Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

* Pro: Your 9 points explain that the application is a faulty system. The system doesn't make the punishment inherently unjust. REBUTTAL: My points did touch upon the issue of justice. For instance - hypocrisy. We agree that taking the life of another human being (when you are unthreatened) is inherently wrong and inhumane. To respond with the same course of action - taking a life - is hypocritical and sends a mixed message to the public regarding the morality of taking a life. If something is wrong, it should be wrong for EVERYONE, including the entity of govt. If someone killed my brother and I killed that killer, the govt could sentence me to death for taking another's life... but who can sentence the government to death? If your response would be that taking the law into your own hands is different, I ask - Why? If we're discussing 'giving each person their due' and not the legal system in general, it would be okay in this scenario for me to kill my brother's killer. And it also does not change the fact that the government as an entity has the power to end lives. Either way, this practice is hypocritical and unjust. It ends the lives of those convicted instead of giving them a chance to repent or be rehabilitated. By taking away these rights, the govt is committing the same crimes as the killer. Remember, the law isn't strictly about 'giving each person their due' but rather protecting society. Keeping an in-mate in prison still protects society without imposing hypocritical and immoral behavior. * Pro: My opponent has switched her analogy since I successfully refuted that example. Now she presents a car crash example... she makes a giant, and very unlikely scenario... Now, look, I have explained how every example besides killing can be compensated without the use of the death penalty or the exact punishment. REBUTTAL: I didn't switch my analogy for that reason. In fact, simply ADDING ANOTHER EXAMPLE does not admit defeat -- it just establishes once again the validity of my claims. My point here was that just because PRO deems monetary compensation equal in terms of punishment does not mean that everyone will. Ergo a piano player might rather spend time in prison than have one of their fingers cut off. If this is the case, than imposing jail time upon the offender is not 'giving each person their due' but rather punishing the convicted according to PRO'S standards. Who is PRO to determine what the govt should do? Similarly, Pro goes on to try and sentence the defendant in my example by stating, "The criminal would get prison time to match the coma time. That's fair and proportionate." Actually, that's NOT fair and proportionate according to Pro's very own standards in R3. He noted, "A criminal in jail an still love, enjoy life, and do things that can only be done while living. The victim cannot. Life in jail just shows sympathy to a criminal and devalues the worth of the victim." In the case of one in a coma, the victim cannot enjoy all of those 'luxuries' that one can enjoy in prison. Additionally, the victim who has been both physically and emotionally damaged for life is no longer able to experience those things as well, meaning that jail time would not be enough compensation according to Pro's very own values regarding giving each person their due... so which one is it? You cannot consider this point for Pro if I have devalued it in other examples. It's more hypocrisy. Furthermore, I resent Pro assuming that my example is 'exaggerated' and unlikely. In fact this is a true-life example from a personal experience; my dad was hit by a car in October while working and has endured the exact scenario which I have presented in this debate. He is in an Assisted Living home with other victims who suffered traumatic injury much like my father, so for Pro to assume that this is highly unrealistic is ignorant and his point invalid. * Pro: Yes, and it is also scary that the govt can keep you in prison, take your money. Should we end all punishments because it is "scary"? REBUTTAL: No, that's not it. In fact, Pro acknowledges his own hypocrisy here when he again equivilates money and jail time with human livelihood. I don't think it's AS 'scary' that the government can take my money (for what are supposed to be good causes, anyway) than the fact that the government can end my LIFE. If Pro wishes to equate these things, then he concedes that life in jail (without parole) is an appropriate murder sentence. If he doesn't, he agrees that taking lives are worse/above things like imposing fines and going to jail, so this point of his is invalid. * Pro: [In response to what the DP would accomplish] It shows that the govt won't A) Tolerate killing and B) won't value the life of a criminal over the innocent victim. REBUTTAL: Wouldn't extensive jail time suffice in proving that the government will not tolerate killing? Additionally, who is suggesting that by NOT killing the convicted, that the govt values their life over the one who was killed? That notion of revenge is not something the govt should uphold. Rather, a more appropriate response would be to look at it this way -- a murderer made the (huge) mistake of ending a life, so he/she will spend the rest of their own lives PAYING FOR IT. I think *that* is giving a criminal their due. * Pro: Cost does not make something just or not... You are sacrificing giving a criminal their due for the sake of money. REBUTTAL: Actually my stance is giving a criminal their due for LESS money. There's nothing wrong with that ideology! I also noticed that Pro dodged my points regarding the hypocrisy of his stance -- he says it is immoral to not pay into social programs, programs he himself does not support. Why? It must be because of the cost, and his sentiment regarding charging people for 'helping' others. Well why should I help others 'punish' their murderer by killing them? Either way, Pro's stance on this is entirely hypocritical. My position is also cost-effective, so this point is a win-win for the Con. * Pro: No person has yet been killed that has been proven innocent 100%. Until someone has been found 100% innocent, then this point can be valid. REBUTTAL: Is this a joke?! While no person mentioned may have been found 100% innocent, they CERTAINLY have not been found 100% guilty! So what Pro is advocating here is the concept of GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT instead of the other way around, which is a direct contradiction of American values in our justice system. * Pro: The people who are against the DP can't answer why jail is what should be used. They also contradict... One side says it's to mean, the other says it is inhumane. It seems [they] can't make up their minds. REBUTTAL: I have already answered why jail time is more approproate than killing. Further, isn't it possible than something is both inhumane AND mean? Obviously. This was a horrible and embarassingly bad rebuttal on Pro's part. * Pro: Some killings happen because the person is mentally insane. The Death Penalty would not deter them. REBUTTAL: Thank you for that concession. You attempted to disprove my argument against deterence, but what you really did was win me that mentally insane argument (we have both already several times acknowledged the discrepancy regarding deterrence). * Pro: Politico.com is a valid source REBUTTAL: Yes, but you didn't provide a direct link. Why should I have to search? How do I know it's even really there? * Pro: She says the scale of justice can never be equal. I understand that. REBUTTAL: Thank you for conceding to your ONLY contention. You have just won me the debate. * Pro: [She] never fully refutes the point that the person loses their right to life when they kill. REBUTTAL: Nobody ever loses their right to life; only the right to live it how they please.