There is no good reason for the death penalty to be banned .

'It appears my opponent has chosen to take the easy road which I hope those who take the time to vote will note. ' my opponent tries to appeal to the general audience by claiming it is the right thing to vote for him since I did not state my case , Like I explained numerous times the burden of proof lies onto him to prove to me there are good reasons to ban it , my opponent doesn't understands the rules of the game and appears new to me . 'It seems the only good reason you can provide for this is that you think it's right. ' Instead of making a case for himself my opponent continues to whine . No I did not provide any good reasons because I do not have to since the burden of proof lies onto me and I'm simply not bothered or feel obligated to make my own case because I do not have to but my opponent does since the title is ' there is no good reason for the death penalty to be banned' my opponent as con has to provide me with reasons that I cannot refute I on the other hand do not have to do anything . 'The death penalty is wildly more expensive for the government to execute. As I stated before, just for the legal proceedings alone it is 1.8 million dollars. This is the equivalent of keeping someone jailed for 60 years. In addition to the 1.8 million dollars for legal fees is the cost of execution and the cost of incarcerating them for an elongated period of time(5-20 years). This means it is going to cost more to kill someone than to incarcerate them for the rest of their life. ' OKAY according to a new study by the Kansas Judicial Council. Examining 34 potential death-penalty cases from 2004-2011, the study found that defense costs for death penalty trials averaged $395,762 per case . Just because I support the Death Penalty doesn't mean that I support the way it is done right now , thinking I do would be a logical fallacy I am not arguing that the current methods are good rather I believe we shouldn't ban the technique altogether just because what the government imposed right now is not sufficient enough . ' I said that a convict will live 60-70 years, if you look correctly, so I made no mistake for you to correct. ' um are you sure about that? '20 years old, convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Estimating at most he will live another 60-70 years at a reasonable 30k a year' You said he will live another 60-70 years , Im not a mathematical genius but 20 + 80 is 100 and 20+70 = 90 . 'is only legal to execute by firing squad in 2 states so shooting someone as a method of death penalty is again unlikely' again like I explained before I support the technique but not how the government manages it . The cost of lethal injections has risen dramatically since states that execute prisoners were forced to change the drugs they use for the executions. The state of Texas was forced to stop using sodium thiopental in 2011. That state must now use Nembutal, which is a form of phenobarbital, for executions. In 2011, the execution drug used cost the state of Texas $83.55. The Nembutal that must be used now costs Texas $1,286.86 per execution. - . http://www.ask.com... I would like to point out one more time we are not arguing about the efficiency of the government imposing it in the way it does we are arguing if the method should be used at all . ' Not the quick way out, not the easy way for everybody, but the hard way. ' My opponent argues that in some way it is morally better to reform these people , remember Anders Breivik who killed 77 people on a Norwegian island? why would he deserve to live ? He doesn't want to change and most other such serious criminals believe they are right take Adolf Hitler for example . People like him are not worthy of living . Next my opponent argues that deterrance is not a good reason to support the death penalty however in my writing I have not used deterrance as an argument for the death penalty . I do not feel the need to adress this in detail because what my opponent is saying is that deterrance is not an argument that should be used for the death penalty . I mean yes well done I have never used that as an argument . Expense - 'We've already covered this in depth and I feel I've proven quite enough that the death penalty is far more expensive' and I feel I have in enough detail explained that supporting the use of the technique is not the same as supporting how the government does it right now . 'Some people say that it is moral to kill them. An eye for an eye sort of thing, it's 'the right thing to do'. Taking this from a religious point of view' my opponent than explains why he thinks its not a good moral decision for a religious person , however most ancient sacred texts support the death penalty and your views don't matter . My views on the death penalty have nothing to do with my religious views . A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral. So the question really. .. when the system works and when you manage to identify somebody who has done such heinous evil, do we as a society have a right to take his life? I think the answer's plainly yes. sources -. http://www.bbc.co.uk... , . http://en.wikipedia.org...; , . http://deathpenalty.procon.org...; , It might appear to the audience that I did not provide many sources before but this is perfectly justified since it is the duty of my opponent to argue that there are reasons against the death penalty and I am here simply refuting his arguments and it is natural this way for my opponent to have more sources .