The death penalty is the best way to punish criminals convicted of capital crimes

Here are my three contentions: 1. The death penalty is expensive. "A Seattle University study examining the costs of the death penalty in Washington found that each death penalty case cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought"[1]. The death penalty system as it stands now requires an extensive appeal process which results in the cost of well... millions. The reason for this is because in order to legally kill someone there needs to be extraordinary evidence in favor of the fact that the criminal did in fact commit the crime. There have still been cases where someone who died on death row ended up being innocent. Even more common are people who are found innocent while they are still waiting on death row or who have had their punishment changed to life imprisonment While new technological techniques have emerged for gathering evidence- it only shows how flawed the capital punishment system is. Life imprisonment allows the opportunity for those who are wrongly convicted to still have faith in the system and possibly one day go back to normal society. Death is final. By encouraging the use of the death penalty- you are only increasing the amount of people who will be innocent yet legally executed. 2. Life Imprisonment is a far better alternative Imagine nothing. You think the prisoners who committed atrocious crimes will feel the guilt and pain when they're dead. I know that I personally would rather die than be locked up in prison for life. And I think that holds true for lots of other people as well. The death penalty does not deter crime. "There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. North Carolina"s murder rate declined after executions stopped. The death penalty has failed to deliver on the much touted promise that it makes the people of North Carolina safer." [2]. Life Imprisonment is cheaper, more effective in dealing with criminals, give the innocent a chance to live, and accomplishes the same task the death penalty accomplishes. 3. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind? An eye for an eye is never a valid moral argument. Lets look at it from a logical standpoint. p1. Pete raped my wife p2. Since he raped my wife, he deserves equal punishment. C. Therefore, I should rape Pete's wife. What? This type of logic is absurd. And even in the context of this debate is not very practical. Seeing someone rot in jail for the rest of their lives is much more satisfying than to have them die. They feel no pain when they die. They will not suffer in jail if they die. Jail is the best place for them- no easy way out. I have already touched upon my opponents 2nd and 3rd contentions above. To briefly go over his 1st contention- I feel that it holds no purpose in this debate. An is does not imply an ought. My opponent is using a fact to dictate how we should do something. Just because lawful killing is constitutional does not mean that it ought to be constitutional. Just because capital punishment is legal doesn't mean it ought to be legal. I explained above why the practice ought to not be legal as it holds no genuine purpose. The method of life imprisonment is a far better alternative. [1]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2]http://nccadp.org...