Capital Punishment (Death Penalty)

Video/scientific evidence can end trials far quicker, and cut costs of incarceration dramatically if implemented. The video/scientific evidence also assures that the correct person is executed. My opponent uses as an argument, the words of a judge, who states, "have increased the cost of capital punishment so that it is now many times the cost of keeping a prisoner in prison for life.". First of all, the cost is not many times that of the cost with proposition 4. 170 million dollars over the course of the past 30 years is the difference between the two, in California anyway. May I remind that 1 billion dollars in that thirty years was spent on cost of incarceration alone. Straightforward evidence being required by proposition four could make the death penalty cheaper for tax payers than life in prison without parole. My opponent states, "You're right, fear is a strong deterrent. Especially fear of being more than just "socially unaccepted." Prison is sick, nasty, and the perfect place for a murderer to be. Not underground, at peace.". My opponent fails to mention what happens after death and/or how scared humans are of death. These are only a few consequences of death. My opponent, throughout the duration of his argument, failed to mention the consequences of death in comparison, just that death is death, as if it is nothing to fear, just a process of peacefully being drugged. There are many days before death, I can assure you. There is much waiting to die. My opponent's argument is that life in prison without parole is worse than death itself. Death itself, having committed murder, is in many religions with rather negative consequence. I can assure you that most versions of afterlife for criminals are terrible, ranging from a torture pit to nonexistence. I can assure you that life being cut short is no pleasure. Regardless of possibility of death in prison, you still have life. You have won if you have life. You have won if you outlived your victim. You have won if you had not met their same fate. The question of which is the greater punishment, well that quite honestly depends. It could just be 30 more years in hell if the guilty person were to die. Therefore either way could be worse, and there is no way of assuring. Therefore one cannot say that one is worse than the other, without firm knowledge of what happens after humans die. In the quotation my opponent uses as an argument states that, "much more complicated and far more frequent appeals" when speaking of the death penalty. The appeals are far more frequent because there are more people in the United States than in the past. There are also more taxpayers in the United States than in the past. Voter one is the following two sentences. In the first paragraph of my opponent's "Round 2" writings, my opponent states, "This penalty is virtually useless at a deterrent." does not grammatically work, as deterrent is not a place, and if it were, is not capitalized properly. My opponent argues that, "Prison is sick, nasty, and the perfect place for a murderer to be.". Voter two is the following. My opponent would prefer death instead of life imprisonment, as stated in "Round 3", paragraph 3, in the ending sentence. The argument is invalid, as my opponent's hypothetical situation has no point of reference that can cause one to believe in such an event, aside from arbitrary assumptions of my opponent. My opponent has never been in this situation and has no way to determine what my opponent would do if my opponent were, or as to what my opponent would prefer. This leaves a large gap for assumption and no evidence connecting my opponent's hypothetical situation to reality, therefore the argument is invalid.