The Death Penalty Should be Abolished in the USA

-Rebuttal- In regards to Pro's first argument of "consistency", I would like to point out that consistency has nothing to do with legality or why something should be banned. Different states have different laws via the 10th amendment which respects the state to have jurisdiction and control over their own laws and its execution. Should we then get rid of the 10th amendment all together to solve the various inconsistency among state laws? To continue to his argument of racism, the argument is another debate all together, as racist bias is not exclusive to capital punishment. Racists judges give longer jail terms to black people and Asians, but does this mean that we should also ban jailing people for crimes[1]? I ask Pro to be consistent in his argument and concede that he is also arguing for banning jails due to inconsistent racist sentencing. Pro's second argument is about innocent deaths. This is a more relevant argument. However, innocent sentencing is not a problem of capital punishment but a failing of judgment from the prosecution and the judge. I propose that capital punishment be used only when there is undeniable proof such as a confession or video/photo evidence of the crime, along with strong forensic evidence. Given the logic that innocent sentencing should ban capital punishment, the same argument must be made for jails as well, as an innocent man serving nearly a life-sentence in jail is arguably as cruel as killing an innocent man. The argument that states killing murderers makes them no better than murderers is to also say that killing a criminal in self defense, makes the defender no better than the criminal. According to Forbes, 4 percent of people were innocently executed from data collected over 30 years [2]. I dare not say this is acceptable or negligible, but this is more a problem with the prosecution and the judge, and not the principle itself. Pro's third argument states that death penalty should be banned because not enough people get executed for murder. The supreme court did not rule capital punishment unconstitutional. "The imposition of the death penalty does not, automatically, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. If the jury is furnished with standards to direct and limit the sentencing discretion, and the jury's decision is subjected to meaningful appellate review, the death sentence may be constitutional. If, however, the death penalty is mandatory, such that there is no provision for mercy based on the characteristics of the offender, then it is unconstitutional." [3] In fact, the supreme court urges that "the characteristics of the offender" be taken in consideration to be shown "mercy". Pro's argument here is either a dishonest representation or a misunderstanding of the ruling. Pro's fourth argument states that murder rates in death penalty states are higher than non-death penalty states. This fails into take into consideration all the facts that play into crime and murder in general such as poverty, population density, and culture[4]. Pro's argument that the death penalty not being a deterrent (if one were to humor him despite his lack of evidence) should be cause for the death penalty to be abolished, the same argument must be made for life-imprisonment or jails in general, as jails have not deterred criminals from being criminals, it follows based on Pro's logic that jails should also be abolished. Pro's fifth argument is about costs. I do concede that the current system makes it so that the death penalty is an expensive punishment to carry out. However, this is a flaw of the jurisdiction and not the principle of the crime itself. It is also cheaper to not send criminals to prison at all and give them probation and a stern warning. Does this mean we should follow this course of action? Pro's sixth argument is about international consensus. If he is appealing to the tyranny of the majority opinion, then this argument would certainly be reasonable. However, morality is not dictated by majority rule. If majority of people were in favor of capital punishment, would Pro change his view on the matter? -Argument- My argument is fairly simple. Every person's life is sacred to one's self. This is why we view murder as something so atrocious, because we view life as having significant value to ourselves. We created laws in agreement that one's life should not be taken without good reason, such as self-defense. Those that defile this agreement should be punished accordingly. If one takes life or the lives of others, then he forfeits his own life, as per breaking the social contract that binds us as a society. Justice is ideally the equal punishment or redistribution for a crime committed, and in the case that equal punishment or redistribution are impossible, the greatest possible punishment be given. To some people this might be life in jail, to others it might be execution. The victim's family and friends should have some say, as being partial victims themselves, as to which punishment is more appropriate. And should that be a death sentence, then so it should be given the severity of the crime. [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2]http://www.forbes.com... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://www.bjs.gov...