The Death Penalty is a justified means of punishment

Thanks Nick for posting up arguments. I will now proceed to post up my own case then rebut his. Since Justice and Morality rests upon proportionality and giving each their due, Affirm the resolved which states The Death Penalty is a justified means of punishment For further clarification I will offer the following definitions: Justified- To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid. [1] Death Penalty- The sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes. [2] Punishment- a penalty inflicted for an offense. [3] Now that I've established definitions for this round, it is necessary to understand how we will weigh the arguments for this round. The resolved states "The Death Penalty is a Justified Means of Punishment". The Death Penalty is an execution of murder for a capital crime. Therefore as an Affirmative I must advocate that the taking of ones life is a valid or righteous means of a penalty for a crime. In other words I will prove that the resolved is *Proportional* Since Morality and Justice rest on *Proportionality*. My value for this round is justice which is defined as being just, right, or valid. The reason we should look to Justice is because the resolved says so itself. It states "The Death Penalty is a Justified means of Punishment" Therefore I must prove the Death Penalty gains Justice (in order for it to be justified) while my opponent proves it loses justice (in order for it to not be justified). My value criterion is to promote justice to be delivered. This includes promoting those who commit crimes to be punished and those who are innocent to be protected. The Con may say they can link into this by saying they protect the innocent from facing the death penalty, but I contend that the innocent people are at a greater risk in the Con world than in the Pro world due to the possibility of release and also the taxes a citizen must pay for someone to stay in jail. Contention 1: Capital punishment is a proportional punishment to Capital Crime, while prison isn't Capital punishment (A.K.A Death Penalty) is defined as: The sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes. Its not like people will be put to death because they stole someones bag of Doritos, people will be put to death for committing a high felony crime. A high felony crime deserves a high level of punishment. Therefore this drastic punishment is indeed proportional to a high felony crime. Life in Prison, however, is not proportional for committing a capital crime, here's why. When someone commits a capital crime, such as murder, the offense isn't able to be fixed. Someone is robbed of their natural rights to Life, Liberty, or Property COMPLETELY. These rights cannot be given back now. Therefore the *Perpetrator* Sacrifices their rights permanently as well, therefore the Death Penalty is proportional. Life in Prison, a perpetrator still has rights and can still possibly get out of jail. These statistics show how 600,000 criminals are released into society each year. 70% of all criminals are re-arrested within 3 years of their release from prison. This shows how criminals often re-offend after being released from jail. This puts the public at increased risk. Also when someone goes to jail innocent people pay with their tax money in order to keep them there and protect society. When we con we simply have more and more taxes on innocent people rather than punish the guilty. Impact: In order for something to be justified it has to be proportional and helps prevent harm to society. Therefore these arguments prove the proportionality in the resolved, the lack of proportionality without the resolved, as well as the harm that is placed in society without the death penalty. ===Rebuttal=== I would like to establish the fact the B.O.P lies on the Con side since in the *Status Quo* the death penalty is justified. Therefore I don't need to prove anything I simply need to defend the status quo. At the point where my opponent has no offence you vote pro. On to my opponents value structure. His whole beginning paragraph is actually something that supports the B.O.P Argument I just made. The USSC Ruled the Death Penalty as justified and my opponent says he is the one who will attempt to change others opinions. Now on to my opponents value. I cannot tell whether his value is Morality or Life. I have no problem with the value of Morality because Morality and Justice pretty much coincide with each other, but the value of Life is a different story. The value of Life has no reference whatsoever to whose life will be saved. Therefore he could value the life of a serial killer who threatens the life of innocent people. Therefore taking a Util stance doesn't gain justice. On his Value criterion for sanctity of life cross-apply the argument I just made. If I don't follow sanctity of life it doesn't necessarily mean that I am not delivering justice. When the state goes and punishes a felon this is considered not following the sanctity of life but it is still justified therefore the value criterion of sanctity of life doesn't disprove the justification of the resolved. This is why we must use my value criterion of promoting justice to be delivered whoever does this gains the justification(Pro) or disproves the justification(Con) Now on to his first contention The "Unusual" Punishment argument doesn't have much effect because it isn't usual for someone to commit a crime to receive a death penalty punishment. This form of punishment is still proportional even if it may be unusual and therefore gains justice and is justified. On to the second paragraph my opponent fails to recognize the level of the violent crime. If I punch you in the face I will go to jail but I obviously won't be put on death row because the offence was minor. Now those 6.5% probably committed a crime so awful like beat someone to death that they deserved the death penalty. The "Cruelness" he's putting out doesn't mean it isn't justified to use the death penalty, it simply says the way we use it now is inhumane. It doesn't take out the justification of the death penalty itself. You can buy these arguments but they don't flow against justice, once there is a change in the system of delivering the death penalty it will be even more justified, but is still justified now. Contention 2 Its true we as humans make mistakes but this is simply reason enough to vote pro. The reason being is an innocent person would much rather die than be tortured in prison no matter how long they stay in there. He tries to say that death is irreversible while going to jail someone can still be let out, but the psychological trauma one sustains in prison is also irreversible and is worse than death because they won't be able to live properly anymore, they'd live in fear of being attacked as they were in prison. I'm not arguing the justice system is getting better, I'm arguing A justice system is getting better. DNA Testing was how they exonerated all of the innocent people my opponent stated in his C2 He tries to pre-empt me but fails because the releasing of innocence is still getting higher and higher over time. Now against this next paragraph cross-apply what I say against the first paragraph, without the death penalty these people would have suffered even worse in prison. The pro is actually proving the justification better than the Con is disproving the justification. Contention 3 Just because the Justice system is supposedly Biased doesn't take out the justification of the death penalty once again these supposedly innocent people would be put in jail and suffer even worse consequences than a death penalty. I await my opponents responses. Vote Pro ! www.thefreedictionary.com/justified [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.renewamerica.com... [4]