The Death Penalty should be abolished

I'll preface this with two things: One, this is my first debate, so I apologize in advance if I have some stylistic things that need to be worked out. Two, I'm in the middle of my finals, so I apologize again if my responses take longer than you would like. Now to refuting your arguments. The Death Penalty - Murder is defined as "Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law." As such the act of killing some one with the death penalty is not murder by definition because the government does not recognize it as such. Additionally, the death penalty has been practiced throughout history, and is even advocated in the Bible repeatedly in acts such as stoning children who act against their parents, or any other number of sinners. You said that it is not the government's place to murder people without war, so then is it nor morally reprehensible if there is a war? Then we must look at what war is? It is simply when a country believes it has been wronged by another entity, as such, if a country believes some entity, be it another state, a terrorist faction, or a person, is of sufficient threat to its citizens it has the right then to fight back and kill. Is that not essentially what the death penalty is? - You said"Nobody is afriad of the death penalty so it is ineffective. People are afriad of prison. You never hear, "I would but I don't want to get the death penalty." You do hear, "I would. I don't want to go to jail."" Is it not redundant to say that it is the status quo for humans to not wish to die. As such you don't hear people say "I don't want to get the death penalty" because everyone knows that no one wants to die. In effect, I would just have to generally disagree with you on this point, crimes by and large are not committed on the scale that would merit the possibility of capital punishment because while people are not so afraid of going to jail, they are afraid of the potentiality of being put to death. - "It kills people instead of allowing them to pay for their crimes." Is killing them not forcing them to pay for their crimes? - "The appeal process is too great for a death penalty person. They can get acquitted any time wrongfully." This is true for many criminals. A prisoner in jail has nothing better to do than research case law, and look for reasons that they should be allowed another appeal and eventually get themselves acquitted. They can not do this if they are dead. - "Capital punishment is cruel and unusual... It is destroying American values" Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual, every effort has been taken to see to it that the prisoner in question does not feel any pain in their passing, which is much more a service than they probably gave to their victims. In fact, going back in time, a quick painless death came about with the invention of the guillotine, which arguably is much better than the lethal injection with regards to quick, painless death. - "The death penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive legal counsel, as well as racial, ethnic and religious minorities." While this statement may appear to have some substance, it can not be taken at face value. Unfortunate as it may be, the percentages of people within the U.S. prison system are in the majority for "the poor,...racial, ethnic, and religious minorities." However, whether or not the prison system as a whole is bias, is a topic for another debate. - "The death penalty is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently." I'd like you to expand on this if you can, because with a statement this vague I don't know how to defend my position against it. If you are speaking about the cases in which it is used, then yes, it may very well vary. However this is because the states are allowed to determine whether or not capital punishment is acceptable, and if it is, under what scenarios. This is an example of the states deciding what coincides with the belief systems and the needs of its residents. This is a good thing because it allows the citizens to dictate the world they live in. - "Wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences, and tragically, were killed by the state. People are released from jail constantly for crimes they did not commit. Imagine if you were suddenly murdered for a crime you did not commit." While this does happen, such cases are in the minority, and as you stated earlier, the person in question has many opportunities for appeal, as such you would not be "suddenly murdered for a crime you didn't commit," there is nothing sudden about the death penalty. - "A rehabilitated criminal can make a morally valuable contribution to society." This is by and large not true, very few convicted felons are able to re-adapt to society, few can get jobs worth having, and as such most return to lives of crime. - "Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life." While this is true, it is not the actual act of capital punishment, but rather the court fees for all of the additional litigation, which as i said before may be present in a non-capital court case. - "The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system and make speedy trials impossible as well." I think I've touched on this enough. However, the trials are held at the same pace as any trial, and as such the right to a speedy trial is no more infringed upon an alleged murderer than a person convicted of speeding. - "We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance." Wasn't "an eye for an eye" one of the first rules set down in Hammurabi's code which was one of the stepping stones for civilization to begin to advance because we had law? Although yes we do need to advance, beyond an eye for an eye, this does not detract from the potential benefit of ridding the world of a mass murderer, or rapist or what have you. - "It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Should we rape people who rape people? ... Should we rape people who rape people? No lesson is learned." This simply does not make sense, it is fallacious logic. It is not a Gov does this to Person X because Person X did this to Citizen Y. Rather it is more government gets rid of Person X because they did this ti Citizen Y and it is believed that they have the potential to do said act again and it is more beneficial for the community to be rid of Person X. The way our laws are set up in no way reflect the scenarios you described. Death is just another level of separation between the public masses and the criminal; albeit a permanent one. - "Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. And we could have more help in our military and economic ventures." Honestly I think our stance on the death penalty is a low priority to other countries. What I think they are more concerned about is the "murdering" of Iraqis by American troops in the scenario you said earlier would make killing acceptable. If that is so, why are they so angry about our invasions and war? - "Most jury members ... murderers roam free." Again partially true, jury members are reluctant to convict if it means the person will receive the death penalty, but then again we don't want them to feel comfortable sending some one to their death, the death penalty makes them treat the case that much more seriously. Also there are usually lesser charges brought against the defendant that the jurors could still find him/her guilty on, without the death penalty. - "The prisoner's family ... appeals process." Yes, and isn't it horrible how much they must grieve... a strange parallel between them and the victim's family. Only it was not the victim who brought the prisoners family into a situation that would cause them pain.