death penalty

Ok so I would like to start by giving a brief road map of where I'm going to go in todays to debate First I will be adressing definitions and a Big picture statement and secondly I will be outlining my case and since this a Neg first constructive I will also be reviewing the Affirmative case. Alright so todays resolution is actually just the simple phrase death penalty, I would like to propose that this resolution is to broad and that we create more specific terms. "Imposing the death penalty in the United states is unjust" So to quickly define terms Death Penalty: the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. Imposing: forcibly put (a restriction) in place. My value for todays debate is Justice because as defined in the resolution it says "unjust" easing me to the conclusion that this rounds value is justice. My criterion for todays debate is accountability. Which ever team can show you that they uphold justice by requiring accountabilty should win todays debate. Ok so now that we have a clearer understanding of what todays resolution actually means and how this round will be won, I will be directly jumping into my own contentions. 1. Just desserts a. They deserve it: To clarify my meaning here I am saying that the people that are receiving the death penalty are not innocent that they have done something awful, in other words a capital offense. Voters what my opponents response to this is going to be that sometimes we get innocent people I challenge my opponent to find one example of an innocent person that has gone through the 5 to 15 year appeals process and still gotten the death penalty. b: Deterrent: would-be criminal with the death penalty in place will undoubtedly know that they will be tried, found guilty, and put to death should they murder with premeditation, for most this makes them much less likely to commit murder. 2. Morality a. Victims families/closure: What I mean by this sub point is that simply victims loved ones deserve the closure of watching this monster who killed their family ember see the same end. What my opponent neglects to mention in their opening argument is the simple fact that these people have killed someone that is the only way to get death penalty, these people are not innocent nor are they deserving of our sympathy, what we must remember voters is that these people are MURDERS AND RAPISTS sometimes even both, why should we cultured members of society pay for theses monsters room and board for life? the simple answers of this is that we should not. Murderer have deprived a family and many friends of a loved one. Their grief yes at fault with the murder. Now some may say it won't end with the murderer"s execution, but the execution does create a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal a feeling that never really occurs while the murder lives. b. American court system: The justice system basically attempts to dole out punishments that fit a crime. Severe crimes result in imprisonment. We see that petty larceny is not treated to the same magnitude of grand theft auto,grand theft auto obviously gets more time in jail and in a higher severity jail at that. The harsher the crime the more severe the punishment its simply how our justice system is fashioned. So if harsh but not deadly force towards another receives you life without parole, then why should we allow murder to be given the same ? If we were to rid or selves of the death penalty we would simply be allowing murders to get away with the same punishment a their gets which is simply not equitable and does not hold people accountable and thus does not achieve our value of today Justice. What we see through my arguments today is the simple fact that we cannot achieve Justice (our value) through accountability (our criterion) without the death penalty because without it our justice isn't equitable, there is no deterrent to murder, families get no closure, and criminals don't get what they deserve. My opponent made one opening claim, they didn't back their argument with any sort of evidence, they gave no weigh mechanism/ value (which is in essence the burden of the affirmative team), and My opponent even conceited to the notion that their claim is simply their opinion by stating "I personally think" again i would like to restate the fact that they have no evidence thus their argument is an invalid one and thus I the negation have already proven the resolution false, winning this debate. I urge a strong vote in firm of the negation.