The death penalty should be imposed for those found guilty of rape.

"A recent study by Lisak and Miller showed that 63.3% of rapists were recidivists - meaning that they had a previously commited the crime of rape. .. Therefore, once convicted of a violent rape, it is reseasonable to assume the the average rapist will rape and harm again. Once this fact is established, the release of a rapist cannot be ethically justified - indeed a society that releases a rapist, whom it suspects is likely to rape again, is responsible for any of the future crimes he or she may commit. " Posted in response to my question as to why rape would justifiably suffice for the death penalty over more severe crimes, this rebuttal does not contain sufficient evidence to argue that the death penalty is a deserving punishment for those found guilty of this crime. Indeed, the statistics my opponent has used suggest that rapists would commonly commit the suggested crime numerous times without resolve; however I question whether 'common' continuation is adequate reason to sentence all offenders to death. My opponent continues to state that the death penalty is the "only morally justifiable action" for convicted rapists due to their statistically 'proven' likeness to commit the crime again; yet i wonder whether the death penalty is in fact "morally justifiable" when a large proportion of rapists will in fact repent and not commit this crime again. Is it not possible that, as human beings, we are capable of mistakes and is it not possible that we could in fact see the wrong of our previous actions and refrain from doing them again? My opponent continues to state that, " the average rapist is responsible for 5.8 rapes per "; I would question whether this average is the mean, median or mode average; whether this includes outlying factors such as rapists who would rape victims in excess, or rapists who would only commit the crime once. Lastly on this point, I reiterate that my original argument to this response was to raise question as to why rape would be given priority for the death penalty over more severe crimes; my opponent stated that murderers 'statistically' discontinue to commit murders after their first offence; however, murderers (In America) are in fact viable for the death penalty, proving that this crime holds far more severe potential punishments than rape; even in other countries (Australia, Britain etc. ) where the death penalty does not apply sentenced jail time is far more severe in murder cases than in rape cases. This would discourage murderers for continuing to commit murder, giving reason as to why, statistically, rapists have a higher recidivism rate than murderers. " I do not believe that patholgical violence and predatory rape are legitimate conditions that would exclude criminals from the death penality - rapists clearly know that rape is wrong. They are under no illusions about the gravity and impact of their crimes, which explains the effort they go to in order to avoid being caught. " In response to this rebuttal I would firstly like to question the legitimacy of this argument. Simply because you "believe" that offenders of these crimes with mental issues are, without question, in full knowledge of the severity of the crime they are committing are we to then believe that this statement holds truth? There are many mental conditions (ie. schizophrenia, bipolar, sadomasochism to name a few) which do in fact hinder one's train of rational and moral thought, or even where they black out and are not in full control of their actions, to the point where it would influence them to commit this crime that they otherwise would not. Among mental conditions there are also drug-dependent, or at least drug-related/influenced, cases where assailants would rape without full knowledge of their moral and lawful wrongdoing. In response to my opponents point in which they state that they go through efforts to avoid being caught, I again question the credibility of this argument. Where does this knowledge come from? There are countless rape cases where offenders do not in fact go through any efforts to cover their tracks in their crime, for reasons including but not limited to that they are incapable or apathetic to understanding the moral line they have crossed. "I believe this last arguement is something of a deflection. Your issue here is with the efficacy of the criminal justice system, not with the penalty phase once convicted of a crime. For the purposes of this debate, you should assume that the hypothetical rapist is 100% guilty without question to responsiblity or agency - the only question is to whether the death penality should be applied. " I do not understand how my opponent believes that this argument is a deflection. If the death penalty were to be imposed for those convicted of rape, it would apply to those convicted rightly or wrongly. If someone is wrongly committed of rape they would be sentenced to death without actually having committed any crime at all. A few days later evidence could reveal itself proving that the person convicted was in fact innocent and another guilty; it would however be too late. Although this is just one circumstance, there are countless more situations where insufficient proof of innocence could result in someone being wrongly convicted and sentenced to death for a crime they never committed, rather than simply being sent to jail; a punishment reversible if necessary. I would like to close my argument by stating that, although my opponent has decided to argue that violent rapist offenders are worthy of the death penalty, the intended argument was simply about the death penalty being imposed for rape offenders. Regardless of this point, with the arguments I have raised it becomes clear that the death penalty is too severe a punishment for the crime of rape, particularly over other crimes which are not applicable to the death penalty, and is furthermore an unnecessary measure due to its moral unjust, irreversibility and large margin of potential potential influence for motive.