Death penalty should remain

First, I must alert the readers to the fact that this was not an "open" debate -- The Silent Consensus challenged me. This being the case, I assume he knows that I am not 100% "morally opposed" to the death penalty in literally all cases. The evidence was here in this debate, where I took the opposing view: http://www.debate.org... That said, the topic of the debate is "Death penalty should remain." I disagree that it should remain as it is. In fact, I am only in favor of the death penalty under the most extreme circumstances (i.e. the condemned admits to the crime, the family of the victim wants the condemned to be executed). My opponent concedes the biggest reason people (mistakenly) support the death penalty: The deterrent factor. He admits that the death penalty is not a deterrent against violent crime. This shows that my opponent is a man of reason and facts -- not blind emotion. However, given the fact that the death penalty is not a deterrent (conceded), then it becomes just a punishment of blind emotion. It doesn't deter crime, it just makes society feel better about itself. Fine, but at what cost? My opponent also admits that it is more costly to put a man to death than to put him in prison for life. That's the financial cost of the "feel good" factor of state executions -- but what about the human cost? I'm not talking about the lives of legitimate child molesters and murderers, but if even one man in a thousand who's put to death is innocent, how do you monetize that cost? Is that human life worth the "feel good"? I don't think so. I will address some of my opponent's points, however, the pre-arguments he constructed are not necessarily my views. 1. What's "appropriate" to me in a punishment is (1) reducing recidivism (i.e. making sure the criminal does not perpetrate the same crime again), (2) compensating the victim of the crime, (3) ensuring that innocents are not falsely convicted, or if they are, that they have a proper means of redress. The death penalty most certainly reduces recidivism, so on that measure, it is effective. But does it compensate the victim? If the victim is dead, then no. But what of the victim's family? If we are talking about murder cases, I think the victim's family should have a large say in the appropriate punishment. Where applicable, the perpetrator's property, assets, and labor should be seized to compensate for loss of income and mental anguish. The last of which cannot be done if the criminal is put to death. 2. I do not agree that killing is wrong in all cases. Most certainly, it is not wrong in self defense. The morality of the death penalty is debatable, perhaps, but that is not the subject of this debate. I do not "concede" the point here, because I never made it in the first place. 3. The point you make here is illogical. If the death penalty is not a deterrent, then why would countries with a high murder rate need the death penalty, while countries with a low murder rate not need it? This has no basis in logic whatsoever. If it is merely about justice, then cause/effect is irrelevant, and there should be no disparity between countries with and without the death penalty. Your logic is severely flawed here. 4. You say we apply the death penalty "justly." Please see the point below. 5. You admit that there's racism in our judicial system. How then can the death penalty be applied "justly"? Also, women are much less likely to be condemned to death then men, and rich people get life in prison (or get off all together) while poor people get fried. These are the facts, and you lose point #4. 6. You say abolishing the death penalty does nothing to fix problems in the justice system, BUT IT DOES ENSURE THAT NO INNOCENT MAN WILL BE PUT TO DEATH BY THE GOVERNMENT in the meantime. Your arguments have a very callous disregard for the sanctity of human life. I agree that some people deserve to die, but not at the expense of the innocent. To the one man in a thousand who is wrongly executed, the failure rate is 100%. Just imagine if it were you. 7. This argument is absurd, and I would never make it. The death penalty is clearly constitutional. That doesn't mean its advisable. Now that I've answered your mock arguments, let me make my real argument, and it is simple: The death penalty is the tool of tyrants and dictators to silence political opponents. Its institutionalization makes it easier for the day when such is the case in the U.S. Maybe that day will never come, but we should not help usher it in by desensitizing people to capital punishment. Abolishing the death penalty would be a major roadblock against tyranny.