The Death Penalty

I will state the points my opponent makes in his case under number one........(Damn you write a lot). His points are If rights are violated then they should have a punishment and so fourth, As well as he speaks of morality. Morality is a very shifty thing for one morality is different from person to person , to society to society, to nation to nation. Where these so called moral actions are held differently or not at all from what my opponent thinks is morally acceptable. Stating as well that my opponent never stated this was in the U.S so the scope is wide from the U.S to China etc. As well it seems my opponent is viewing this in a Deontological stand point which is that all wrong actions can never be justified in simpler terms the ends will never justifiy the means. My opponent also believes everyone has rights, but not in all societies. My opponent clearly leaves out other countries where people have no rights and assumes all societies believe in these rights or have them. The simple fact is they don't morality is subjective, in other countries murder is completely acceptable these facts are simply set here . I like would like to lean of the side of consequentalism which is the ends do justify the means. Example i kill one person to save 1000 people which would be justifiable . But the way my opponent see it is as i have violated a persons rights i deserve to die even if i saved 1000 people in the process. Also that the death penalty is a hypocritical facade, killing a murderer is no different than the murderer himself. As no one is moral to an extent, and no ones 100% innocent , But the question i really wanna ask is what moral standing are you upholding? christianity? what? morality is just that subjective i can determine what kind of morality but not which moral standerd which he bases whats wrong or right. I know its not the law but rights which again isn't accepted in other countries. Ok now points which i wanna point out... "A prime example of this is in the mentally handicapped. Those who are mentally ill and pose a threat to themselves and others have greatly diminished rights, but equally diminished responsibilities. A mentally ill person does not for example, have the right to vote, but they also have less responsibility in the eyes of the law, because of their handicap." Objection wouldn't he be the same as the dog!!! Dogs are animals and you said you would kill the dog for murder but not the mentally handy caped when the most likely have the same mental understanding!!! thats a contradiction the dog most likely did not mean to kill the person!!! Unless something agitated it animals are different from humans they have instinctive actions they don't comprehend murder..... Nor would the mentally handy caped person..!!! "If a human being does not behave as a human should, they should not be treated as human. Human rights are deserved because of our ability to understand and respect them, not simple biological similarities. It is the duty of the state to punish the abdication of responsibility with the removal of equal rights" HOLD IT!!! what determines how a human should act? And why are they deserved because of the ability to understand and respect them? "Imprisoning a murderer for 20 years, for example, is much like fining a man €5,000 for stealing €10,000. Punishment must always fit the crime. Certain acts when performed by a mentally capable human being amount to a deficient moral compass. Fundamentally rejecting human morality, and therefore rejecting the rights afforded to all humans." OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!! That example is horrible and incorrect 20 year in jail is quiet the long time and would suck being stuck in a cell with nothing much to do time kills money out of your pocket only hurts financally and is wrong. for that is a cheap price for a big price i say murder and prison for life is worse . "What are we to define these acts as? What acts are fundamental violations of human morality? Murder, rape, and any permutations of the aforementioned, are good examples. Any crime in which the perpetrator is likely to reoffend and society will be better off without. I only propose a model wherein the elimination of the perpetrator benefits society. I will go on to define how the elimination of these people is a good thing for society as a whole." Objection!!!! Again what morality is subjective so whats fundamental morality? and Objection!!!! No one can determine if a person will repeat offense's thats an assumption you cannot prove a criminal will not repeat his or her ways. "Why, though? Surely it is better to rehabilitate? Indeed, there is some weight to this, but certain severe crimes have high rates of reoffence. This is a symptom of having no moral compass whatsoever. Society is better off without those who have not the faculty to distinguish between right and wrong. Ultimately, one without morality is as good as an animal. These criminals are dangerous in prison, and imprisonment is not a sufficient deterrent to them as these criminals are most likely to thrive in a prison environment. I refer to murderers, rapists, drug dealers, (specifically of hard drugs) gangland crime, etc. Such people are very difficult to punish correctly. In prison, they establish a dominance, and if they are ever to be released will at once return to crime." Objection!!!!!!!!!!!! Wheres your proof that they will repeat their crime? or are you still assuming? You have no proof no sources you are assuming they will. And secondly your not even willing to give them a chance, What if they just made the wrong decision a mistake and emotions just took control. You assume they are evil but clearly what you are saying is truely evil that people shouldn't be allowed a second chance.The truth of the matter is that DP is just revenge and not a punishment a punishment is to teach the they did wrong DP does not do this. In my eyes what you are saying IS TRULY EVIL!!!!! "Rehabilitation is not a likelihood with such criminals and as such, it is not worth the state's while affording them the same rights as others. These people are a burden on society, and their elimination is not a bad thing. We negate the possibility of future crimes by them." Objection!!!!!! Again baseless conjecture you have no proof for all you know these people my become reformed. I just love how you say in here as well as these people arn't worth the effort to reform when they most likely could! If you don't give them a chance you will never know!