Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment.

Ok, seeing as though you have no formal case, I'll go straight to crystallizing my own. And thx for accepting. Contention 1: his attacks, my responses: "You talk about the death penalty being the only true proportionate to a murder... An eye for an eye if you will... But what you have to see is that killing someone for killing someone is imprudently sinking yourself to the level of the murderer." My Response: First off, proportionality is not "an eye for an eye", I'm not advocating raping a rapist, but murder is a different situation. The only punishment great enough to equal that of which has been taken from the victim. Since life encompasses all rights, once you take that away, then all rights are gone. The only punishment equal to the right violations committed by a killer is receiving the death penalty. Also, the State is not sinking to the level of a murderer. The State is not an individual. If we looked at your logic, then all punishments should be stopped because jailing them is sinking to the level of a kidnapper. "In times like this you must ask yourself, "Why is killing bad?" The answer is obvious, you take away the rest of someones life... it is final. This takes away the chance of reversing the sentence (which I will extend on a little later), it also takes away the chance for the victim's chance of redeeming himself..." My Response: Exactly, killing is bad because its final, the victim is no totally gone, and the only way to uphold equal worth is to take the life of the killer. Your thing about "redemption" is short-sited on the fact 1) We could never tell if they are truly sorry, and 2) If a killing is done again, then the state has lost now 2 innocents for the sake of the redemption of one. "Killing someone is a easy way out for these people. The only way they are going to receive humane suffering is by being in prison. The death penalty has essentially taken away the whole suffering factor (lethal injection)" My Response: LOL, prison doesn't cause suffering, especially in the US. Locking someone up in a facility that feeds them, cleans them, gives them recreation time is not suffering. Let's just give them house arrest, thats humane isn't it? On th contrary to what you say, the death penalty keeps them totally culpable for their actions. Also, if we wanted criminals to indeed suffer, lets just use corporal punishment or torture, right? Also, a punishment cannot be humane and torturous at the same time. Punishments are meant to balance the scales of justice. --Extension: My opponent has failed to address the point of Kant's scale of justice argument, so you can extend that for the entire round. Contention 2 "You talk about it being utilitarian... HA... You "protect" people, but when asked "which would you prefer, life in prison or a poke in the arm?" what deterrence is that? They both suck, but you have to give them time to rethink that night they ended someones life for them to suffer at all." My Response: The Death Penalty has a dtterent effect, I.E. you are protecting people. Stats: Florida and Texas (who hold the most executions) have the greatest decrease of violent crimes since the DP's reinstatement. Also, Singapore who holds the most frequent executions have the lowest crime rates in the world. "Furthermore, you have to see all of the innocent peoples lives it kills. I don't have an exact number (after all, how can you be sure), but it IS common knowledge that people have been put to death when completely innocent." My Reponse: Ok..innocent people have died. If the government really wanted no innocents to die then they would ban automobiles. (Its the greatest killer of young people.) But why don't they? Because the contributions outweigh the negatives. According to the Bureau of Justice, there is only one case of a person being killed innocently. And guess what, it's only a case of "reasonable doubt", the man wasn't even considered innocent. Also, according to the B of J, anyone considered in the reasonable doubt sector get off Death Row. This only affirms my position, on that the checks in the system are so great. "Furthermore, the only thing that would replace the death penalty would be life in prison without parole." My Response: Ok, thats all well and good, until crimes are committed in jail, where the majority of rapes and killings occur. Ok, so lets put him in jail where he could possibly kill another person. Contention 3 "This third argument is mislead. The state is truly the police... "In the moment" can NOT be done in the judicial system of our government, only by police. Police to not give the death PENALTY." My Response: First, I never said the police specifically. You are not getting my point. I'm saying that since the state is the embodiment of society, they have the right to defend its members. Overview: Remember, the debate is about "justice", and not once did my opponent sufficiently say how its not just. My opponent has failed to give an adequate negative back-up plan. He said life in jail without parole but then he misses the point about in-jail killings. Voting Issues: 1) The Pro/Aff better upholds the idea of justice - giving each their due. I give the criminal what he is due, and I give society what it's due, i.e. protection. 2) My opponet has failed to create an adequate negative back-up plan.