Captial Punishment Doesnt Go Far Enough

1. Syria a. First of all, location was not specified in Round 1. We simply had to assume that the United States was the location in which this policy would be implemented; I apologize, but I feel that it's too late to change this assumption now. b. Let's assume for a moment that this debate DOES concern Syria. I'd like to refer voters to Chapter 1, Article 28, Sections 1, 3, and 4 of the Syrian Constitution, which read as such: "(1) Every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a final judicial decision. (3) No one may be tortured physically or mentally or be treated in a humiliating manner. The law defines the punishment of whoever commits such an act. (4) The right of litigation, contest, and defense before the judiciary is safeguarded by the law." [http://www.servat.unibe.ch...] Much like the American Constitution, all Syrian citizens are presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise, regardless of whether they seem "likely" to commit a crime. Also, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment (written here as torture or "humiliating" treatment) is intact - and, as I explained in Round 1, execution of someone who seems remotely suspicious is rather cruel and unusual. And, finally, Section 4 - every Syrian citizen, like those in the United States, is guaranteed due process of law, and cannot be deprived of rights without such process. This is further reflected in Article 25, Sections 1 and 3, which read: "(1) Freedom is a sacred right. The state protects the personal freedom of the citizens and safeguards their dignity and security. (3) The citizens are equal before the law in their rights and duties." Citizens' freedom, even in Syria, cannot be legally infringed upon by a "pre-death" sentence, especially when protection of the laws is extended equally to all citizens, whether or not they are deemed "likely" to commit a crime. 2. Deterrence a. My opponent states, and I quote: "it would not be an effective deterrent" - compare this with his Round 1 argument: "The way that it would reduce crime is that it would act as a deter[r]ent and people wouldn't even think of committing a crime" Clearly a contradiction in my opponent's position. b. My opponent outright admits that, as a result of his policy, everyone would be dead. If you look back to my Round 1 argument, which goes unaddressed, allowing all people to be slaughtered by the authorities leaves no one left to protect, and thus, no purpose for the law to even exist (since law is designed to PROTECT innocents). A lack of crime is a pretty meager payoff when compared to the effects of wanton slaughter of innocents. c. Assuming that, somehow, not everyone subject to the policy ends up dead, the evidence I've provided goes unaddressed, once again proving that the death penalty, even as a preemptive measure, is not going to deter crime, and may, in fact, exacerbate violent crime rates. 3. Other drops a. Recalling that the realm of the resolution was implied in Round 1 as being the United States, my arguments concerning the 5th and 8th Amendments are still very applicable. b. Pro also ignores the argument concerning the lack of proportionality inherent in such a proposal. c. MOST IMPORTANTLY --- Pro has yet again failed to provide a legitimate standard for judging who is "likely" to commit a crime, and for establishing a threshold of suspicion, persons above which are subject to the penalty proposed by the resolution. Once again, I turn the debate over to Pro. That is all.