Death Penalty

I am now going to try and rebut some of the points my opponent gave. My opponent mentions that some of my arguments are subjective, instead of using facts. In my second round post, the arguments in which I didn't use evidence had to do with perception of justice, that people view justice differently. This is a common fact, and can be applied to any number of things, such as "right", "wrong" and "truth". My opponent states I use subjective arguments, yet in his very next point he states that "(t)he death penalty establishes order and keeps things organized" without stating any evidence. If my point about perception of justice is subjective, then a point stating that the death penalty keeps organization must be viewed in the same way. My opponent goes on to state that prison conditions are not as intimidating as I am making them out to be. He states that homeless people commit crimes to go to jail and get nourishment and that prisons must not be so bad because there are so many repeat offenders. Therefore, life in prison is an insufficient punishment. However, these points are oblivious to the causes of crime. The most common causes of crime have to do with poverty and inequality among others [1], and not to get a roof over one's head. Mental illness also plays an important role in crime, including in repeat offenders [2]. Therefore, stating that people try to get into prison for resources and that repeat offenders show that my statements are contrary to reality so life in prison is a bad way of punishment is inaccurate. My opponent's statement that incorrectly done executions is like getting a missed shot at the doctor's office is incorrect. First, the statement does not rebut my subsequent point, where I mention that IV drug users do not have healthy veins, so it takes much time to find the right vein, leading to mental anguish and possible pain. Second, the statement does not address the fact that many executions are carried out by orderlies and inexperienced technicians, resulting in a higher chance of an incorrectly done execution [3]. Third, the statement does not address the mental anguish that does who are about to executed feel while on death row and on the gurney, in what is called "death row phenomenon" [4]. A prolonged execution, in the case of a needle, by accident, going into the muscle of an excutee, would prolong such anguish, possibly making the anguish greater. My opponent goes on to state that my statement that death penalties take up a lot of court time is invalid, and that life sentences take just as much time. My opponent, however, fails to give evidence for this claim. Because of that, this point must be discarded. My opponent again seems to misunderstand a point I am trying to address. He states that I stated that criminals do not have much time to get their affairs in order, but I never stated that. I did state that criminals have plenty of time to get affairs in order, but time is almost never used for that purpose, and in fact, time that could be used for that is dwindling. My opponent also fails to cite evidence for this claim. My opponent proceeds to attempt to rebut my arguments about wrongful executions. I feel, however, that my opponent's rebuttals are unsatisfactory. He dismisses my first source based on the fact that the man wrongfully executed was going to commit a completely different crime, and he shouldn't have been doing it in the first place, so he caused his own death. This does not disprove the source nor does it advance anything my opponent is attempting to say. For my second source, my opponent points to the fact that two different courts found the man executed guilty. While this is true, the evidence for the conviction was based on an identification, which the person who identified the "killer" failed to do twice before. The district attorney is also on record stating that his prosecution led to the death of an innocent man. For my third case, my opponent solely blames the lawyer for his efforts, and states that the case "seems a bit shady". Again, this point does little to anything to rebut the source or advance the points that my opponent is trying to make. My opponent proceeds to state that the sources tell very little facts and that the death penalty was not being misused as people lied under oath. However, if it hadn't been for the death penalty, then all three would have been merely sent to jail, and found not guilty while they were possibly still alive. My opponent goes on to state that because "it would be torture to stay in prison", one should be happy because the three wrongful executions didn't have to suffer in prison as they were killed. However, this logic has the fault of, as I have said previously, had those men not been executed, they may be alive--and free--today. That point also does not rebut any of my own points nor advance any of my opponent's points. It simply attempts to twist my view on the issue and state that the government killing three men who were innocent is not as bad as three men being sent to jail and possibly being released. My opponent then proceeds in an attempt to rebut my point about perception of justice, stating that it would not be justice if one person was sentenced to death and carried through, but another lives because a family didn't want him to die. This point fails to factor in several elements, including differing meanings of justice (as I have mentioned previously) and sincere remorse, which, as found in a nearly twenty-five year study, was seen in the last statements of nearly one-third of death row inmates in Texas [5]. Should these people, who showed remorse for their actions sincerely, be executed, under a "justice has the same punishment for everyone"? Is that justice? As I previously mentioned before, mental illness plays a prominent role in the prison population, including in repeat offenders. Under a "justice means the same thing to everyone" system, people who may not even know what they did would be executed, and those who show genuine remorse for their actions would be as well. Is that truly justice? My opponent continues, stating that my comments about race coming into play in death sentences is wrong. He states that in cases throughout history courts still favored minorities because they had the most evidence. He states that my claim is a subjuctive statement and should be ignored. Note that while he says this, he gives no evidence to back any of his claims. The evidence, however, states the contrary. Executions for black defendant-white victim heavily outweighs executions for white defendant-black victim and that in several states (such as California and Ohio) there are more blacks on death row than whites. When Latinos and blacks are combined, they outnumber whites in terms of the percentage of prison population [6]. In conclusion, I do not feel that my opponent has sufficiently rebutted my contentions or my own rebuttals to his points. For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://www.des.ucdavis.edu... [2] . http://www.bjs.gov... [3] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5] . http://www.tandfonline.com... [6] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...