Capital punishment should be abolished in the United States

First I would like to say it is a pleasure to be debating thett3 once again on this topic. Judging from our last debate I'm sure this will be worthwhile. My arguments: Short Overview:I will be using three basic contentions to support my case. The first will show the unnecessary and major risk that will always exist with the death penalty, but does not exist with life imprisonment. The second will show the physchological societal shaping of ones personality and character traits brought about by events in ones life that leads to the fact that certain persons are not at fault for the way they turn out and thus imposing the harshest penalty against them is unjust and we must bend our efforts towards reforming these persons rather than terminating them. The third will show that capital punishment is inefficient in accomplishing the goals of the state, in that there are three main purposes for the state in taking action against law-breakers and capital punishment only performs two of those, while with life imprisonment we have the possibility of accomplishing all three. C.1 As long as the death penalty is in use, there is always the risk of killing innocents. Everyone should agree on the fact that every risk of note existing in our form of punishment aught to be diminished if possible. What about the utmost risk? The risk of the state killing innocent inhabitants of its own jurisdiction? Sadly this still exists through the use of capital punishment. Every time we send someone to their execution there is the possibility that we are sending an innocent man too his death. Why on earth should we allow these risks to take place when there is no need? For there is indeed not much need. Life imprisonment is effective and never includes the chance of killing an innocent man. Those sentenced to life imprisonment have the chance to be proven innocent before they die. Despite what advocates of the death penalty say, innocents being executed are not at all a rare accurance as evidence shows. Well over eighty people in the past quarter century have been condemned but then released before execution. [1] This source shows detailed accounts of eleven innocents being executed. [2] One researcher says he has found at least 74 cases in which wrongful executions have most likely taken place. [2] 69 inmates on death row have been released since 1973 (Source is from 1997 so it would be allot higher now).[3] This clearly shows the risks of the DP. Risks which are completely unnecessary and should be gotten rid of immediately. These men were lucky to escape with their lives. I should add that there have, undoubtedly, been cases in which innocent people have been executed but have not been proved innocent afterwards. After being executed there is not much need for someone to try too prove the innocence of someone who is already dead. So there are undoubtedly instances in the past where we have executed an innocent man but did not know so, and still do not know. With life imprisonment there is zero chance of killing an innocent man. It is a horrible thing for an innocent person to be killed at the hands of the state. It is also completely unnecessary. C.2 Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development theory [9] This theory clearly shows that the way people turn out is based much on their life events. Thus it is not entirely their fault but corrupt society's. Rather than just executing criminals we should realize that one, they are not solely at fault, and two, we have the possibility of reforming them. Now obviously the death penalty is reserved for only the most extreme crimes, and I think it is logical to believe those people who commit these crimes are just products of our corrupt society. This theory demonstrates my argument. Imposing our harshest punishment against those who are not entirely at fault is clearly unjust.Many people are dealt with less harshly due to mental disorders. This follows the same lines. C.3 Those executed cannot be be reformed, or rehabilitated. Capital punishment does not achieve maximum purpose.Why do we take action against law breakers? Punishment Segregation Rehabilitation The ideal form of state action against criminals is one that accomplishes all purposes. This is an obvious fact. Thus whatever accomplishes all three purposes most effectively we must consider superior. With the use of life imprisonment we have the chance of accomplishing all three of these. However with the use of capital punishment the third is impossible, unless they are reformed before they are executed. But it is much more likely they would be reformed if they have their whole life to be reformed. Thus it is safe to conclude life imprisonment is superior too capital punishment. The death penalty deprives criminals of a second chance which SHOULD be given to them. The question is, why would we be using a form of punishment that only accomplishes two of its three main purposes, when there is another option that may accomplish all three? Though it's not completely necessary, here are a few examples. Two murderers, Van Houten and Krenwinkel, were sentenced to life imprisonment, but latter expressed remorse at their actions.[7] If they had been sentenced to death they would never have had the chance to repent. Watson and Atkins, two other murderers, became Christian Fundamentalists after being given a life sentence.[7]With the use of the death penalty the State is not accomplishing what it is supposed too. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and await his response. Sources:[1] http://www.the-slammer.org............ [2] http://www.justicedenied.org............ [3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org............ [4] http://www.debate.org......[5] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org............ [6] http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org............[7] http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu.........[8] http://www.vincenter.org.........[9] http://www.electrical-res.com......