A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

1. Rights A. "Notice how my opponent is claiming that the laws that we have that make criminals go to jail are UNJUST, that somehow imprisoning someone who is violent (for example) is somehow unjust. How could that possibly be unjust? Answer = It isn't. " --My opponent is committing the fallacy of equivocation (. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...). Although justice was well-defined at the beginning of the debate, I was using the word more casually. I meant that imprisonment is unjust to the prisoner. Overall it is less unjust than allowing the prisoner to run free, so it is a good policy, but rehabilitation -- if mastered -- would be a far more just technique. While we are talking about punishment, though, prison is far more just than the death penalty. Equating "unjust" with "bad" requires an unwarranted overgeneralization. More importantly, my opponent has failed to refute the main point that capital punishment is more unjust than life imprisonment. "So what HAS to happen is that the guilty party has to have their right to liberty REVOKED (IF we are truly dealing with JUSTICE). " I support rehabilitation, and would rather eliminate punishment entirely. But that aside, it is enough to simply reduce the right to liberty. It is not even entirely removed: prisoners have many freedoms. But the death penalty is the ultimate revocation. It is simply not necessary for the protection of society. B. This is a completely irrelevant point. It only applies if the death penalty is shown to be more beneficial than life imprisonment, which it has not. It is morally upright or good to treat each citizen as well as possible; since imprisonment works at least as well as the death penalty, felons should be treated fairly and given imprisonment instead of execution. "And it is a benefit to the society if a convicted killer is prevented from ever murdering again with 100% certainty. " True. But that extra fraction of a percentage of certainty that the death penalty holds over life imprisonment is not worth it. If a prisoner has a 0.5% chance of escaping and an even lower chance of killing someone, how is this not preferable choice to a 100% chance of killing a living human being with emotions and desires? ======== 2. Costs A. "The obvious advantage of capital punishment over life imprisonment is that it is 100% effective at preventing any additional murders. " This is a very small benefit which is outweighed by the problems and injustices caused by capital punishment. B. "CON already pointed out last round that cost is irrelevant, and this was not disputed, extend my arguments. " It was refuted. See 2A in round 2. I do not understand why my opponent has come back to mercy. I do not see its relevance. I see no arguments here, so I am unable to respond. "As far as solitary confinement being utilized for prisoners who are especially dangerous: why isn't it used today then for all convicted murderers? " I don't know. And this is not a legitimate argument. I may as well drop the point about solitary confinement, since it was just an example of a way to isolate murderers, and isolating murderers only has a very small effect in terms of protecting others. My original point stands. ======== 3. Innocents My points, while short, still effectively refuted my opponent's arguments. 1. "No determination of guilt is infallible. " --> "No imprisonment system is infallible, there would always be a chance for a convicted murderer to murder again. " --> The imprisonment system has a 99.5% accuracy rate. The court system, at least when it comes to murder, has closer to a 90% accuracy rate (see previous rounds for data). 2. "Execution of an innocent is never acceptable. " --> "Murder of an innocent person in society by a previously convicted murderer is never acceptable. " --> This is an unreasonable perspective, since compromises must always be made. However, my opponent has illuminated the fact that my own perspective was unreasonable. Point 1, though, still stands. Furthermore, the killing of a person, even a felon, is not a justified response to a minute chance of that person killing someone else. 3. "These types of evidence are not flawless, and my opponent has given no citation as to their accuracy. " --> "Prisons are not flawless and CON has pointed out some of their shortcomings. " --> I have given a number as to the prison escape rates (0.5% and dropping) while my opponent has offered no citation. 4. "There will always be innocents who end up being executed, no matter the system. " --> "There will always be murderers with the chance to murder again, no matter the (prison) system. " --> As I have said, the prison system is much more secure than the justice system. 5. "The only way to solve this is to get rid of the death penalty entirely. " --> "The only way to solve this is to implement capital punishment in every single case, in this way NO convicted murderer will EVER kill again. " --> And just to be safe, we should execute every person who even has the chance of ever murdering someone. "If we know they are guilty (confession etc. ) then is capital punishment ok? " No. See contentions one and two. ======== Conclusion I have shown that the death penalty has minimal benefit, and comes at great cost. It is unjust to society and unjust to the individual to continue using capital punishment. Resolution affirmed.