The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

This was a breach of conduct, as I'm sure the voters are aware. However, I would urge the voters to take into consideration that my opponent has only joined today (19/8/2013, or if you're American, 8/19/2013), and so he should be let off the hook for this. However, as per the rules, I will ignore these arguments that my opponent proposes in round one, but he may reinstate them for me to address in round two if he so wishes. Now, onto my opening arguments! Contention 1: Value of human life. Human life is invaluable, and to take a life from one is a serious crime. I am sure my opponent will agree on this! However, pro-death penalty will ensure that there is an asterisk attached to this. Pro-death penalty version: Human life is invaluable, and to take a life from one is a serious crime*. *unless that life is taken from a person by the government. I would ask my opponent to explain why he has this asterisk attached? A counter-argument could be: One forfeits one's right to live by killing another human being. That might work, except: a) Where is that a written; what authority tells us this? And b) Doesn't that justify people executing the executioner(s)? If not, why not? This appears to be hypocritical on many levels and I do not see as logical. Contention 2: Innocent executions. Allow me, if you will, to look at two scenarios. One: An innocent man is found guilty by the courts, despite pleas of innocence. (For whatever reason, it could be very bias; it could be framed, etc. .. ) His punishment is death. He's executed. Years later, evidence is shown that he was, in fact, innocent. An innocent man is convicted and the families of both the accused and the victim have their false justice revealed to them. Two: Same scenario, except this man is sentenced to life in prison. Then, when he is later proved innocent, he can go free. An innocent man didn't die. In short, the US government takes a very hypocritical stance of: "do as I say, not as I do". Examples of scenario one include Johnny Garrett, Carlos DeLuna, Thomas and Meeks Griffin, among others[1]. These injustices are rare, granted, but should a justice system include absolute punishments with less than 100% success rates? Of course we shouldn't - it's not fair. Justice that's not fair is not justice in the American system. Contention 3: The death penalty could encourage murderers to murder again. This, at face value, seems like a ridiculous suggestion. But it's really not; allow me to show you why. In the American justice system, the penalties are very restrictive. Judges have to say: This crime=this punishment. It's called mandatory sentencing. So if you've killed someone, to some extent you know what you've got ahead of you if you're found out. So - what they've got to lose? Effectively nothing, so they might as well kill witnesses, other grudges, etc. .. "A wild beat cornered is not safe to touch. " Contention 4: The cost is far too high. It has been shown in various studies that the death penalty is far higher a cost than life without parole[2], wasting taxpayer dollars on extra expenses. "California [alone] could save one billion dollars over five years by replacing capital punishment with the death penalty. "[2] What could these dollars go towards? Schools, police stations to help reduce crime in the first place, roads, rubbish, etc. .. This is phenomenal! It shouldn't be wasted on tedious, immoral, hypocritical, and unfair justice systems. These contentions, my opponent, voters, ladies, and gentlemen, concludes my opening arguments. Thank you. Source(s): [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]. http://www.deathpenalty.org...