The death penalty should be abolished

Obviously as the Contender, I will be making the case that the death penalty should not be abolished. -Opening Argument-My support for the death penalty rests on three key points. Contention One: By murdering someone in cold blood you forfeit your own right to live. The law is established to protect its citizens. If you murder someone in cold blood, how can you expect the law to protect you? Is it really fair, or right, to murder someone then turn around and claim that you shouldn't be killed? If the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, is it really fitting that a murderer should be allowed to live out the rest of his life in a jail cell rather than be deprived of the fundamental right to life that he has taken from someone else? Contention Two: Justice must be done. The death of a family member or friend is always hard to deal with. Capital punishment is not about revenge, it is about justice. Should we expect a wife to be happy that her husband's murderer is rotting away in a jail cell because he ruthlessly took her husband from her? Is it really fitting to tell someone that even though their loved one was murdered, we're just going to lock the murderer away for a long time as punishment? This is not a fitting punishment for a murderer. Contention Three: A dead murderer can't repeat their offense. Even though escape from a maximum security prison is rare, it does happen. If a murderer hasn't been put to death, they run the risk of escape and repeating their offense. Even if they don't escape, they can still murder other inmates. Even though I do support the death penalty, I think it should be greatly restricted (as I will get into when I respond to Nick's objections).1. The death penalty has killed innocent people and will always carry that possibilityThis is a very unfortunate side effect of the death penalty, especially as flawed humans. This is why I don't think we should just bring up the death penalty with every murder conviction. I think they should be restricted. For instance, there should be no shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty of murder, probably backed up by DNA evidence and especially with a signed confession. For example, I don't know if anyone can doubt the fact that Kermit Gosnell is a murderer. [1] Whether pro-life or pro-choice, he killed seven babies that were born alive, and one woman through a botched abortion (to say nothing of the countless children he killed through his illegal late-term abortion practices). There is no doubt he is a murderer, and I would be completely comfortable if he were given the lethal injection (not comfortable because he is dying -- I really don't want anyone to die, but comfortable because he deserves the punishment and there is no doubt he is actually guilty of it). As a pro-lifer, I don't view this as contradictory to my views. I do believe life is sacred. However, I also believe that if you murder someone, you forfeit your right to live. I don't want anyone to die, and capital punishment is not about seeing people killed. It's about justice. People who murder deserve to die. I don't want them to die, as a pro-lifer I'd rather not see them killed. But crimes must come with punishments, and the punishments should fit the crime. My question to you would be as follows: Death is, of course, not reversible (unless Jesus comes to your funeral). So why should a murderer get a punishment that is reversible?2. The death penalty is not an act of immediate self-defense. While the death penalty is not an act of immediate self-defense, neither is war. I don't know where you stand on war, but people who are not pacifists see war as a necessary action. Just like being pro-capital punishment and pro-life are not mutually exclusive, neither are being pro-life and pro-war. No one likes war (unless you're a power hungry tyrant like Alexander the Great), but wars are necessary at times. Capital punishment is also necessary because the crime it is punishing is so heinous. I don't view the death penalty as an unnecessary homicide, largely for the reasons I've outlined in my argument. By keeping the murderer alive there is always the chance he will repeat his offense, either escaping to do so (which is admittedly rare) or by murdering a fellow inmate. And again, I see no reason why the murderer deserves a reversible punishment since the crime he committed is not reversible. I look forward to Nick's response, and to our next round. [1] . http://www.cbsnews.com...;