The man who killed Chris Kyle should be put in jail or given the death penalty.

My opponent failed to make his primary arguments until Round 4, and even then, they amount to little more than a slightly-longer restatement of his opening. My opponent agrees that Mr. Routh is entitled to a fair trial, and has not addressed my argument that, even if convicted, Mr. Routh is entitled to a less-than-maximal sentence--those two points, then, advance unchallenged. I will briefly rebut my opponent and conclude. -Whether Mr. Routh has been diagnosed with PTSD and whether that diagnosis is justified is mostly irrelevant; people react to the stress of deployment in many ways, and one does not need to see direct combat (or suffer a sexual assault - was that really constructive speculation?) to develop PTSD. That said, the statements Mr. Routh apparently made on the day of the killing seem to this layman to be less reflective of PTSD than they are of a potential psychotic or disassociate episode. Disorders causing such episodes can arise organically in anyone. The specific diagnosis does not matter to the legal question of insanity. -My opponent misreads people on my "side" who are "upset" about American Sniper. The only opinion I'll state concerning the movie is that if I'm going to spend the money to see something in the theater, I prefer it to be set in outer space. What is important is to make sure that Mr. Routh is judged impartially, and not based on people's admiration for Mr. Kyle. The popularity of the movie makes it more difficult for Mr. Routh to obtain an impartial jury; the Court must exercise its responsibility to ensure that the jury has not prejudged Mr. Routh because of the film. -My opponent states that "people seem to think that [Mr. Routh] was a converted Muslim." Which people? The only people who seem to think so are the irresponsible person who started the rumor on Allen West's website, despite admitting to a complete lack of proof, and the irresponsible people who spread the rumor uncritically. Given the absolute, utter lack of any reasonable evidence supporting this rumor, it might be fairly suspected that those who trade in it are intentionally leveraging anti-Muslim bigotry for their own purposes. That Mr. Routh may or may not have sympathized with the treatment of prisoners is poor evidence of a conversion - one can empathize with human suffering, even deserved human suffering, without adopting the sufferer's religion. My opponent has not established any good reason to think that any conversion occurred. -Even if Mr. Routh had converted - which is, as noted, hardly even worthy of speculation - this has no bearing on whether he could tell right from wrong the day of the shooting. Even if Mr. Routh had written reams of jihadist propaganda and sworn to kill a thousand famous veterans, it would not matter if, on the day of the killing, Mr. Routh was suffering from a mental illness that made it impossible for him to distinguish right from wrong. In closing, my opponent agrees with me that Mr. Routh is entitled to a fair trial, but focuses only on one aspect of trial - that Mr. Routh should be "prosecuted severely." Perhaps he should - though prosecutors have a duty to seek justice, not retribution - but he should also be defended zealously, and judged impartially. Based on the actual evidence that we have available - the delusional statements made by Mr. Routh to the police and his family after the killings - there is good reason to believe Mr. Routh was not operating mentally in any recognizable reality and is thus not guilty by reason of insanity. I urge a vote for Con, and thank my opponent again for suggesting this debate. As a completely irrelevant side note, this is the first debate I've participated in, and is now the first I've completed. I'm quite enjoying the site and the opportunities to engage different viewpoints. Looking forward to participating more with the community.