The United States should retain usage of the Death Penalty

I'll go over my case then his. The resolutionCon thinks he can change how the death penalty works because the resolution doesn't exclude changes. Well, it doesn't exclude aliens coming down from the heavens and destroying the planet either, but thats ridiculous to argue about. So we should debate what the resolution says and not what it doesn't not say. He drops my Realism argument. Debating the DP as it is used now is best because our arguments actually pertain to the real world. So we go Con on this even if you don't buy the last argument. C1: Psychological damageA. He never refutes my accusations of a Straw Man, so you can go Con on this right here. Pro says most mental trauma comes from electrocutions, which are practiced rarely. This is a brand new argument that he was waited until round 4 to formulate, so toss it. The evidence refers to executioners having to inject substances into someone that they know will kill them. You think they're not bothered by that? He's dropped my Magnification argument; the trauma from executing people magnifies any stress from other personal issues. So being depressed over a wife's death turns into suicide. So the death penalty is still responsible for executioners killing themselves. B. He's conceded that witnesses to executions suffer from the death penalty. Remember, the resolution does not allow us to use pixie dust and create whatever system we want. We debate the DP as it is now. C. By saying, "Whether or not an execution is more terrible is ir-relevant" he has tacitly conceded that the death penalty causes families more trauma than life in prison. That alone is a reason to go against the death penalty here. That being said, this quote makes no sense. Its like saying there is no moral difference between 5 people dying and 10 people dying, because people are dying either way. Clearly the option producing lesser harm is preferable, which is life in prison. The victim's family doesn't always want the killer to die; they may categorically oppose the death penalty. But if he's killed anyway, (since the DP doesn't need the family's consent to be sought), they know they were part of a man dying that they didnt want to die. I dont see whats so hard to understand about that. C2: Death-qualified juriesA. Pro Straw Man's my Impartiality argument. I'm not saying the jurors won't consider Life in prison. I'm saying that Death Penalty cases are full of only those jurors who support the death penalty. Any DP trial is full of people who have the same opinion. So yes, DP trials are inherently biased. B. There can be multiple causes of a higher conviction rate in capital cases. But he's dropped my argument that jurors supporting the Death Penalty is one of those causes. So Capital Punishment is in part responsible for more defendants being convicted. He's also never denied that a higher conviction rate means more innocents going to prison, so he's conceded that the DP causes more innocents going to prison and the Chair. C3: MoralityRemember, my argument is that lethal injection is an inhumane and agonizing death because the anesthetic wears of before the prisoner is dead. He lives through an entire cardiac arrest and suffers just as much as he would if he were burned at the stake. My opponent seems to think this is entirely about having to inject the needle more than once, because thats literally all he has attacked. However, this point is about lethal injection being a cruel and inhumane death because the victim experiences severe pain. This argument has been refuted zero times in 4 debate rounds, as well as the argument that life in prison is a better moral alternative. The Supreme Court does not decide what is moral, they decide what is constitutional. This was also unanswered, so they have no authority in this debate. Lethal injection is not wrong in just Maryland; the same three chemicals in the drug are used in every state that allows capital punishment. So the inhumane death exists on a national level. Maryland was just the source for my Anesthetic evidence. Pro case:C1A: Murderers striking againMy point was that under the logic of killing murderers to prevent them from striking again, we should kill all criminals because murderers actually reoffend less than any other criminal. Pro's implied argument is that we should kill murderers because they deserve it and not kill robbers because they don't . However, nobody has run any Justice type of argument in this debate. This point has been about the practicality of killing murderers, not morality, so this is another new argument. Its also wrong; even if certain criminals deserve certain punishments, he doesn't explain why the appropriate punishment for muderers is death. Pro says Death Row inmates are guarded better. He gives no proof of this claim; the debate between Death Row and Maximum Security prisons is just as controversial as this topic. C1B: DeterrenceStudies1. He's conceded there is a small sample space to observe a deterrent effect. Just use common sense here; if 40 executions happen one year and 44 the next, can we really trust any conclusions drawn from such a small change?2. He has never actually defended his studies from my accusations of bias, so we ignore his deterrence evidence. He just says that any study can be biased. However, DP deterrence studies are unique in that it is one of the most controversial issues in modern history. So Deterrence studies are inherently less reliable than others. 3. He complains that I give my personal analysis on deterrence. Well this is debate, thats kind of what we're supposed to do :/I've argued that murderers don't plan on getting caught. You can turn his rebuttal because criminals hiding the body and disposing of evidence, shows that they work to AVOID being caught rather than not committing the crime in the first place. Statistics"Con has shown no (other) reason why homicide rates have declined. "My last speech pointed out that murder rates decline due to increased arrest rate. The increased arrest rate leads to more executions because there are more people being sent to trial in the first place. So, a decrease in homicide rates is more attributable to the arrest rate (threat of being caught). He's dropped this entirely, so we can't isolate the death penalty as a variable to determine homicide rates. C2: Life in prisonPro says the US being tough on crime is my personal opinion. I didnt give a source for that because I thought it was kind of obvious. I won't provide new sources in the last round, (contrary to pro, who gave three) but it should be obvious to voters that the US throws a lot of people in jail and will not do away with them. Voting issuesThese are my shortened rebuttals on key points.1. Capital JuriesDeath Penalty cases send more innocents to death AND prison. Death penalty jurors convict at a 44% higher rate than in Life in Prison cases. While Pro says there are other things that can lead to this gap, he has never denied my argument that the bias in DP cases is responsible for at least part of it, or that it leads to innocent conviction.2. Methods of executionHe's conceded that we must pick the most humane method of punishment. He also dropped that lethal injection (97% of all executions) is an inhumane and agonizing death compared to life in prison. By measure of unanswered arguments, the death penalty is wrong 97% of the time.3. Murderers striking againI can't stress enough that murderers commit less crimes after their release than any other criminal, and this is coming from his own source. Pro wants us to kill murderers because they reoffend 40% of the time. Thieves reoffend 70% of the time. Rapists - 68%. He implies that we dont kill thieves because they don't deserve death. Well why do murderers deserve death? He's never said why outside of this flawed recidivism argument. I again thank Thett for whats been an awesome debate. Hopefully voters will see this as one of the better DP debates.