should the death penalty be used in the united states

Right I'd just like to clear up the confusion- I'm PRO, my opponent should be Con. Moving on. My value is Justice, which is defined as giving each their due. This should be looked at the standard because we are discussing the death penalty, which is a punishment, and thus since all punishments deal with justice, justice should be the value. The value criterion for justice is Proportionality, or having the punishment fit the crime. In order to give each his or her due, we must give criminals a punishment that fits their crime as this is the only way to give him his due. It would not make sense to give a murderer a $100 fine, as this punishment does not fit his crime, and thus is not just. Therefore in order to uphold justice we must look at what punishment will fit the crime. Contention 1) The very idea of murder constitutes the death penalty. By committing a murder, you are committing the most extreme crime against humanity and violating a person's right to life, and thus violating every single right they have. Additionally, their crime no longer affects the victim directly, but the entire populous as the crime breaks the moral codes that allow society to function. The government must view the crime as such and therefore must give a punishment that can fit it. However this cannot be done simply by restricting a person's movements through prison, because they violated all of the victim's rights. The only way to proportionally deliver punishment for the most extreme crime is by the most extreme punishment, the death penalty. Contention 2) Universialtiy. The renowned philosopher Immanuel Kant stated, "Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." Kant held the idea that each person has a free rational choice, and because the criminal has made the free rational choice to put forth a maxim stating that killing is allowed, then we must fulfill this maxim. The only way to achieve justice is to give the murderer what he believes should be the moral maxim, death. (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((REFUTE))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0 >>1) Financial Resources. My opponent states that financial costs should dictate punishment. However, this completely contradicts the entire idea of the United States. Firstly, it would be much cheaper to ship all the prisoners to Alaska and let them starve and freeze to death, however I doubt my opponent would want that. Secondly, this basically states that the system is flawed, not the death penalty. Look at the presidential election. Billions of dollars went into advertising, ect. for that election that could have gone to other things. Does that mean that electing our presidents should not be done? It would be cheaper just to appoint a dictator, however the idea of electing our presidents is allowed. Thus the death penaltyis allowed. >>2) Cruel and Unusual Punsishment. First off, the Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty to the states, and thus ruled it as Constitutional. Thus the Constitution itself, which gives the Supreme Court power to rule things constitutional or not has ruled the death penalty constitutional. Secondly, Kim Jong Il and other dictators kill INNOCENT people. We kill MURDERS to protect our society and uphold justice. There is a difference. >>3) Clogs Court system TURN this, if we spend so much time on these cases, this contradicts my opponents idea of killing innocents. Second, once again, as I stated against his first point, this just points to a flaw in the system, not the act. >>4)"Eye for an eye" First, there is a difference between Israel-Palestine and gang warfare. Both those things are fueled by hate. The death penalty is fueled by justice. Secondly, I agree we cant just say an eye for an eye, that's why we don't rape rapists and kidnap kidnappers. However at a certain point we must make the crime fit the punishment and the only way to do this with a murderer is the death penalty. >>5) It sends the wrong message TURN- we kill people who kill people because they killed someone! They have shown how they want society to be, and therefore they should receive what they have done. Also, every punishment does this according to my opponent. If someone steals a million dollars, or kidnaps a child, then we fine the person who stole and put the kidnapper in jail. My opponent would completely remove all punishment because all punishment does just what my opponent says makes no sense. >>6) Life sentences are more punishment. TURN- Wait a second. My opponent claims that the death penalty is barbaric, cruel and unusual, then claims that we should give them a life sentence, because its worse? This is an obvious contradiction. Therefore, if he is to state that we should give a worse punishment, then there is no reason not to give the death penalty. >>7) Other countries. The US should not act in such a way that other countries want us to. If other countries wanted us to withdraw our military forces from every other country(which by the way many do) should we? Of course not, this would completely blind us to any impending attack and thus strip us of defense. >>8) Jury members are reluctant to convict. TURN- in the situation where the prosecutor goes for a lesser charge, my opponent states justice won't be served. Thus he acknowledges that the death penalty is just. End of debate right here. Second, the prosecutor doesn't decide what the punishment is, only the charges, i.e. murder 1, murder 2. >>9) Family's Pain They will suffer either way, the trial will be emotionally draining either way. Also, the victim's family will suffer knowing that the kill is still alive after his actions. >>10) Possibility of innocents killed. My opponent even previously stated that they go through such a long appeal process meant to ensure no innocents are killed. Second, DNA testing almost completely destroys that possibility in modern times. >>11) Mentally Ill people may be killed. But my opponent ignores the fact that you can plead not guilty for reasons of insanity, when you will be examined by medical professionals. If you are found to be mentally insane, you will not be killed but moved to a secure psychiatric facility. >>12) It creates sympathy. First, this has no impact. What some people yell, a dozen others will think the opposite. My opponent offers no stats stating the majority of people thought Tookie should be saved, only the idea that a group of people did. Also, does this really matter? We can't let the popularity of each decision be the reason if its right or wrong; if we did slavery was right in 1700. >>13) It's useless. Far from it. By using the death penalty, you ensure that there will be no more victims from this murderer and justice is upheld. Additionally, I have no idea why my opponent is bringing the idea of anger, hate and revenge into this. The death penalty is about none of those, it is a way to ensure that the criminal is given his or her due.