The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

In this rebuttal, I will address certain points made in my opponent's arguments in Round 2.Rebuttal1) "Only applies to Capital Crimes Such as Murder or Horrid abuse to a minor. Such as the States below who believe in the Death Penalty" This does not take away from the fact that the death penalty is based on the principle of revenge. You have presented no arguments that strike down any of my premises, therefore it stands unrefuted that the death penalty is immoral. The type of crime that must be committed to be indicted on capital charges is irrelevant to the fact that the death penalty is immoral, expensive and does not have any effect on the crime rate.2) "how would you feel if you knew the person who killed your loved one got to continue to live life , and your loved one life was taken from them?"From the perspective of someone who has had this experience:"Even though I was working as a death penalty defense lawyer at the time, I was shocked at my impulse to hunt down and kill the perpetrators myself. Eventually, they were caught, but legal technicalities led to dismissal of the case. The cold, cruel reality I had to face was that no one was going to be held responsible for my brother's murder. But even if the case could have gone forward, nothing could replace what my family had lost. Nothing - not the death penalty, not the worse punishment I could imagine for his killers - would ever bring him back. There was no "closure" to be had. Having served on both sides of the criminal justice system, the experience of losing my brother in this unforgettably tragic way, without recourse or retribution, forced me to re-examine the way "execution" and "closure" are joined in contrived alliance, recited by death penalty advocates to justify their point of view. But having survived my brother's murder without the "benefit" of the death penalty, it is clear to me that the death penalty cannot do what its proponents claim." [1]This woman, Aundre Herron, articulately recounts her feelings: her 'impulse' to kill the perpetrators and her lust for revenge, fueled by the pain of her loss. But, as Herron says, it is impossible to feel closure from one more death. The killing of the perpetrator does not bring the victim(s) back, it just adds to the death count.3) "I stand firmly behind the Death Penalty as it is the humane thing to do. I understand what my opponent is saying , that is a "Revenge" thing." (The definition of humane: having or showing compassion or benevolence)In conformity with the definition above, it is logically impossible for the death penalty to be humane, as killing someone, a criminal or victim, is not showing compassion or benevolence to anyone, even the family (as shown above).Revenge and humane can simply not go together, it is a contradiction. Pursuing someone in hopes of closure of one's own pain by inflicting the pain upon the perpetrator is not moral, neither compassionate nor benevolent.4) "But, I beg to differ because revenge is something that some one seeks when they have been hurt emotionally or physically. The Death Penalty is decides by a Jury or Jude! Not the victims family" The death penalty is sought by the victim's family often for the purpose of closure. As seen above, this closure is non-existent. The victim's family is traumatized and deeply scared by the victim's murder, and they feel the only way to bring true justice is to kill the murderer. This is immoral, and is a basic form of revenge; the proponents of the indictment on capital punishment in any given case are motivated to take the criminal's life in retribution for the victim's life. By definition, this is revenge.------------------Thank you for reading. I await my opponent's response.