The death penalty should be illegal in the united states.

1. My opponent begins by saying that I "don't have an answer" regarding the Lord's commandments. That is an absurd and ridiculous assertion; the reality is that SHE doesn't have an answer to MY point, which maintains that a Separation between Church and States exists as it pertains to the laws of the United States of America. As such, what the "Lord" says is completely irrelevant to this debate. 2. Next Pro again makes a wrongful assumption in saying that I have "avoided" her question of what gives us the right to kill anyone. Well, as I already stated, people who intentionally and maliciously deprive another of their right to life open themselves up in justice to any proportional punishment. The answer is that the death penalty "accomplishes justice." We have a social contract to the society in which we live; if we don't obey the law, we are punished. Punishment should vary depending on the crime, the intent, the proof and other individual circumstances. In cases where a jury of peers along with the prosecutor and other court officials deem appropriate, the death penalty should be a viable option to achieve justice on the same scale (or similar) to that of the crime committed. We have a "right" to implement the death penalty because of the social contract theory, and because of our responsibility to achieve justice and punish offenders as well as uphold the laws. 3. Pro next states that "half or a good amount of people are wrongly convicted." Those who are wrongly sentenced to death should be the only ones relevant to this discussion, and moreover, I'd like to see proof and statistics backing up that claim before addressing it. Also, later on in this debate I will explain how those wrongly convicted are few and far between, and have an abundant amount of time before the actual death to appeal their case. 4. Pro's next argument is that if I or a loved one were wrongly convicted, I would be upset. This is true; however, the reality is that only a handful of people actually die from the death penalty each year. There are A LOT more murders and homicides committed than the number of actual people who make it to the end of death row. In this case, we have to implement the philosophy that we should choose the approach which achieves the maximum amount of justice, even at the sacrifice of a few (Utilitarianism). Plus, as I said, with technology and other advances, our likelihood of killing an innocent person is far less than in the past. Moreover, prisoners on death row typically have to wait over *20 years* before they die... Plenty of time to overturn a wrong conviction or appeal time and again [1]. 5. Moving on to a rebuttal of my arguments, Pro said that the killer was going to be punished either way (via life in prison) so implementing the death penalty was unnecessary. Obviously what's important to consider here is the nature of the crime and the morality behind the punishment. Culpae poenae par esto -- Latin for "Let the punishment fit the crime." If one takes another's life and robs them of all capacity to feel emotion, to think thoughts, to experience life in general, etc., then it's fair to punish the offender in the same way and rob him of the same right to life that he or she imposed upon another. 6. Finally regarding my points, Pro says that she doesn't understand my point about the plea bargain process... then she goes on to combat it, so I'm not really sure where she stands. Either way, my point was that it can be a key tool essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. Many times the killers even confess because they're scared of potentially receiving the death penalty. Pro asks, "What about the awesome justice system?" Like I said, this shortens the process and saves a lot of work, time, grief and money... didn't I explain that? 7. Pro then introduces a new argument, claiming that the killer's family would have to see their loved one condemned to death. That is truly unfortunate for the killer's family; however, the death penalty is not only about satisfying people's families, but about achieving justice and being responsible to society. Also, let me point out that the killer's family would be upset to see their relative being put in jail for life as well. Sure, they would be able to visit that person, but again why should they and the killer have that luxury when the deceased and their family do not? This is about the rights and privileges about the one who's left alive. The killer should not receive better or superior treatment than the victim (even though they usually do, because the DP isn't implemented in a cruel way). The victim did not choose an action that lead to their demise, while the killer did (with intent, and carried it out maliciously). This is about responsibility. 8. Regarding "two wrongs don't make a right," that is a silly argument as it would condemn the punishment of all criminals. Putting someone in jail isn't "right" either, and yet we do it as a way to keep citizens safe, and uphold/enforce the law. As I've said many times, justice is achieved because it's bestowing the same action upon the offender as the crime which he or she has committed. This isn't true of all crimes because typically the crimes do not commit the ultimate injustice: depriving another of their right to life. If a malicious person wishes to do this, he or she must accept the consequences of the same action (or at least one with a similar result). 9. The last argument from Pro claims that the killers can suffer more (thus achieving justice better) while in prison. I negate. In prison, one can receive an education, play sports, read, or even have a job with wages (albeit small). Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that while in prison, these predators are still alive; they are still breathing, thinking, feeling and enjoying the what makes "life" while the deceased can not. Further, punishing crime isn't only about making the perpetrator suffer; it's about achieving justice by having a suitable punishment for the crime. That is the most fair thing to do for everyone: the victim, society and even the killer themselves. [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...