Capitol punishment should be abolished

Thanks for the debate Pro. For clarity, I will assume that the resolution is US specific unless otherwise informed. I'll first refute my Opponents case, then refute my own. 1. InnocenceTurn the Columbia Law study, this only shows that our current system works in protecting the innocent. Secondly, the study was taken in 1995, over 16 years ago. Pros given you no reason to believe that a legal document from made during the Clinton adminstration still appies today. Indeed what was once considered overwheming evidence no longer is, an example of this can be found in the so called CSI affect. Juries are now more hesitant to convict without overwhelming DNA or Forensic evidence[1]. That we can look back on older cases and free innocent people tells us that with modern science and technology, the risk of executing an innocent man is a thing of the past, or soon will be. Third, and most important, because of the need to be absolutely certain in a Death Penalty case, it makes the board of paroles and the innocence project to apply extra scrutiny to the cases; an innocent convicted to life without parole has a significantly slighter chance of walking free than someone sentenced to die ever does. Thus, you can turn this argument: because as long as innocents are still being convicted we need the Death Penalty to force ourselves to apply extra attention to the case. It should also be noted that if we take 3 years to kill someone, or 30 years we've still destroyed a life. There is no moral difference between accidentaly executing an innocent and locking someone in prison to die; we've destroyed their life either way. My Opponent tries to argue thaat there have been "four men wrongfully killed in the past two years." while only citing two examples. I'll make a few responses-first, none of them have had their innocence recognized by the state, this is significant because the court system knows infinitely more about the cases than my opponets ideoligcally driven source ever will. With all due respect to my opponent, her misguided assumptions that she knows more about the individual cases than The Judge, Jury, 9th circuit of appeals, Board of Paroles and Pardons, Supreme Court of the United States, Governor of the executing state, and president of the United States, all of whom could cease the execution/overturn the sentence is woefully ignorant. The fact of the matter is that in every case where an "innocent" has died, literally every single person qualified to judge guilt or innocence has judged guilt. The guilt of Troy Davis and Cameron Willingham are completely seperate debates by themselves, but since those qualified to show guilt chose guilt, then we should assume they're guilty. Besides, to this I say: so what? Every accidental death is a mistake, but the fundamental question is whether the benefits to society outweigh. How many thousands of people die each year from Car, Plane, and Train crashes? Yet we still use those, because the societal benefits outweigh. My oponents argument is a reason to tighten the evidence requirements to sentence someone to die, not an argument against Capital Punishment. 2. Cost First, this argument fails becase you can't put a price tag on Justice, that's morally repungant. Secondly my opponents single source is from California of all places--the state with 400+ people on death row with a mere 13 executions in almost 40 years[2]. However this argument is even worse when you examine the methodology of these studies--my opponents evidence is quoted from DPIC, not the study itself. Dont buy this just because an anti death penalty think tank says its true. Further, these cost benefit analysis derive from mixing Death Row murderers with average prisoners which WILL NOT happen. It's comparing a medium cost prison to death row, obviously fallacious. We need to compare maximum security to death row if we want a cost analysis.These ignore important factors anyway, like plea bargaining. Even a brutal murderer will often plead guilty to take a potential death sentence off the table, avoiding the cost of a trial entirely! It should be no doubt that a study from the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation found that over 50% of murder cases in Death Penality states resulted in a guilty plea, as opposed to only 40% in non deaath penalty states[3]. The Death Penalty is expensive because we choose for it to be. In fact, it might be cheaper even under that Status Quo; a study from PDP using data collected from the times found that while the up front costs of the Death Penalty is obviously larger, when you take into account the whole lifespan of a prisoner, LWOP is more expensive by an incredible 1.6 million[4]. 3. ImmoralMy Opponent starts with a quote from the UN declaration of human rights, for no apparent reason. If we are to go with that for our legal system we couldn't have imprisonment either because it violates a persons right to liberty and security of person. My opponent doesnt warrant this argument at all, theres no reason for you to believe the DP is immoral.She then commits a correlation causation fallacy by saying that since unpopular nations use Capital Punishment, and abolition has become a recent trend, the US should abolish the Death Penalty. Unfortunately, this isn't an argument. Why does it matter who else uses the Death Penalty? The question is whether the US should use it, not whether other countries do. ==My Case==1. JusticeI offer a theory of Justice as a metaphorical pendulum. The metaphor goes as follows: the "justice pendulum", when pushed, will swing to both sides in equal force. Anything else is a pervesion of Justice. Ideally, the pendulum would always remain in one stable position, however when an individual commits a crime and pushes it one direction, it must proportionally swing back. Thus, the only just way to deal with murder is proportionality, IE Eye for an Eye. 2. Saves livesThere have been many instances in our justice system where a murderer has reoffended, in fact a study from the U.S. Department of Justice finds that of prisoners released in 1994, 1.2% of those convicted of homicide were arrested for another homicide within three years of their release.[5]. This holds especially true for our most dangerous criminals, in 2009 8.6% of those on death row had a prior homicide conviction. Over 5% of those on death row committed their capital crime while in custody or during an escape.[6]. An execution forever deters any recidivism. Further, multiple studies have consistently found a deterrent effect: Westley Lowe writes[7]:"By the beginning of the 1990s, however, states that wished to reimpose the ultimate penalty had fought their way through the endless thicket of appeals and restrictions imposed by the courts. In 1991, 14 murderers were executed while 2,500 waited on death row. By 1993 the figure had risen to 38 executions, then 55 in 1995, and 98 in 1999, a level not seen since the 1950s. At the same time, murder rates began to plummet—to 9.6 per 100,000 in 1993, 7.7 in 1996, and 6.4 in 1999, the lowest level since 1966. To put the matter simply, over the past 40 years, homicides have gone up when executions have gone down and vice versa."If you value innocent life, you will pursue the Death Penalty in earnst and negate the resolution.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;3. http://www.cjlf.org...4. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...5. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...6. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...7. Lowe, Wesley. "Consistent and Swift Application of the Death Penalty Reduces Murder Rates."