Pro Death Penalty Rebuttal

Crystal Lau and Phuong Ha
Pro-Death Penalty Rebuttal

In the opening statement of our opposing team, Alyssa Li and Camal Saleh, they had claimed:

“There are endless sentences that could be put forth instead of the death penalty. If those who support the death penalty do so because they fear the suspect will be free again, why not agree to a sentence of life imprisonment without parole?”

When they had made this claim, they had failed to mention the cost of maintaining an inmate in prison. According to sources, the cost of keeping a prisoner in life without parole is roughly $50-60,000 per year with a 2% increase each consecutive year whereas the cost of executing a criminal is about $15 if we use a firing squad and $86 if we use lethal injections.

As their opening statement continues, the opposing side makes another faulty statement:

“The execution of a murderer brings back the principle of an ‘Eye for an Eye’ in which the great Ghandi once stated, ‘an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind’.”

According to this claim, they are making the assumption that everyone is committing a crime, which is obviously not the case. Therefore, how is it possible that it leaves everyone blind.

Moreover, they carry on with:

“ What if the supposed suspect is Innocent and is executed due to a death sentence? There is no way you can take back that mistake, a mistake you cannot fix once done?”

Once again the con side raises doubt without looking at the statistics. Based on the Death Penalty Information Center website, a total of 138 inmates have been exonerated from the death row since 1973. Out of these 138 cases, 17 of them were proven innocent through the DNA tests which is undeniable and solid evidence.

It remains clear that the opposing side makes baseless and faulty claims and fails to support their statements with solid proof. Everything that they propose is a philosophical “WHAT IF” and reality is not based upon doubts and questions but hard-core statistics. Due to the fact that simply their opening statement is full of flaws, it becomes apparent that their further arguments concerning the topic of capital punishment is also faulty. Consequently, it exemplifies that the death penalty should indeed be implemented as stated in our opening statement.