Capital Punishment

thank you for the invitation, breaker, this is my first con debate. I, of course, disagree. It is very bad when law enforcement people are murdered, for obvious reasons, but you cannot support your argument with any success that law enforcement people's lives are more valuable than yours or mine, any more than you could support the argument that their lives are LESS valuable than yours or mine. Breaker, you seem to be falling into the logical fallacy that many of my opponents fall into, which is that you have this divine ability to judge worthiness of other people's rights to life. I would argue that this right is reserved for God alone; you and I are sinners, imperfect, and should not have the ability to judge other people fit to live or die. Our legal system is quite imperfect, and although there has not been a case that absolutely proves that a person was put to death unjustly yet, there is a very good chance that someone HAS been put to death unjustly, in the past, being wrongly accused of murder. This is unacceptable. Eye for an eye logic is quickly dismissable. If everyone lived this way, our society would be a complete disaster. Do I have to pose hypotheticals here to prove that? Ancient crime rates are not my specialty, but if you'd like to be more specific about them, I will offer my opinion. If someone killed a member of my family, killing another person would not bring them back. Sure, I'd change my tune if I was actually in the situation, but it is clear to see that I would not have a level head in the matter. You see, breaker, I would be acting out of wrath, or vengeance. This is one of the chief vices, that dictates that I am doing the WRONG thing. As to your final sentence, I will do away with your argument in the same manner that I have been using in every argument on this site. Innocence and guilt, in respect to a person's right to life, are not able to be judged effectively by other people. This right should be reserved to God. An embryo/early fetus is not yet a person, and does not have the same right to life as you or I. A blood thirsty killer is a person, with all the basic human rights that you and I have, regardless of his actions. We can lock him up, so that he can't get out and continue his murder spree, but killing him is crossing that line that humans should not have the right to cross. MAYBE it's OK in this case, MAYBE it's OK in that case, but there doesn't exist a person among us, who is perfect enough to be that judge. There doesn't exist a person who has the God-given right to pass that kind of judgement on the people, and if we grant it to him artificially, it will create injustice and the potential for abuse within our justice system. There is no moral way to kill another person intentionally. Period. Gas chamber, lethal injection, electrocution, draw and quartering, hanging, and firing squads are the best ways humanity has come up with so far, and all of them still make us look like a bunch of barbarians that haven't learned our most basic lessons in human rights yet. Our justice system works most of the time, but it is very far from perfect and until it is we can't even THINK of using an imperfect system to kill people with, no matter what emotional reactions the killers have evoked in ourselves. Even if our legal system WAS perfect, the "eye for an eye" logic would quickly make our legal system imperfect once again. We have to seperate ourselves from beasts, before we can deal effectively at punishing the beasts.