The death penalty is a reasonable form of punishment for capitol offences.

Many thanks to my opponent for the debate :) == Rebuttal: Goals of the Death Penalty == Pro begins by citing 3 goals that the death penalty aims to achieve: Justice, Safety (removing threats to society) and Deterrence (prevention of future killings). In fact, Pro says that deterrence is the most important factor in why the death penalty should be upheld. He notes, "When people see that the result of the crime that they could commit is death, it inspires them to not commit murder." I'll begin by first arguing against this premise, and then attack the other two before making my case. A. DETERRENCE First and foremost, countless studies show that the death penalty DOES NOT WORK as a deterrent. A New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty. Additionally, FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate [1]. Study after study will show the same statistics. The fact remains that murder rates are not any lower in states that employ the DP, meaning it doesn't work at deterring murder thus negating Pro's premise that it does. If necessary, I will explain in future rounds all of the reasons why the DP has been proven not to work at preventing crime (murder). B. SAFETY Pro writes, "Seeing as the ideal government will protect its citizens, any murderer must be removed from even the slightest possibility of committing such crimes again." The obvious response to this contention is that enduring life in prison will have the same effect: convicted murderers will be kept off the streets thus unable to commit any more severe crimes. C. JUSTICE This is perhaps the most subjective criterion. I affirm that the death penalty does not achieve justice. As my opponent discussed in the last round, our justice system does not employ the "eye for an eye" mentality. We do not rape convicted rapists, or assault convicted assailants. Instead, we retract their right to freedom. Founding Father Patrick Henry infamously exclaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death!" In other words, to be void of freedom is comparable to death in the eyes of many. I will explain why alternatives to the death penalty can achieve justice far better than the DP itself, and how the DP actually fails to achieve justice. == Arguments: Case Against the Death Penalty == Marquis de Lafayette once said, "I shall ask for the abolition of the punishment of death until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me." In other words, the criminal justice system is composed of nothing but human beings who are capable of making mistakes. Unlike other punishments, the DP is uniquely irrevocable. If one is sentenced to death, there is no way to repeal the punishment upon new evidence that the convicted individual was actually innocent. While the chances of wrongful death seem small, on average there are more than 4 people wrongfully sentenced to death per year since the year 1900 [2]. That marks about 450 people in the last 110 years. So I ask - was justice served to these individuals? Their lives were taken based on human error, and nothing can be done to restore their lives nor the lives of their friends and family who lost a loved one. Of course we cannot abolish the entire justice system because sometimes we make mistakes; however, we also cannot justify killing hundreds of innocent people when we could have implemented other ways to protect citizens and spare the lives of the innocents who were wrongly put to death. As I've already mentioned, the DP simply does not deter murder therefore the only things we can seek to achieve while punishing murderers are safety and justice. I pointed out that spending life in prison can easily keep convicted murderers off the streets. Additionally, if a mistake was made, one can be released from prison whereas one's life cannot be restored upon death. While Pro mentions the fact that people in jail get "free health care" and "endless cable television," what he forgets to mention is that people in jail also get raped and beaten. Fact: Around 2 million people are in U.S. prisons, and experts estimate that over a million (50+ percent) have been sexually assaulted behind bars over the last 20 years alone. Given that many inmates are assaulted on multiple occasions on a daily basis, the absolute number of sexual assaults committed behind bars may exceed the number committed everywhere else in the country put together [3]. In other words, life in prison isn't all fun and games as Pro implies. Moreover, if Pro seeks justice in the sense that he wants murderers to suffer, then why not impose harsh conditions that would make life in prison seemingly unbearable? Examples include things like solitary confinement, and certainly not any cable privileges or privileges of any kind. A better idea would be to force slave labor upon murderers. In order to repay society for violating the social contract, convicts should be forced to do manual labor and provide other services to help alleviate the law abiding tax payers. In this way they are not only suffering, but also giving back to society. When one dies at the hand of the DP, they are given a few lethal injections The first puts them to sleep (anesthetics) and then the others stop their breathing and then their heart in that order. In other words, the procedure is quick and completely painless. On the contrary, some crimes murderers have committed were completely horrific. How is justice being served if one dies brutally and mercilessly while their assailant dies pain-free? In many cases sometimes even a "last meal" is served. This, my friends, is not justice. Another factor to consider is the psychological profile of a murderer. There are two types of murders: ones that are premeditated and ones that are not. If a murder is not premeditated, then it is considered a "crime of passion" by legal definition. In other words, these murders are the result of sudden outbursts and thus cannot be deterred - which once again dismantles the notion that a legalized DP would deter murder. Premeditated murders are often committed by those with severe psychological problems including sociopaths. These people are literally psychopaths with severe mental illnesses. Since one cannot be blamed for their own psychology, I once again pose the question of how justice is served by taking the life of an individual for something for which they are not entirely blameworthy. While it is not society's job to rehabilitate them, it's not fair to kill them for their illness. Many cannot control their behavior just as an asthmatic cannot control at times being short of breath. Finally we must consider the reality that the great majority of individuals sentenced to death are those from impoverished backgrounds; namely minorities. In a debate of nature vs. nurture, these factors are relevant. Nevertheless, true justice would be served by keeping threats away from society, and retracting the freedom from those who have violated the social contract by committing heinous crimes. Life in prison keeps them off the street and ensures a grim fate. If we force slave labor upon them, then society is not only protected but also helped by the free services these criminals can provide. We can force them to do anything from cleaning highways to making clothes for poor children. Either way, their miserable lives would then revolve around paying a debt to society. It also ensures that if a mistake was made, it can be rectified. That is true justice. == Sources == [1] http://www.amnestyusa.org... [2] http://users.rcn.com... [3] http://www.frumforum.com...