Bring back the Death Penalty

My opponent posits that I have "no understanding on the affects [sic] of being abused by a pedophile." The listed symptoms and results are, in fact, familiar to me. They are not the "death sentence" my opponent seems to imply that they are, however, and this argument still boils down to emotional appeal. Furthermore, my opponent has asserted that rape in other cultures demands death of the rapist. Rape in some other cultures also demands the death of the rape victim. By my opponent's logic in that particular thought, we would be justified in killing the victims of pedophilia also. I cannot accept that premise. Simply because someone else's culture does something does not make it an example to live up to.If there are so many scenarios that will show the death penalty as a good thing for murderer, I would ask my opponent to present the most convincing one(s), that I might actually engage in discussion on them. Without that, it is pure speculation, and I cannot argue against pure opinion and speculation. Beyond that, an emotional act does not necessarily justify an emotional response; to do so, especially when another life is at stake, seems to me a grossly negligent system of justice. If we do not use reason alone, or at least attempt to do so, we introduce far too much bias to have a fair justice system.My opponent also claimed that "real justice requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing." I absolutely do not acept this as a legitimate statement. According to Merriam-Webster, "justice" is "the maintenance of administration of what is just . . . " and "just' is:1: having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason2(a): acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good2(b): being what is meritedNone of these mentions suffering at all. 2(a) specifically mentions moral uprightness and goodness, and my opponent has not successfully refuted my position that the death penalty is immoral. My opponent's entire position is self-admittedly based on opinion and emotion, therefore 1 does not apply, and there has been nothing to demonstrably convince that an eye-for-an-eye is merited.My opponent's statements imply that one can simply vote governments out that create immoral laws, but what if one is in the minority? At one time, there was a minority in most countries that thought human slavery to be immoral. Does that suddenly make the laws RE: slavery across the world that were upheld by majority just (according to the definition)? Of course not. This is something of a strawman argument that does not address my actual points on government.My opponent has mentioned a statistic for 85% of those arrested for murder having been arrested before. My opponent also fails to provide verifiable statistics on whether these were "convicted murderers" or simply people who had been previously arrested. It makes no case whatsoever if 99% of that 85% had been previously arrested but released, acquitted, or otherwise not convicted.There is no argument that a dead person cannot commit any further crimes. I never intended to make that argument. However, my opponent has failed to show how this makes it a right, just, good, etc. thing to kill someone in vengeance, even if permissible by government.