Capital Punishment in the United States is Flawed and Should End

Interesting topic. _Refutes_ My opponent argues a quote by Kant, "act not unless you would have it be a universal law". Under this quote my opponents analysis is flawed, because by killing someone they are not saying everyone should act that way. They are saying by killing someone a LAW is established that allows for the killing of someone. Thus death is punished by death, eye for an eye. Further more we kill people to show them a punishment. A punishment that sends a message that says killing is WRONG. This doesn't set a bad example, because if we just allowed killers to go on without a punishment a government would not have control over the enforcement of law in it's own territory which undermines sovereignty. My opponent offers the examples of a rapist or a kidnapper that we do not enforce an eye for an eye for. However, the death penalty was not designed to follow an eye for an eye. It was designed to be one of the highest enforcement policies that is to be enacted by a government to ensure that people follow the rule of law. The whole reason our entire society is not a raging cage of hell is because people are afraid of the consequences of such actions. It is this fear that keeps people from committing atrocities and thus the death penalty substantially protects the loss of life. Further more it is not up to an individual citizen to decide if the state can put people to death or not. A citizen has forfeited their rights to execute punishment by being part of the social contract and thus they have trusted a higher authority to do this. Thus unless a majority can be motivated behind this ideal whether you agree with the death penalty or not is not going to change anything. When you say "The idea of death being their due is a devaluation of life", the people who have warranted the death penalty have already committed a massive felony or multiple felonies. They have already devalued life on their own and thus the government should not treat them in any different way. When the murderer, the rapist has already deemed another persons life less important than theirs, they have already devalued life and thus the government by enforcing the death penalty is just keeping with the idea of universality, to use my opponents case, by treating them the same way they have treated their victims. My opponent claims that innocent people can be convicted in our system, I do not deny that this is possible. However,if all evidence was as flawed as my opponent claims then why is it we do not have a massive riot against our court system? Why is it our court system has survived all these years if it was so flawed? It's quite obvious that my opponents claims of flaws are completely unrealistic, because at the instance that we do not have massive riots against our criminal court system, and the fact that Americans go when they are called to jury duty, they have accepted the court system for the entity that it actually is. Appeals are obviously a long process, because were it easy for a mass murderer to appeal his punishment than this system would be abused. The appeal system is designed for people who actually have a chance to have a lower punishment. Your average felon has warranted their own death by the actions they have committed and thus chances are the appeal system would not help them much. Further more when you argue for the standard for counseling, who are we to be elitists and say only the best of the best can be on a counsel. At the instant that they agree to the criteria and that they are accepted they have the right to have that job. You can not blame a criminal appeal court to deny a lack punishment to someone who has obviously committed such a great crime. That is not the fault of the court. Further more when you argue that most crimes are based on little evidence again you are flawed. If their is little evidence than the PROSECUTORs also have a burden of proof to prove as long as the defendant. If the prosecutors are able to get enough evidence to convict a felon then that felon is to be convicted. Each defendant is represented by a lawyer as given in their rights, and thus you can not blame falsified evidence. If every single court case was falsified evidence as my opponent claims nobody would ever belong in prison. However, my opponent accepts the existence of murderers, rapists, and kidnappers. Thus their are people in prison who deserve to be in their. As for my opponents "greatest argument", my refute above address the main fears of that point. However, again I ask if our court system was so flawed why are we not causing a massive revolt and why are we not anarchy in our streets. Why is it our court system has remained structured and accepted by the general population. It can only be that my opponents claims of falsified evidence must fall on deaf ears. If it was that easy to convince a jury then all one would have to do is walk in and point the finger and it would be guilty. Our court system goes on innocent till proved guilty. MY ultimate rebuttal to this main argument of falsified evidence, even if you accept it, is that if it's that easy both sides can use falsified evidence. My opponent makes it seem that only the Prosecutors can lie, but at the instant that its "that easy" then the Defendant can do exactly the same. My opponent doesn't show a situation where the defendant has been denied their right to trial and thus it is easy to see that his argument of falsified evidence is not applicable because people accept our court system; and even if it was it works both ways and thus it would not affect the outcome to the trial. Regarding the mentally handicapped; if a person commits a crime they have to be held accountable no matter what. First of all a person who commits a felon most likely has some form of mental illness or some form of inner mental struggle. My opponent argues that the right thing to do is to be lenient on them and that will solve the problem. If we should be lenient on mentally challenged then EVERY felon would plea insanity. My opponent also contradicts himself, because if it was so easy to lie in a court system then couldn't every felon plea mental insanity? This would such a huge loophole if we were lenient on them that everybody would plea insanity. Their is no justification for a felony. If somebody is so twisted, so problematic, no matter what their mental diagnosis is, they don't deserve to be affiliated with a society that is trying to protect the safety of its citizens. You can't judge jurors as all being "lay", the point of the court system was to give a fair trial by your peers. If a majority of jurors agree that the person deserves the death penalty, then that person deserves the death penalty; no exceptions. Ultimately, the role of a death penalty is to ensure the enforcement of a punishment for "x" offense to ensure that this felon is punished. It deters the people who would wish to commit a felony, because their is a fear for loss of life. Not all people accept the death penalty with a giant smile on their face. My opponent can't claim the court system has a flaw, because as proven before it is a acceptable court system. Capital punishment obviously is not useless, because the higher authority is not filled with "anger, hate and revenge." The people hear the case and they judge based on what they believe is right. The people speak for their country, for the people are the country. If a group of people agree that somebody has done something so rotten, that they deserve the death penalty. Then they deserve that punishment. No matter what my opponent says is morally wrong with the punishment, he can not prove it's ineffective, he cannot prove that it is not wanted, and he can not prove that it is not justified.