The Death Penalty should remain legal in the United States

First, I would like to agree with my opponent on his first statement. "How a society punishes its worst human rights violators is a good indication of how just it is. " that is true, but I intend in prove to my opponent that life in prison is a far worse punishment for the violator, and less of a drain on American tax payers. I would also like to say that although the story of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena is truly a very sad one, I believe it was added in this debate to evoke emotion,and emotion isn't what we are here to debate. So, with no further direct responses to my opponent's arguments, I would like to begin with my own. 1. ) Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the following on June 7, 2010, in his testimony before the Pennsylvania Senate Government Management and Cost Study Commission: "The death penalty is the most expensive part of the system on a per-offender basis. Millions are spent to achieve a single death sentence that, even if imposed, is unlikely to be carried out. Thus money that the police desperately need for more effective law enforcement may be wasted on the death penalty. The principal reason why the death penalty is so expensive can be summed up in one phrase:"death is different". Every stage of a capital case is more time-consuming and expensive than in a typical criminal case. Jury selection takes much longer; more mental health and forensic experts will be needed; two trials will be required - one for guilt and one for sentencing; and the appeals will be far more complex, focusing on both the conviction and the death sentence. Two attorneys are usually appointed for the defense, so that issues of guilt and sentencing can be separately explored. The prosecution has to respond with equal or greater resources since they have the burden of proof. .. There is no reason the death penalty should be immune from reconsideration, along with other wasteful, expensive programs that no longer make sense. " Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. That is a lot of money that could be spent on other things, but is wasted on the death penalty. 2. ) If we wish to advance as a society, then we must move away from this"eye for an eye" policy. If we kill everything that does us wrong, then it is just out of pure emotion. If we strive to advance as a society, then we must get rid of this policy. A revenge philosophy inevitably leads to an endless cycle of violence. Why do you think the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been going on for 50 years? Why do you think gang violence in this country never seems to end? It is important to send a message to society that striking back at your enemy purely for revenge will always make matters worse. After all, as the old clichï¿½ goes, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. 3. ) Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. Many states require any jury members to be polled during the pre-trial examination to be sure they have the stomach to sentence someone to death before they're allowed to serve. Even if they're against the death penalty, they still may lie in order to get on the panel. The thought of agreeing to kill someone even influences some jury members to acquit rather than risk the death. Some prosecutors may go for a lesser charge rather than force juries into a death-or-acquit choice. Now is that just? 4. )It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes. Criminals usually are looked down upon by society. People are disgusted by the vile, unconscionable acts they commit and feel tremendous sympathy for the victims of murder, rape, etc. However, the death penalty has a way of shifting sympathy away from the victims and to the criminals themselves. To prove this, please allow me to tell you a story. It is the story of the 2005 execution of former gang leader "Tookie" Williams. This is the man who founded the notorious "Crip" gang, which has a long legacy of robbery, assault, and murder. This is a man who was convicted with overwhelming evidence of the murder of 4 people, some of whom he shot in the back and then laughed at the sounds they made as they died. This man is a ruthless killer, who never even took responsibility for the crimes, or apologized to the victims' families -- NOT ONCE! These victims had kids and spouses, but instead of sympathy for them, sympathy shifted to Tookie. Candlelight vigils were held for him. Websites like savetookie. org sprung up. Protests and a media circus ensued trying to prevent the execution, which eventually did take place -- 26 years after the crime itself! There are many cases like this, which makes a mockery of the evil crimes these degenerates commit. Now, how just is a society that could possibly feel inclined to be sympathetic to its "Worst Human Rights violators? " So, In conclusion, I would like to say that I feel like I have provided arguments that efficiently refute my opponent's, and that hopefully after reading this, you will be inclined to vote Con. Thank you for your time. Sources: . http://www.innocenceproject.org... . http://www.deathpenalty.org... . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...