Capital Punishment

Alright. Thank-you again Pro for this debate.Basically Pro's argument rests upon the fact that the death penalty is the most logical course of action to take. Criminals should be killed, if they murder deliberately."I am trying not to argue that the system is flawless, but that it is the logical course of action," I would have to agree with my opponent that in theory, the death penalty makes sense. A life for a life. However in reality it is not the most logical course of action. Look back at the goals of justice: justice and deterence. As shown with evidence, the death penalty does not effectively these goals. Since the death penalty does not achieve these goals, it is not a logical solution."I believe that the defendants deserve mediocre lawyers, good enough to free them if they are truly innocent, but not sly enough to free a monster. On the plight of their family, I believe that they deserve counseling"These are some of the flaws in the death penalty. These along with some of the evidence I presented earlier are the reasons why the death penalty is unpractical. However Pro raises a good question. A question I shall spend the rest of my speech answering. "but what can we do without interrupting justice?"Now my purpose in this round is to show why the death penalty is unpractical. However I would like to propose what I believe is the practical solution to this problem.I briefly mentioned what I thought would be a solution in my last speech but didn't make a point of it. Life imprisonment. 1.) Life Improsinment Serves the Purposes of the Death Penalty Prof. Victor Streib (professor of law at Ohio Northern University, attorney specializing in violent crime and the death penalty, frequently cited by the U.S. Supreme Court), “CLASSIC ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY,” Elon Law Review (Vol. 1 Issue 1 pp 1-16), 2009 http://www.elon.edu... “Death penalty opponents note that other than the extremely small chance of escape from prison, an imprisoned murderer also is incapacitated, essentially permanently, from committing any murders outside the confines of prison. Therefore, it may be that long term imprisonment is nearly as effective an incapacitant as is the death penalty." 2.) Life Imprisonment Causes Less Damage to the Innocent Rachel C. King (J.D. Northeastern University School of Law, counsel for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives), “No Due Process: How the Death Penalty Violates the Constitutional Rights of the Family Members of Death Row Prisoners,” published by Berkeley Electronic Press’ Legal Series (Paper No. 1584), August 19, 2006 <accessed July 5, 2011> http://law.bepress.com... “Because of the fundamental nature of this right, the government may not infringe upon it “unless the infringement is narrowly-tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” The death penalty is not narrowly-tailored because it fails to serve the compelling penological interests for which it purportedly exists—to deter crime, to incapacitate offenders, to restore moral order, and to serve as a form of retribution. Lengthy incarceration, including life in prison without parole, more effectively accomplishes these penological goals with less damage to the family relationship.” Life imprisonment serves the goals of justice, deterrence, and incapacitation better than capital punishment and with much less damage to the innocent. So sum it up, one more article. Rachel C. King (J.D. Northeastern University School of Law, counsel for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives), “No Due Process: How the Death Penalty Violates the Constitutional Rights of the Family Members of Death Row Prisoners,” published by Berkeley Electronic Press’ Legal Series (Paper No. 1584), August 19, 2006 <accessed July 5, 2011>http://law.bepress.com...;(JH) “In conclusion, the death penalty fails to accomplish any of its stated criminal justice goals [those being retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation]. To the extent that the death penalty does accomplish any of these “compelling state interests,” a life sentence would accomplish them as well as or better than a death sentence. “Strict scrutiny requires that state action limiting the exercise of a fundamental right serve a compelling governmental interest and be the least restrictive means to serve that end.”467 Because life in prison is a less restrictive alternative than the death penalty, states that choose to practice the death penalty have not “narrowly tailored” its infringement on the “fundamental liberty interests” of family members of capital defendants.468” In the end, life imprisonment is more effective at detering crim and serving justice. I know that I have strayed abit from my original point, simply that the death penalty is uneffective. To me a debate isn't that effective if you only try to take down the others point, I put forward life improsinment as a solution because I believe it is the most effectve for society. Back to Pro.