Death Penalty

My opponent misunderstood many of the arguments I proposed. For one, i stated at the end that i could not continue on because the word limit stopped.Two, my opponent firmly believes in sources. He believes, judging by his actions, that debates are won by submitting sources for everything that is said, this is untrue. My debates previously used more logical reasoning which do not require statistical information. Also, the majority of my argument was showing that while you provide sources, the sources prove very little and that they only show a small portion of everything that happened. My opponent over and over again states that I did not provide sources, another reason why i did not is that in my previous arguments I was dissecting your sources and explaining their flaws, providing my definition of justice and many other reasons. "Figures do not lie, but a liar often figures."For one, I did not say that "everyone should be happy that three men were executed so they did not have to endure the horrific conditions of prison", that entire argument he is referencing to was showing that my opponent is contradicting himself. It was mere sarcasm in which I clearly made sure one could notice. I believe that death is worse than prison, but yet in a previous statement you said it was "torture to stay in these prisons". Obviously as i just got you to prove, death is worse and will always be worse than staying in a prison. My opponent states that injections can be legal because people who use IV drugs do not have augmentative veins, is it not their fault for using drugs? Unless they were in a hospital, you're implying that these poor people who did drugs like heroin have to suffer through a lethal injections, that person should not have been doing drugs in the first place.One point in which I apparently needed evidence for is that criminals have time to get things in order, period. As my opponent also just proved for me by stating that criminals do have this time, they just do not use it wisely, means that my point is clearly proven.My opponent tries to say that i was implying that everyone should be happy that the men did not have to "suffer" in prison, once again that entire paragraph was a sarcastic point in which i showed my opponents contradictions which i stated previously.My opponent states that because someone is feeling remorse for a crime, it is not fair that they die because they feel sorry for their crime. First, imagine the amount of times even in your life you have been sorry for something, but still did the same thing you were sorry for later on, or something like it. The justice system cannot let someone live just because they feel sorry. Anyone can appear to be sorry, but only two people know if that person really is, him/herself and God.My opponent stated previously that it is not justice if a person accused of a crime on another family is sentenced to death if the family who lost a loved one did not want the criminal to die. What is not fair in reality is leaving the decision up to the family who just a loved one make a decision on another person's life. Then decisions would be made off of emotions instead of facts. My opponent states that blacks and Latinos are more likely to be put on death row because of their ethnicity, this is false. Courts decide based on a plethora of matters including previous crimes committed. Courts do not decide who died and who does not just because of a the color of their skin. My opponent states that more latinos and blacks combined out number the white prison population. That is because more latinos and blacks are committing crimes than white people. My opponent states that bad conditions in the economy etc. are reasons why crime is commited. I would like to point out that some of the most rural and poor areas in the U.S. are predominantly black or latino. In conclusion to this of course their are more blacks and latinos COMBINED outnumber whites. Because the amount of crime produced by blacks and latinos out number that of whites. My opponent stated that sometimes death by lethal injection can be painful if the vein is missed. I want to point out that no where in the constitution does it protect a citizen from a pain free death. No where did i state that prison is an insufficient punishment, but prison is not worse than death, which you apparently disagree with.You state how prisons are so horrific, have you ever come to the thought that the conditions in prisons are far better than that of the American soldiers that protect you? In Conclusion,From my opponent this has been perceived by what he believes.1) Justice would be letting the family of the victim decide on if the criminal should die or live. Rebuttal-this would lead to many decisions based on emotions and it is not fair to put the pressure of a family who just lost a loved one decide the date of another human.2) Prisons are a far worse punishment than death. Rebuttal- My opponent provides very little information on these "horrific" conditions, only comparing it to a prison that has video games and a library, as if all prisons should be that way. He chooses to turn away from how these prisons provide all of the necessities for life, which is more than enough for someone who is a criminal. My opponent then contradicts by saying that prisons torture people yet it's not fair someone was wrongly executed, even since they were "wrongly executed" it spared them the suffering through the "horrific conditions of the prisons". He must concede on one point, either death is worse than prison time, or in reality the "wrongly death" saved the man from suffering. Because according to my opponent people sit on death row for a very long time. In the cases he provided, if the accused had just been sent to prison, those men would have been in prison for 30 years or so in which they would have been "mentally tortured under the horrifying conditions".3) Race comes into play when someone is sentenced to death row. Rebuttal- That statement is false. By saying that my opponent is implying that the United States justice system is filled with a bunch of only white racists and that race is the soul factor in the decision of someones death. In reality courts take into account repeat offenders and the solid evidence that was provided. 4) My opponent states that to many people are wrongly accused and sentenced to death. Rebuttal- A very low percentage of people this has actually happened to and take into consideration the amount of people that should have been punished but have not been.5) Someone should not be executed is they feel sorry for the crime they committed. Rebuttal- If criminals knew that, everyone would act sympathetic just to get out of the punishment. In life, whatever decision is made there are consequences, no matter how you feel afterwards, same for the death penalty.My points1) The death penalty is a soul use of punishment, period.2) The death penalty is virtually pain free besides sometimes a small prick in which the vein is missed, but other than that in a lot of cases lethal injection is painless and a much pain free death compared to the death of the victim.3) The death penalty allows enough time to allow criminals to get their affairs in order while the victims did not have that luxury. My opponent conceded to this.4) Justice is punishment for a crime, end of story. Emotions are taken out, only evidence and the law determines the punishment and that is justice. The same punishment for the same crime if accused and convicted.5) The death penalty does deter crime because it stops the criminal from either A- committing another crime once released or B- committing a crime to another prisoner while in jail.I thank my opponent for his argument.http://niviusvir.wordpress.com...http://www.phoenix.edu...