Capital punishment as a form of justice

Thank you for a great counter argument, con. You nearly made me sympathize with your cause. However, on further thought, I realized that your argument would fail to convince an intellectual due to its insensitivity. Let me now counter the points offered by you. 1)The Death Penalty wastes both time and money I am shocked and baffled by the mercenary and thoroughly insensitive attitude adopted by con. What, according to you matters more, my friend? Money or justice? A person sentenced for life can never be considered to be wholly punished as he has the privilege of parole. Moreover, he gets fed three times a day and has access to libraries. He sleeps for almost as long as we do and on top of that, he enjoys the right to interact with fellow criminals. Barring the fact that he cannot access electronic gadgets, he lives an ordinary life like you and me. Is that what you term as punishment? I think not, my friend. To be frank, judiciaries today seem to be more sympathetic towards criminals rather than those victimized. I"d also like to point out that okaying the death penalty goes a long way towards eradicating the problem of overcrowding in prisons. 2)The Death Penalty carries the risk of wrongful executions You have me confused on this point. You argued in your first point that it takes almost 20 years or so to execute a criminal. However, in this instance, you claim that Wayne Felker who was executed in 1996 was a victim of inefficiency of the judicial system and that he was proven innocent four years after his execution. Are you trying to tell me that Wayne Felker was imprisoned for at least 20 years before his execution and that during that particular period of time his lawyers did nothing to ensure that the DNA tests were conducted a lot faster? If not, you are contradicting your own point. You did admirably well in pointing out that at least 3 innocent people are sent to their deaths in U.S. every year by judiciaries. However, that provides no substantial reason to eradicate capital punishment. It only goes on to show the flaws in the judicial system and are a lesson to us to rectify them and conduct the investigation a lot more responsibly. You also failed to remind the audience that these cases of wrongful execution are rare, perhaps one in a hundred. Think of the other aspect of it. Think of the other ninety nine correct executions. It rids the society of dreaded criminals, murderers, people who would have no qualms in murdering half a dozen people once they are released on parole. Another point I"d like to add is that in most places, a life sentence translates to about 15 years. Think of the insecurity the victim"s family will feel once the person who was responsible for the death of their beloved in released, especially keeping in mind that he might be blood thirsty, aching for vengeance. Such a person is a threat to the society. 3)The legal system is not based solely on punishment I apologize if I seemed to give you the impression that the judiciary is a vehicle for vengeance. That was never my intention, however, I wished to stress on the agony faced by those who suffered at the hands of Braivik. Rehabilitation, repaying the community. Those are beautiful terms my friend. However, one must realize that we are talking of hardened criminals and not those arrested for petty crimes. These are people who are dangerous, to whom the word reformation holds no value and to whom repaying the community means ridding it of a person or people. Yes, Braivik wants to be remembered as a martyr, however it is imperative to understand that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to any such further crimes. Executing someone is an effective way of ensuring that people don"t follow his footsteps. Braivik"s statement is drunk with confidence. He knew for certain that he wouldn"t be executed. Therefore, it is high time that we wipe that smirk off his face. In cases where a person is mentally unstable, he is exempted form punishment and send to a hospital instead. I'd also like to point out that a deranged childhood is no excuse for committing heinous crimes. Hell, most juries around the world don't even fall for that line. Conclusion Crime is a major problem plaguing the society and to not consider it so is not just preposterous, it is outrageous. What I am proposing is a perfectly logical idea, one which will ensure a decline in the crime rates in the society. On the other hand, if you were to follow what my opponent said, we would be feeding murderers, encouraging them and proving to the society the spinelessness of the judiciary. Thank you. Over to my worthy and skilled opponent.