The Death Penalty is a justified means of punishment

You can already cast your ballad for Pro because of the very CRUCIAL drop he makes. He drops the argument about how life in prison with no parole is worst than the death penalty. On to the Value Criterion Debate My opponent makes major contradictory statements when he says there is no break in the sanctity of life when one goes to jail and he also makes it seem that one going to jail is actually good. If one is fed, housed, and given the basic necessities of life then why doesn't everyone break the law to go to jail ? He never makes this kind of argument before so you must allow me to respond. The point of having jail is to be a deterrence to crime. The way my opponent makes jail sound isn't causing any kind of deterrence what so ever. This is already a reason to vote Pro because the Death Penalty doesn't sound Nice at all therefore Potential Violators of crime will be deterred from committing said crimes. We can't have the value criterion of "Sanctity of Life" because then there would be no deliverance of justice at all. Also we need to at least discredit this Value Criterion because his second contention is all about how the Pro can never respect the "Sanctity of Life" because the Death Penalty can potentially kill innocent people. This is EXTREMELY abusive because the point of a good Value Criterion is to allow both sides to link into that said criterion, to be a good weighing mechanism. However this Value Criterion is a POOR weighing mechanism due to it being largely circular. This is the SECOND MAJOR reason to vote Pro. He has made a MAJOR breach in the point of LD Debate and should be dropped right here and now. He takes out ALL Fairness in the round with this abusive nature. I now must waste character space on trying to beat back this Value Criterion and I can't provide any kind of educational benefit to this round which is the very point of this debate round. Here is another CLEAR VOTER to drop my opponent. He takes out all Education. Now against my value criterion of promoting justice to be delivered my opponent only attack on my value criterion was that he can link into it better (Which means he concedes to my value criterion being the criterion of the round) and he attempts to de-link me from my value criterion but this means he accepts my value criterion. He provides no reason to consider his criterion over mine therefore extend my Value Criterion to be the Criterion of the round. B. O. P He tries to bring up the fact that in the 1700-1800's Slavery was considered justified. This doesn't help him, he still needs to prove the Death Penalty isn't justified. This is where he was supposed to make up for the serious breach of education he made earlier in his speech but he simply continues to breach education. The B. O. P Lied on people like Abraham Lincoln and that's where education came about. If the burden of proof is on me this is another place where I must waste character space trying to beat it back. Here is your third voter of Fairness/Education breach by my opponent. Then he tries to talk about the majority of the Populace opposed the death penalty, but first this is extremely contradictory to what he said in his case therefore don't allow him to change his words. Second these statistics don't prove anything in the Status Quo many places still have the death penalty in place and its considered perfectly justified, and just because a majority of the people are in support of something doesn't make it justified look to slavery as an example. The B. O. P Still lies on the Con. Cont. 1 Against the idea that the Death Penalty meets the definition of "Cruel" I say it isn't because its proportional and delivers justice. Against this my opponent brings up life in prison, and the "eye for an eye" Proverb. Against the "Life in Prison" argument: Just as my opponent makes Life in Prison sound earlier is the exact reason why it ISN'T proportional to capital crime. When one commits Capital Crime they rob someones natural rights. Rather than lose theirs as well (Which is what proportionality promotes) My opponent rewards them by allowing them to live for free on the common peoples tax dollars. Against the "Eye for an eye" proverb: The way I use Proportional is the level of the crime (Such as capital crime or low level crime) is equal to the level of punishment (Such as capital crime or a day in jail respectively) therefore the proportionality he tries to promote isn't what I'm talking about. The Theory shell I ran earlier outweighs this completely because this contention doesn't link into the value criterion of promoting justice. Cont. 2 Basically against the first paragraph extend the argument of post-trauma life in jail causes a person. Also "Give me freedom or give me death" Comes into major play in upholding that extension. This extension shows how life in prison is more harmful than the Death Penalty. He can provide the impact of protecting innocence all he wants but the fact of the matter is I'm protecting innocence from even further pain. People are often beaten and raped in jail. My opponent fails to recognize this throughout his arguments. Also he takes about abolishing it to make things cheaper but first this doesn't take out the justification of the death penalty just because it is cheaper to have life in prison doesn't mean the death penalty isn't a justified means of punishment. Second these tax payers would be paying less but they would still be paying for innocence to go to jail and be abused every day which is a loss-loss situation. Cont. 3 My response may have been short but it was still effective. No where in his third contention is there hard evidence that says the justice system is definitely racist only some of the rulings it makes MAY have SOME implications of racism. This doesn't take out the justifications of the Death Penalty. Therefore since my opponent doesn't meet his B. O. P at all there is no reason to vote con. This will be your fourth voter to vote Pro. Now onto my first contention. Now he tries to weasel out of it by saying the danger to the populace is very small but this is problematic because he himself says any danger to innocence is too much to risk and now he turns around saying there is only small risk to the populace ? I find this very contradictory as well as hypocritical and is your fifth voter to vote Pro because he himself says any risk to innocence is too much and shouldn't be taken. Now the ending paragraph starts off by saying the Death Penalty is cheaper but that still doesn't take out the justification. Then he says when one is sentenced to life imprisonment then the offender doesn't return to society but offenders of serious crimes can still be released into society due to a bargaining chip of some kind prosecutors do this all the time therefore the death penalty is the only way to assure that the risk to innocence is low and then he says he prevents innocence from dying but he still promotes post-traumatic issues from jail which harms innocence as well as risks these crazy people to be released back into society and harm other innocence. Here's how the round breaks down. The first major voter is the theory shell I give earlier about my opponents abusive nature in this round and how Fairness/Education is a voter which he undermines. The second reason is the value criterion for this round is to promote justice which the Pro does much better than Con because I ensure that one who may or may not be innocent won't deal with trauma from jail and also risk them being released back into the populace to harm other innocent people which also links into his criterion of sanctity of life so by my opponents own standard I win. My opponent can get sources seeing that he had more but I get arguments link into both criterions more effectively. :D