To be suggested.

Thank you for offering such a strong opening argument, gahbage. Responses: 1. Retribution The rhetoric my opponent purposes is missing its second half. The saying goes, "an eye for an eye, [makes the whole world blind]". This means, at the point in which, we, as in society, abuse the convicted, we are not doing any better than the criminal. Essentially, (especially in the case of the death penalty), we are committing the same atrocious act as the criminal herself. My opponent advocates a position in which society disciplines the accused in a punishment that is tantamount to their illegal act. At first, this rhetoric may sound appealing, especially when applied to the death penalty. Let's put this appealing rhetoric into action: We can put a murderer to death because he murdered, correct? Murder=Murder, true retribution. So, since we can murder a murderer, what stops us from, raping the rapist, or how about stealing from a thief? Of course such punishment would seem barbaric. But why is it so cruel if we were to rape the rapist as a form of retribution, yet at the same time it is "acceptable" to murder the murders? The topic clearly questions the act of a just society, but no just society would hold retribution with the same regard as my opponent. Retribution is almost synonymous to revenge, the purpose of any ideal judicial system is not acquire revenge, but to serve justice, to give someone what they are due for committing a crime against society. With that said, retribution is not justification for the death penalty. __________________________ 2. Deterrence. My opponent believes that murderers would fear the death penalty, thus it would stop them from committing homicide. I am surprised that he would believe that is true. As a matter of fact, ["as early as the mid-1700s, there were doubts about whether the death penalty acted as a deterrent to crime. When expert criminologists were polled on their views of existing deterrent studies, 84 percent of them concluded from the research that the death penalty did not act as a deterrent to murder. In fact, some studies have shown a "brutalization effect," in that murders in some jurisdictions increased right after well-publicized executions. Additionally, a 1995 poll by Hart Research Associates found that the majority of police chiefs do not believe the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides - in fact, they ranked it as the least effective way to reduce crime." (The Death Penalty Information Center, "Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide Through the Death Penalty Debate.")] FURTHERMORE, ["These theories are supported by comparisons of murder rates: A 2000 review of murder rates over the past 20 years by the New York Times found that murder rates in states with the death penalty have been 48 to 101 percent higher than in non-death penalty states... On a national scale, the United States has a far higher murder rather than many European countries that do not use the death penalty." (The Death Penalty Information Center, "Understanding Capital Punishment: A Guide Through the Death Penalty Debate.")] Enough with the statistics, for those of you who choose words over numbers, consider this: Most murders occur in the heat of passion. The murderer is either enraged, envious, in love, or any combination of the three. Meaning, a murderer is not going to think about whether or not they'll receive the death penalty because there mind would be too focused on killing the other person. The only time this point would be valid is if the murder is premeditated. But, this reasoning is empirically dis proven, pre-meditated murder occurs very frequently, evidently these people didn't care about the death penalty. Also, my opponent has not offered a reason for as to why life imprisonment could not serve the same purpose. This point is no longer of any importance because the death penalty is not sufficient in deterrence. __________________________ 3. Prevention This is probably the weakest point in my opponent's case. He states that we should kill the convicted in order to stop them from committing more crime. He fails to show how jail couldn't serve this same purpose. Furthermore, a just society cannot put someone to death in order to prevent them from committing future crimes. A just society would not advocate a principle of prevention. A principle of prevention could be used to justify the judicial system to do whatever it wants, just as long as future crimes are prevented. Meaning, we could kill all minorities in order to ensure some future murders would be prevented. This is clearly NOT the action a just society would take. __________________________ In conclusion, my opponent is calling for retribution, deterrence and prevention, all of these have been successfully proven either not upheld by the death penalty or an unjust action. Therefore, you are to default CON, I am the only side that has proven beyond doubt the ineffectiveness and injustice that occurs through the implementation of a death penalty punishment. - Protagoras of Abdera.