The Death Penalty Should stay legal.

4,000 CL is killing me, sorry for my short handedness on words. Also, excuse my misreading of your quote, I'm sorry. Also, the same sources were used as my previous arguments. I'll jump right in to my next rebuttals. In answer to Pro's first question "in our legal system" I am referring to the system of reasonable doubt. America's judicial system, as shown in many cases, says that if there is a reasonable doubt heavy enough on one side of the case, with no conflicting evidence and no evidence to be further found, then the conclusion is drawn that the victim is charged with the crime. As Con stated before, the Death Penalty is nothing to play with. It is possible to reverse a jail sentence, not an execution. Con further argues that the Death Penalty lowers crime and murder rates no more than the life sentence, according to social science research. It is agreeable that with a good attorney on your side you have an advantage, however, a key point in the Death Penalty is that the poor are the ones more affected. Con puts emphasis on this statement: The poor are the ones who suffer from the Death Penalty. The poor are paying for the outstanding costs, the poor are the ones dying. The poor are the ones who cannot afford good defense, and instead are appointed a usually incompetent state attorney. "Capital punishment means those without the capital get the punishment." Con argue's against Pro's statement: "If they are imprisoned for life without parole,.... (which on its own may be more "inhumane" than just killing the murderer." Con argues that murderers have no motivation to kill in prison. If they have the chance of getting out on parole than they would not deter that chance. Also, there is not an adequate enough supply of resources in prison. Con argues that death is a more inhumane punishment then lifetime imprisonment. The Death Penalty treats members of the human race as nonhumans, or toys to be discarded if they appear to serve no purpose. Con puts heavy emphasis on this quote: [The death penalty treats ]"members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded. [It is] thus inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the Clause that even the vilest criminal remains a human being possessed of common human dignity." (Quoted: http://www.law.cornell.edu... , Furman v. Georgia [1972]). Standing on the ground of that quote and my previous arguments, Con argues that the Death Penalty could even be considered (on a limb) as a direct violation of the eighth amendment. That is what is impractical about the Death Penalty, to answer Pro's question. In regards to Pro's next argument, this is a direct contradiction to what Con has stated before, as it is read in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (Quoted: http://www.un.org... ). As quoted by Pro, "This right gives a duty to other individuals to act in a moral manner towards other humans, By killing another person the murderer does not adhere to the principles laid down in the United Nations Charter,..... The term justice is defined as the quality of being fair and reasonable." Con directly argues with this statement, that being 'fair and reasonable' does not include killing another human being for a decision that may have not been clearly made. Pro asked the question, "Is this the world we want to live in?" To answer that, Pro, a world of punishing someone charged with murder the same punishment is a world of corruption, by all means. It is common knowledge that killing is never the answer. To wrap up Con's argument (character limit), the Death Penalty is not a beneficial solution of punishment. It fosters that killing is a good solution, and is a negative expense to this country. Reasonable doubt is not enough reason to be killed. Prison is reversible, execution is not.