressing the fact of whether or not the the death penalty is too severe. Rather, you only further emphasize the human right violations of other countries. As a result the verdict from my "Counter-rebuttal 3" still stands.Study proves 4.1% innocent:As unfortunate as this is, it is only a flaw within the criminal justice system, and is a very emotional argument. I do not believe it does anything to undermine my "major" argument, nor my 3 "minor" arguments.European Statement:Although this statement may be relevant, you have to establish why it may be accurate, or "have it right". The fact that other countries see it this way does not justify that it is this way.Conclusion:The impression I get from this counter-rebuttal is that you are trying to find new chinks in my arguments, without addressing the counter-rebuttals I made concerning your original counter-arguments. You do address my second minor argument, but it does not refute the verdict from my second counter-rebuttal, and is actually rooted in a bad analogy. I do not mean to be harsh in my analysis of your arguments, as these are sensitive topics which can be emotionally heavy. But I do believe that I have raised some critical objections.