The death penalty should be abolished.

As such, I'm going to open with one general principle that outlines my opposition to the death penalty, which will be expanded upon as appropriate after redinferno lays out his case. The principle is this: that, no matter what kind of person you're looking at, no matter what s/he's done or is accused of doing, it is not justified to have the death penalty either enacted against them or hanging over their head like a decades-long Sword of Damocles waiting to strike. To elaborate, we can understand there to be exactly three types of people who are on death row: === 1) INNOCENT PEOPLE === There is an obvious harm to the possibility of killing an innocent person - given that any justice system will have flaws, there will always be people who fall through the gaps, making this an option that cannot be ignored. See source [1] for such possibilities - especially the section where it mentions people, in Georgia and South Carolina, who have been posthumously pardoned decades after the fact. If executions have been carried out on innocent people in the past, how can we be certain that they're not being carried out on innocent people now? But even if we assume that the justice system will perfectly weed out the innocent before execution, there is still the fact that there are many innocent people who are put on death row. [2] Imagine what it would be like to be one of these people, knowing that you're innocent of the crime, yet knowing that the government could kill you nonetheless. Imagine the stress that you would undoubtedly go through everyday, with this fear of death hanging over you constantly. Now imagine this ordeal potentially continuing for decades - anything up to 20+ years (time taken from examples in [2]). Is any of this something we should wish upon innocent people? It is bad enough and unfortunate enough for innocent people to be in prison - but it is even worse for such people to be on death row, fearing that the government could put them to certain death at almost any time in the near future. This is something which can be avoided (unlike where innocent people are merely put in prison), and something which has to be stopped. === 2) GUILTY PEOPLE FOR WHOM REHABILITATION IS A VIABLE OPTION === In this circumstance, the case is hopefully clear and relatively self-evident, so I won't delve too much into the specifics. Essentially, rehabilitation is where someone realises the error of their previous criminal ways and is reintegrated into society as a law-abiding citizen. If this possibility is open to the guilty, why should we prevent it by sentencing them to death? === 3) GUILTY PEOPLE FOR WHOM REHABILITATION IS NOT A VIABLE OPTION === These are people who could never be integrated back into society: perhaps they are career criminals or so violently anti-Establishment that they would continue to commit crimes just to spite "the system". But even so, death need not be the answer, for two main reasons: a. For some people it will be giving them the chance to become martyrs for the cause - see the reaction to Saddam Hussein's sentence of execution for reference. [3] Turning criminals into martyrs only helps those sympathetic to the criminal in their propaganda campaign to win people over to their cause. This is especially bad if that cause is terrorism - as will most such cases - but it also has an application in other cases, where the propaganda leads to a more general undermining of the justice system as a whole. b. Even if the factors in a. don't apply, there is still no reason to kill the prisoner: for if they have committed a heinous crime, death is the easy way out for them. It would be better to let such people languish in prison, without hope that a lenient parole board / appeal judge will let them out years later to re-offend. Indeed, this approach seems to find general favour with the U. S. public - see the points made for life without parole in source [4], or the Gallup polls [5] that show support for the death penalty decreasing by anything up to 20% when respondents are explicitly given the alternative of life without possible chance of parole. If they are guilty, then why waste public money on the mandated appeals that will result from being sent to death row? Why subject the victim's family to the knowledge that the perpetrator may yet be released if the appeals board is susceptible and lenient enough? Why mitigate the suffering that results from spending the rest of their natural life in prison, and knowing that they have no chance of being released? Is that not punishment enough? === CONCLUSION === I may, as yet, have reason to introduce other substantive arguments as the debate progresses. But for the time being, for the reasons already outlined, the resolution is affirmed. I await my opponent's response. Sources: [1] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3] . http://news.bbc.co.uk... [4]. http://www.aclunc.org... [5] Compare/contrast the figures on "Do you support the death penalty for murder? " and, summarised, "What if there was an alternative of life without chance of parole? ", at: . http://www.gallup.com...