Death Penalty

REBUTTAL, EXECUTION OF INNOCENTSMy opponent brings the fallibility of man into play, citing the fact that innocents have most likely been wrongfully executed. He also cites courtroom bias as affecting the sentencing process. I feel that the answer to this is pretty clear cut. We should of course work to reform the system to lessen the amount of innocents that face execution, but at the end of the day, we need to look at this from a big picture perspective. What is worse, the death of one innocent, or the deaths of 74? Now I am not suggesting that the government pick innocents off the streets and execute them to prevent crime, I'm merely pointing out the overall good this punishment does. Of course we do not wish the innocent to be executed, but even when the mistake is made, it is very likely that mistake will prevent the deaths of many. My opponent claims it is the job of the government to protect the citizenry, and if this is the case, the Death Penalty is the way forward. It is not a pretty solution, but it is a better alternative when the other option is allowing the indirect deaths of 74 because we didn't want to be directly responsible for the death of one innocent. The execution of innocents is an unfortunate side-effect of the implementation of the Death Penalty, but it is in the interests of the greater good of the society that uses the Death Penalty.REBUTTAL, MONEY COULD BE BETTER SPENTThe speaker from my opponent's source does not tell us how many lives could be saved by taking the Death Penalty money and putting it elsewhere, probably because there is no evidence to support how many lives, nor is their much money (relatively) to be funneled back to other state services. This is continuing with my point that the Death Penalty is really not as expensive as it is often represented as. The price that the Death Penalty usually amounts to is like a grain of sand on a beach in comparison to the state's spending. For instance, in Maryland, each Death Penalty case costs $3M (previously cited). The state of Maryland will be spending over $8B this year[1]. So if you took the money from a Death Penalty case and put it back into the state's budget, you would be adding less than a percent to their available spending money. Far, far less than a percent. And that's not even taking to account that a life without parole case in Maryland is $1.1M (previously cited).I know the above is one example, but it merely there to demonstrate my point. Unless you're a state like California, you're unlikely to see that big of a jump in spending money if you were to abolish your Death Penalty. You could probably get more spending money (without indirectly causing the deaths of many innocents) by reforming your state spending in other areas, such as simple efficiency. REBUTTAL, PROPORTIONALITYMost of my opponent's case seems to be centered around the fact that many mentally ill or otherwise disaffected individuals have been executed. First, I'd like to lessen some of the hype my opponent has placed on the condition of those sentenced. In the arena of the mentally ill, only 4% of men ever executed were mentally ill[2][3]. And since according to my opponent's source the Supreme Court has outlawed the execution of the mentally ill, we no longer need to worry about that.Frankly, this case my opponent is making is only partially valid for the question at hand. If the resolution was, "The Death Penalty needs reform", then he would have a great point. Because that's all this argument of unfair executions warrants--a need for reform. If we have people who are addicted to substances, I agree, if they're not responsible for their actions thanks to the drug addiction, why should we hold them accountable? Instead we should check them into some kind of facility that specializes in drug addiction recovery. But the point is, you can do this without abolishing the Death Penalty. Deciding to abolish the Death Penalty over convictions of those you consider not responsible for their actions is like deciding to sell your house because you don't like the front door. Just change the front door! Keep the house! If you look at the numbers of those who are saved by the Death Penalty's implementation, we can view these executions as necessary. Perhaps it wouldn't be 100% 'right' to execute a poor person because they killed someone, but if it reduced murders, and the fall guy is a murderer, how can you say that it is an overall wrong thing to do? For everyone of these men executed, 74 are saved.CONCLUSIONIn the end, it comes down to the greater good. Even if the justice system fails in some way, executing someone you don't think deserved it, think about what the 74 who are saved deserve. This is not about what the criminals deserve, it is about what the public deserves. Thanks for reading.Sources:[1] http://dbm.maryland.gov...[2] http://www.deathpenalty.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...