Every state should use the death penalty

1. Rehabilitation I distinguished the number of those in prison for "life" with and without parole but I do not believe that the possibility of parole should exclude them from the death penalty. If they were sentenced to life no matter what form that may be the death penalty should be used and if said crimes are not serious enough to warrant the death penalty they would obviously be convicted otherwise. Negative your previous [1] failed to prove that this measure of justice would increase the problems of criminality and mental illness. By my opponents phrasing it would seem he believes that by using the death penalty as I have proposed it would make criminals and any illness they have worse but has not elaborated as the statement should be. Not how bad I feel the crime was, how bad the justice system feels the crime was as they are the ones who sentence people not I. True the mentally deranged do not behave like ordinary people would but does my opponent suggest that they should not be punished like the rest of society would be. The problem with mental illnesses is that "temporary insanity" is considered a form of temporary mental illness and is often times the key to a criminals freedom. It is all too easy to claim temporary insanity given a stressful situation. We have seen countless trials where someone has used this tactic and received next to no punishment. This is clearly a critical flaw of the justice system that is virulently used to the benefit of criminals. John Holmes the Aurora movie theater shooter was deemed mentally ill so does that mean that we should simply rehabilitate him and after the experts deem him to be "fit for society" send him back into the world? Could this man be trusted after committing such an atrocious crime? Life in prison is used for rapists (see the link) http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent seems to be unclear on the position I take: If someone is sentenced to life whether the possibility of parole be available or not, they should be put to death regardless of what type of crime they have committed. I do not differentiate between their crimes. Another critical problem my opponent seems to be unaware of is that the majority of prisoners released from prison are repeat offenders. This is a massive cost to the court systems as repeat offenders often require a court appointed attorney and this takes a vast amount of time and resources simply to deal with people that have already been released once. Among 300,000 prisoners that were released in 15 states, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% were even convicted of a new crime. So not only are they going back to their old ways but they often times commit an entirely new crime for the courts to deal with. This ties directly into court cost and clog. http://www.bjs.gov... 2. The innocent I made no such claim to dismiss their loss I merely stated the obvious, we cannot be soft on everyone simply to save a few. Our own military utilizes this same tactic, they send in soldiers knowing full well there will be casualties but it is determined that the ends justify the sacrifice. It may sound cruel but the courts have already taken such measures but I do not believe they are effective enough given the enormous number of repeat offenders. "guilty until proven innocent" This is clear cut common sense, if a person were innocent until proven guilty they would not be arrested. For example: A police officer issues someone a ticket for whatever reason presuming they are guilty. They do not arrest them but they offer that they may take the issue to court to prove their innocence. The movie "The minority report" starring Tom Cruise is a prime example of this concept. In the movie people are arrested for crimes they have not yet committed meaning they are technically still innocent but it is presumed they are going to be guilty. If you are being charged in a murder you are presumed "innocent" until proven guilty...So why arrest you? If you are presumed innocent you would be issued a date to go to court upon their own accord and if they did not show for court they would then be arrested. There are times when a person is not arrested but must still show up in court. Does it really make sense to say "your innocent but your still getting arrested" No it does not but what does make sense is "your believed to be guilty so your being arrested" 3. Cruel and unusual punishment I stated we seek to use the most humane methods possible. 1tor"ture noun \G2;toM5;r-chər\ : the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something death pen"al"ty noun noun: death penalty; plural noun: death penalties 1. the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. Take not of the "force someone to do or say something". My opponent has misused the word torture as it does not pertain to the death penalty. Torture is meant to be drawn out over time to attain something such as information, it is not meant to kill quickly as the death penalty is. I would suggest my opponent read previous rounds as I have clearly shown why ending their lives is more effective. 4. Unfair, unjust system As I have stated earlier 67.5% of prisoners released were repeat offenders, that means the majority of prisoners released were rearrested. These are people that were found guilty, did their time, and then chose to commit even more crimes so how can that be considered unfair? They had their chance and then another and messed them both up. Remember even someone that is guilty can go for an appeal not just the innocent. It seems my opponent is not concerned that the majority of prisoners prove their own guilt by being a repeat offender, he contends that this fact should be have no bearing on the way justice works. He has simply tried to find fault with my plan while offering no other option other than rehabilitation but the problem is many prison systems have councilors to help with rehabilitation and yet the repeat offender percentage is at 67.5%. Obviously rehabilitation is not the solution. My opponent complains that the system is unfair but has offered no solution to solve this problem either. 5. Justice vs vengeance My opponent would call the death penalty "vengeance" but this is simply an emotional based opinion not seeing that this plan goes beyond emotions to efficiency. All emotions aside it has been proven that keeping them alive is far more costly but you say the opposite is true because of appeals. The problem with this assertion is that the number of appeals granted is very rare. The number of appeals that get denied is substantial. This means that the number of people that were exonerated is very low. "Appeals Rarely Successful Very few criminal trial appeals are successful. That's why when a criminal appeal is granted, it makes headlines in the media because it is rare. In order for a conviction or a sentence to be overturned, the appeals court not only must find that an error occurred, but also that the error was clear and serious enough to affect the outcome of the trial." http://crime.about.com... I have provided the statistics and the math to show that the death penalty is by far a more effective solution. Perhaps con is looking at the expense of one inmate per year not the billions they all cost for one year. Now multiply that times the number of years they live out in prison. As the math has shown life in prison is far more expensive. "Pro has absolutely no benefit to the death penalty." Interesting statement, lets examine it with a series of simple questions anyone can answer. 1. If a killer is put to death does he have the ability to kill anymore innocents? Apologies but im out of characters I will finish 5 and 6 in the next roung