Capital punishment as a form of justice

Additionally, while I am thrilled that my opponent has begun sourcing his arguments, most of his more important claims are unsourced. I would like my opponent to provide, in his next round, sources for: - His claim that the additional charges of the Death Penalty is only $75000 (because my sources clearly don’t say that. ) - Capital punishment reduces crime rates by 3.47%. - In India court cases are completed within five years. - Experts claim that we will have a faster, more efficient judiciary system in a couple of decades. Until then, these unsourced statements should be discounted and will not be addressed in my rebuttals. The Death Penalty wastes both time and money: Unfortunately, the fact that the Death Penalty wastes both time and money is not, as my opponent so delicately puts it, “baloney”. Although yes, there are similar trial and appeal procedures, death penalty still costs, on average 184 million dollars more than life penalty per year, for the state of California alone (and there have only been a total of 13 executions since the death penalty was established in 1978). My opponent does not seem to believe that this is a large amount of money or that this money could be better spent on funding the public programs that matter, and prefers spending that kind of money shooting 13 convicts – that’s fine. The voters can decide which stance they think is more valid. Additionally, my opponent fails to mention that the inmate he references, Ajmal Kasab, is on death row rather than life imprisonment, making his own rebuttal a shining argument against capital punishment. Finally, my opponent’s belief that the Death Penalty deters appeals is invalid; there are no statistics to back up his train of thought. Even if it was a legitimate rebuttal, which it isn’t, it doesn’t change the fact the death penalty still costs more than 100 million dollars per year per state. And the same arguments against prison standards being too lax in America apply to prison standards in India, murderers like Kasab would be sent to a high security prison like Viyyur High Security Prison rather than just the regular jail the article he provides references. Sources: . http://www.deathpenalty.org... The Death Penalty carries the risk of wrongful execution: It is worth noting that my opponent contradicts himself here yet again. He believes that the death penalty provides a more thorough analyses and therefore pardons more innocent people than life imprisonment yet states earlier that life imprisonment costs just as much as the death penalty and goes through a similar procedure of trials and appeals. I ask my opponent to make up his mind before I begin debunking his arguments. The justice system is not solely based on vengeance: My opponent presents an interesting slippery slope here – he believes that a mentally unstable person who has murdered 1 or 2 people should receive aid, but not murderers who kill 90 people. I’d like to ask my opponent where he draws the line – at which number of murders would he consider the murderer beyond help, as well as why. Additionally, his argument that repeating offence rates are higher than we think is purely speculation. Even his own source admits that there are no solid statistics on repeat offenders right now. Finally, yes, I will admit that some murderers would prefer life imprisonment over death. However, I can also provide countless examples of convicts who would prefer death, such as murderers who commit suicide after their crime. There is really no point in going back and forth with statistics and examples, we can simply conclude that there are some murderers who are not afraid of death, and that death is not an effective punishment for all criminals. However, it’s worth it to note that the possibility of capital punishment did not deter Kasab from committing his crimes. Conclusion: Pro concludes with a manipulative attempt at making voters feel insecure, which disgusts me. His attempts at preying on emotion with phrases like “no-one is safe in this crime ridden society” is an appeal to fear, the lowest kind of argument there is. In reality, capital punishment is not the “thin strands that stands between faceless assassins and your family”, because capital punishment does not actually reduce crime rates. The “thin strand” is the police force, and Pro wants us to divert money from it. My opponent’s feeble attempts at misleading the audience are negated. Thank you. Over to Pro.