The death penalty should be abolished.

I'm glad that it isn't the case here :-) My opponent has four main arguments/rebuttals, and I will deal with them under the same headings: === DETERRENCE === This issue is subsidiary to the question of justice. If I successfully show that it is unjust for the state to kill criminals, then the entire issue of deterrence falls also. There are many policies that would probably deter crime just as well (if not better) - CCTV in private homes and the establishment of a police state being just two - but the question of whether we should implement such policies must depend on the philosophical consideration of justice. So, for the reasons I'm about to re-inforce in this round, the issue of deterrence is not important enough to swing the debate either way. === MARTYRS === My opponent argues that: "People who know that terrorizing is not an instant path to paradise will not become convinced by executions. Executions will not affect other people opinions. Supporters' cannot convince moderates to become extremists just by glorifying someone who was executed. " He does not provide any evidence for this view, though, and leaves it asserted. This misses the entire concept of the "radicalisation of Muslims" that can take place when Muslims feel that the country in which they live (say, the UK or the US) is acting against the interests of their religion. Such radicalisation leads directly to former moderates seeing the logic in extremist versions of their doctrine, and being converted. See [1] for an example of this phenomenon being noticed in the U. S. , and [2] for an example in the UK. This prospect of radicalisation becomes a problem when the cause of the propaganda campaign is the result of killing such people. My opponent further states that the supporters of such criminals could just as easily use LWOP (life without parole) for their cause rather than the death penalty. This is not the case: a cornerstone of many extremist religious belief - especially in Islam - is the idea of such martyrs are destined for Paradise. LWOP clearly does not have the same effect as the death penalty in this regard, for by keeping them alive LWOP does not "send them to Paradise", in their eyes. There is a fundamental difference between the two here, of which my opponent has not taken account. === INNOCENCE === My opponent argues that cases "where innocent people die it is often because a verdict was given without strong evidence. " In support of this claim, he quotes the case of Cameron Willingham as mentioned in source [3]. However, this is not an accurate reading of this case. Reading deeper into the case as presented within the same source, we see that the evidence which allegedly finds Cameron Willingham to be innocent was discovered as a result of advances in scientific method: the court, therefore, believed according to the methodology of the time, to have hard, undeniable evidence against Cameron - for example, the burn patterns on the floor were taken as evidence that accelerant was used. [4] There is no way to rule out the possibility of such advances determining current standards as flawed and inaccurate, and thus we should not use irreversible methods of punishment such as death penalty. If Cameron had been sentenced to life imprisonment rather than death row, he would still be alive now, and quite possibly acquitted as a free man. This selfsame prospect of advancement, and other considerations, rules out the examples that my opponent gives as hard undeniable evidence - to quote him, "a video that was clearly not forged. .. or where a significant number of witnesses attest to it. " Technological advancements may yet prove that what we currently understand to "clearly not be forgery" was forged. The fact that computer geniuses could very easily have access to, or themselves create, such technology should not give them a license to sentence innocent people to death. Also, it is easy to imagine a situation where many witnesses attest to something happening when it didn't: maybe the real murderer was in disguise; maybe they all thought that the defendant committed murder, when in actual fact the victim survived that incident to be killed at a later date; maybe the witnesses are members of, or bribed by, the Mafia (or a similar organisation) to say that they saw the crime happen, etc. The fact that such room for error exists is evidence that irreversible methods of punishment (such as the death penalty) should not be undertaken. For as I've argued throughout, right from round 2, and my opponent has not denied, it is unacceptable for innocent people to be put on death row with the prospect (or actual incident) of them being killed by the state. There being no good enough safeguard against such possibilities, the death penalty should be abolished. === JUSTICE === This is perhaps the most important contention of this entire debate, for if the death penalty is just, then it should be reformed rather than abolished; but if it is unjust (as I argue), then no reformation is good enough and it should be abolished immediately. My opponent said that: "Justice involves punishing the perpetrator. " This is obviously correct. What is missed here is that LWOP also punishes the perpetrator: under this conception of justice alone, there is no reason to go one step further and introduce the death penalty. Furthermore, I have argued that LWOP could actually entail more punishment than the death penalty. As I said in Round 2: ". .. if [criminals] have committed a heinous crime, death is the easy way out for them. It would be better to let such people languish in prison, without hope that a lenient parole board / appeal judge will let them out years later to re-offend. " On vengeance, my opponent responded thus: "The punishment that is given to the perpetrator must fit the crime and the only punishment to fit the crime of murder is death. " But this is mere assertion on his part - why is death the "only punishment" suitable for murder? I have argued from the very beginning of this debate that rehabilitation should be a cornerstone of the criminal justice system - consequently, the only punishment suitable for any crime is one that allows for the criminal to realise their error of their ways and become a law-abiding member of society once again. And even if the person is "unreformable" - either because they're actually innocent or because they're, say, a career criminal - then LWOP gives the innocent a get-out clause (whereas death clearly does not) and the career criminal a better form of punishment than does the easy way out of death. My opponent lastly said, on this topic, that: "Despite the checks and restrictions [before parole] crime is often repeated. " This is not an argument for the death penalty; this is an argument, which I support, for more stringent checks and restrictions. Just because it's hard to stop recidivism in criminals, that doesn't mean that it's OK to kill them. === CONCLUSION === For all of these reasons - because the death penalty is unjust; because people wrongly convicted deserve a get-out clause in their sentence, which isn't possible when they are killed; because it gives a propaganda victory to extremist martyrs; and because the issue of deterrence is subsidiary to that of justice - I urge everyone to vote PRO. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://www.kentucky.com... [2] . http://www.guardian.co.uk... [3] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4] . http://edition.cnn.com...