The Death Penalty

1) The Death Penalty is a cruel punishment, but so is putting a man in a tiny cell for a bare minimum of 15 years. When people use the argument that the constitution prohibits the death penalty, the term cruel is usually interpreted in a way that almost any punishment could fit into. Cruel- 1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings 2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain b : unrelieved by leniency http://www.merriam-webster.com... Life imprisonment may not cause physical pain, but it certainly causes suffering and grief. Regardless, the constitution uses the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment", so just because a punishment is cruel does not disqualify it from being put into practice. The death penalty is unusual only in the sense that it is not implemented very often as opposed to it being perverse or torturous. The cases you listed only prove that the death penalty should be simplified to something that has a 100% success of killing an offender instantaneously, which would cause as little pain as possible. 2) The Death Penalty doesn't have to cost more than life in prison. People that get considered for the death sentence usually use the court system only as a way to get out of their punishment. Ted Bundy confessed to killing some of the 28 people he was convicted for, and yet he still cost taxpayers more than five million dollars by the time he was put to death. He used appeals only to delay and possibly lessen his sentence. This is clearly abuse of the court system, not a flaw in the death sentence itself. Reserve life imprisonment when proper evidence cannot be found. If substantial evidence shows the defendant to be a murderer then give them the death penalty. I cannot state that the death penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment, but the system should be redone so that trials are quicker and less costly. 3) Death Penalty doesn't deter crime because it is not used often enough. "Within the context of the overall murder rate, the death penalty cannot be said to be widely or routinely used in the United States; in recent years the average has been about one execution for about every 700 murders committed, or 1 execution for about every 325 murder convictions." http://en.wikipedia.org... It doesn't deter crime because it is not a punishment that gets used very often. It's especially disgusting that even after being guilty of a murder (possibly after confessing), you can still get away with life imprisonment regardless of the degree. So if you commit a murder you have a 50% chance of being convicted, which is pretty high. You only have a 0.3% chance of actually receiving the death penalty.... You say that Canada has a lower amount of murders than the US, which is true...Unfortunately, lack of a death penalty has nothing to do with this. Mexico does not have the death penalty and yet it trumps the US with its murder rate. Along with Russia, Poland, Costa Rica and many others. http://www.nationmaster.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... On the flip side, some countries that use the death penalty have a lower murder rate such as Japan and India. Death penalty does not effect murder rates as much as my opponent leads one to believe. 4) Leaps in science are clearly providing more accurate evidence which leads to better judgments as to a person's innocence. Looking at the chart of innocent convicts I can see that more have been exonerated recently than 10 years ago. Looking at my opponent's source http://speakout.com... you can see that innocent executions are at maximum 4% (139 innocent/About 3,335 inmates remaining on 'Death Row.') There definitely have been more than 3,335 people who have passed through death row between the years 1973-2009 but I can't find the exact number. I can only find the number contained within one year.