The Death Penalty should be Abolished

What has become clear in this debate is that your style has lead to huge amount of side tracking. I'm afraid that during this debate you have created a lot of red-herrings. Unfortunately for you, since I have been the only one who has provided arguments, this debate rests on those arguments and not on any content you have provided. In this way, I only actually need to prove 1 of those arguments (in the unlikely case that you nullify the other two). As a matter of fact, I am confident that my side has proven all three of my original arguments and thus shown that DP is wrong and therefore that it should be abolished. I have three points of contention: 1) Whether innocent people dying matters enough to concern advocates of DP 2) Whether Prison is a valid alternative 3) What society's moral outlook should be Since my second argument (that the execution is cruel and brutal) has not been tackled, you have automatically conceded that argument. In fact, you actually argued yourself that DP is deliberately painful and cruel. Thus I already meet the criteria for winning this debate. Contentious point 1: I have shown that innocent people do die. You agreed this was the case. Furthermore, I have explained that racism exists within the criminal justice system. Whether racism has a significant influence on it is a different debate. However, one or two racist incidents alone are enough to prove the claim that there is racism and other forms of prejudice. With that in mind, it follows that bias and thus injustice on the grounds of race exists. I provided you with 2 statistics reflecting a racial imbalance. What is for sure is that there are a number of influential factors that lead to that imbalance however since we know that racism exists in our society it follows that in some way shape or form and however small, racism will be a cause of that imbalance. Therefore, innocent people do die based on racial and other forms of bias. To deny this is utterly ridiculous. It is a kin to denying plain facts. Society is undoubtedly racist to an extent and therefore injustice exists. I don't understand how this is so hard to grasp. So, to an extent, DP is a manifestation of prejudice and therefore toxifies and exacerbates racial inequality to such extremes that the state literally kills on the grounds of race. This murder of innocents is a cause for concern. Next, not only did you give up your position that prisoners would cause violence, but you provided us with the argument of deterrent. There is absolutely no evidence that DP provides any deterrent whatsoever. No convincing multi-variable controlled studies have shown a tangible link between DP and deterring criminals. Rather, deprivation and prejudice are arguably much greater causes of high crime rates. By the same token, a tough prison sentence, which you even admitted to being awful (I think you have now contradicted yourself 3 times), should also act as a deterrent. You can't pick and choose. Based upon this analysis, you have no proof of a deterrent and so your hypothetical idea of ending up saving more lives is exactly that - a hypothetical idea. What we do know is that lots of people already die unfairly. You can't justify that. Therefore, my first argument passes. Innocents dying matters enough to end DP. Contentious point 2: You have contradicted yourself so many times concerning the nature of prison. You told us that prison had "perks" and that it really wasn't that bad. You then told us that prison was tough and that solitary confinement is cruel. However, you still argued the death penalty was worse. Now, my stance has been consistent. I have argued throughout that prisons are tough and therefore they are a punishment. We can adjust the sentence length and nature of the sentence to make it even tougher. I personally don't agree that prisoners should have forced servitude however that is not relevant. What is relevant is that prisons can be controlled by governments in order to meet the satisfaction of the public. If prison is not tough enough then you can make it even tougher. Yet, murdering criminals with the risk of killing innocents is not preferable as we can easily mitigate such a risk. For me, prison has more functions one of those is crime prevention as well. Ultimately, rehabilitation must be a part of prison life. Killing people removes a state's ability to create productive members of society. It takes time and effort but rehabilitating people can really help to fix social problems. People can change. Prison is a valid alternative and in a sense prison does have perks rather because it can help to improve the prisoners as people. Therefore, DP's faults are sufficient that the alternative of prison is more reasonable and viable such that we can abolish DP. Contentious point 3: I want to focus on probably the most important point in this debate and that is the notion of justice. What is justice? What makes a just society. I, like most people, consider justice to be a sense of moral righteousness. Thus in order to rationalise justice, we need to decide what kind of purpose justice would serve and what kind of future does society want. Justice serves a purpose. That purpose is to provide us with a moral and peaceful society in which human kind succeeds to its best possible standard as well as enjoying the most happiness. Thus we need to mitigate suffering. I ask how do we remove suffering from society. Not killing people in a painful way would be a good start. Furthermore, we in the place of government need to think about what message we pass on to people. State's are responsible to an extent for the authority it has and thus for the legacy that its actions have. Right now the state is a murderer - it kills people. What difference does the state have to a murderer if it is the biggest murderer of all? The message sent to citizens is that violence is acceptable. We brutalise society by having the death penalty. Furthermore, we remove the ability to fix the problems. We cannot save people by killing them but we can by rehabilitating them. DP removes the ability of the state to ever fix our society and to set an example. As a result, we condemn our future to one of violence. Abolishing DP is a step towards creating a moral and peaceful society and thus this is justice. If society thus considers justice in this way it is logical to abolish DP in order to build this society - a just society. In conclusion I have won this debate because I have provided 3 arguments as to why we should abolish the death penalty. I have shown that bias and other flaws in our system lead to innocent people dying and secondly why this is bad enough to abolish DP. I have also shown that the death penalty is cruel and painful and thus inhumane and thereof considering its further uselessness should be abolished. Finally, I have proven a tangible link between state murder and violence and why justice states that abolishing DP is a logical step to create a society we can all be truly proud of. You never addressed my second point and so automatically concede it. My other points are logical and are evidence based furthermore they are reflections on plain reality. You have provided no new content. Your argument was that DP is good because an eye for an eye. Just stating an eye for an eye is not an argument. Please explain why an eye for an eye is a moral standpoint rather than just making catchy sound-bites We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere. Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes " sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder. Some countries execute people who were under 18 years old when the crime was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities and several others apply the death penalty after unfair trials " in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time. The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. I oppose the death penalty in all cases without exception - regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution. The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it. I urge the voters to make a fair decision. What kind of society do you want to live in? I want a society when the state is fair and just, where it punishes people humanely on behalf of all citizens and helps those punished to become better people. I don't want a society where the state murders on behalf of raw and emotional hatred behind this medical mantra of "an eye for an eye". Vote for what you know is right. Vote for a society that considers human life as valuable as it is redeemable. Vote Yes to Abolish the Death Penalty.