Death penalty is never justified, under any circumstance

I will first focus upon why the death penalty exists, and then proffer hypotheticals that demonstrate the necessity for a death penalty in extremely rare cases. Why does the death penalty exist? PRO posits that it is due to "some of the crimes having no place in a civilised society," but this is highly inaccurate. All crimes have no place in a civilized society, which is why we have laws that punish all crimes, whether that punishment comes in the form of a small fine, prison time, exile, or death. We can thus explore the "why" to reach a more accurate answer. I will posit several plausible reasons derived from PRO's arguments; due to the wording of the resolution, these reasons only have to be POSSIBLE for me to meet the burden of proof. They do not have to be true in all situations, but only in some situations, as even one valid situation would mean that the death penalty is justifiable in SOME circumstances. If the audience is convinced of the validity of one case in a quadrillion, then the resolution is negated. My burden is thus extremely light, whereas burden for PRO is extremely heavy. I will reserve the right to address later PRO's points about deterrence, and will for now instead focus entirely on what PRO quoted from the "European Court of Justice" (which is actually attributed to Lord Justice Denning (. http://prodpquotes.info...)): "The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it"PRO attempts to diffuse this justification by 1) citing the futility of the death penalty as any form of solace, 2) how it devalues life, and 3) how it can possibly lead to a slippery slope in the specific case of Naini Sahina, a victim of a jealous husband who sought to dispose of his murdered wife's remains in a tandoor oven. However, none of PRO's arguments actually address the quote by Denning. Here we have an outrageous crime, sure, but the crime could easily be far more outrageous. Sahina' murderer committed a crime of passion and acted out of desperation - we can relate to some degree with his actions, as we have all attempted to cover up wrong-doing done in "the heat of the moment" and we all know that such acts do not condemn a person. Of course, such impulsiveness does not cause us to murder people close to us. .. but, is such a crime deserving of the death penalty? Was it "outrageous" enough? Let's assume not. What if the murderer re-married and committed the same crime? What if, upon conviction, the murderer was set free, and then began a mass killing spree involving hundreds if not thousands of chopped up women and tandoor ovens? At what point does his crime become "so outrageous that society insists upon adequate punishment? " 100 murders? 1,000? 10,000? At some point, such a criminal is beyond redemption and risks not only destroying societal cohesion, but may very well risk destroying ALL of the people that constitute society itself. If one man threatened to kill every single other living person on the face of the earth for whatever reason, was already in the process of carrying out his threat, and was able to escape from even the most secure and isolated prison cells, would this man deserve the death penalty? Is society left with any other choice? Given that society has no other option, to condone the death penalty is anything BUT futile. This is what Lord Denning was referring to when he talked about how "some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment. " At some point, somewhere, a crime fits this bill, and the adequate punishment must be death, if not worse. ---Does this punishment devalue life? Perhaps the better question is, "does allowing such a criminal to run free devalue life even more"? I would thus argue that contra PRO's assertion, "The consequence of such a punishment is [NOT] regressive for the well being of the society," but in fact seeks to prevent further regression. ---What about the slippery slope? On a prior debate Cermank had on this subject, my RFD involved scoring arguments against her due to the other side convincingly arguing the slippery slope. I've since changed my mind on this particular form of argumentation. All slopes are slippery. No matter what position you take, you risk establishing a trend, the "slippery slope. " It could be brushing your teeth in the morning, skipping breakfast, going to the pub after work, or kissing your kids good night before tucking them into bed. All of these are slippery slopes. So yes, the death penalty risks becoming a slippery slope of its own. So does abolishing the death penalty. The slope is slippery no matter what you do, so this form of argumentation is simply not valid for either PRO/CON. ConclusionLord Denning was right - "some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment. " For the purposes of this debate, I simply ask that audiences imagine the most heinous crime imaginable, and then do whatever it takes to make it even more heinous. .. and then to do this ad infinitum. At some point, enough is enough. At some point, the death penalty is justifiable. I have refuted PRO's case and have provided burden for my own. I have demonstrated that1) The death penalty is not futile in extreme cases.2) The death penalty does not devalue life and instead seeks to prevent further regression of such devaluation in a society torn apart by the perpetrator's crimes.3) All slopes are slippery, and is thus invalid for PRO/CON to argue over. Naini Sahina's case is actually not all that heinous, as it is something we can actually relate to (in a very, very bad way); some may even consider the murderer to be redeemable. Other cases like the Night Stalker, where a man who had an indescribably torturous childhood, worshipped Satan, and killed without remorse scores of victims over several years before he himself went into the wrong neighborhood and was himself nearly killed is psychologically almost inexplicable due to the broken nature of such a mind. This man was convicted of 13 death sentences, but was never executed. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)Take this "Night Stalker" and imagine someone one million times worse. If that is not enough, make it one million times more severe than that, etc. At some point, enough is enough.