The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

Second Contention - Cost Claim: The cost of executing people is huge when compared to life without parole[5]. In fact, Californians alone could save $90,000 in tax every year by eliminating the death penalty, because they spend about $90,000 more (per year) on death row prisoners than on prisoners in regular confinement[5]. This money could be spent on things such a police stations, to help reduce the crime in the first place. Fact: I believe my opponent has committed a serious blunder here given that Death Row in the State of California is dysfunctional [14] and essentially gives death row inmates a paid legal team for life. This is called cherry-picking and it allows you to make a fradulent claim that the death penalty itself is more costly as opposed to the horrible administration unique to the state of California. Most of these cost-based studies ignore the fact that guilty pleas eliminate the cost of trial or greatly reduces the cost of appeal. There is also the perverse morality of this argument in the cost of ensuring the guilty verdict is accurate and then skimping on accuracy in cases where people will spend the rest of their life in prison. These studies inadequately address the high cost of medical care, especially in older ages. Finally, a lot of the additional cost in capital cases arises from needless litigation that has nothing to do with guilt. The irony is that the very people that are complaining about cost are the same people behind these legal efforts to stop the sentence from being carried out. If California could do as Virginia did in the case of the DC sniper, eliminate unecessary reviews and carry out the sentence less than 6 years after handed down. Ultimately I consider this a fraudulent basis for attacking capital punishment. Conclusion: At this point, my opponent has offered up two classic arguments put forward by anti-death penalty zealots. A little research and effort can take them apart piece by piece. In the next round I will address any further contentions and offer up my postive arguments for capital punishment. Sources: [1] http://www.youtube.com... [2] http://blogs.chron.com... [3] http://www.commondreams.org... [4] http://www.claremont.org... [5] http://www.nypost.com... [6] http://archive.frontpagemag.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://scholar.google.com... [9] http://www.caller.com... [10] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [11] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [12] https://www.oag.state.tx.us... [13] http://www.cjlf.org... [14] http://articles.latimes.com... Third Contention - "fails as a deterrent" Claim: It has been consistently demonstrated how the death penalty is not a deterrent for murder over alternatives. Every year between 1991 and 2011, without fail, the total murder rate in death penalty states has been higher than murder rates in non death penalty states[4]. While a punishment should not be for a deterrent alone; it should be in part. This part, is not met with the death penalty. You get scratched by a cat as a punishment (in a sense) for annoying it. The scratch serves as a deterrent in part; you are deterred from annoying the cat again. Well, it doesn't work with death, apparently[4]. Fact: It should be noted that utilitarian concerns regarding deterrence are technically irrelevant to the debate on capital punishment given this is an isue of justice for victims of murder and the punishment befitting the crime. I took an unconventional approach to this claim by looking at the FBI's numbers [1] on the total number of murders by state and I found that states that abolished capital punishment are among the top states, in the middle, and at the bottom in the total number of murders. Murders by state as a percentage of that state's population are unusually similiar in a range of 0.001% to 0.006% with the only one odd state out being Louisiana (0.010%). The District of Columbia has no death penalty (0.018%). In my opinion, this is a very simplistic approach that ignores a wide range of factors. The claim that murder is higher in states with the death penalty than without is false and the numbers really tell us nothing. Now California is the state with the highest number of inmates awaiting execution at 727, but they've only carried out 13 death sentences since 1976. There have only been 1,340 execution over a period of 37 years. [2]. Add to this the whole issue of plea bargaining; 75% of inmates executed could have avoided their fate by accepting a plea and it has been suggested that prosecutors will accept a plea sparing the death penalty in every case [3]. Studies show that each execution deters an average of 18 murders [4], another study found that Illinois' moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years, and another study found every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented [5]. Another study found the deterrent findings to be robust [6]. To me we can clear see murderers plea out to avoid the death penalty; examples would include Ariel Castro (the Cleveland kidnapper) [7], Joshua Komisarjevsky (the brutal murderer of Dr. William Petit's family) [8], Gina Scramuzza (hired men to savagely murder her husband) [9], Michael Jacques (sexually assaulted and murdered his 12 year old niece) [10], James Holmes (infamous Aurora, Co. theater gunman) [11], Thomas Hardy (murdered a Indianapolis police officer) [12], and many others. I would also point out, since your fond of "alternatives," that life in prison isn't a deterrent and you say, "...a punishment should not be for a deterrent alone; it should be in part." Amazingly, you seem to believe a cat scratch is a deterent but not death! Fourth Contention - 8th Amednemtn Violation Claim: The 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents the use of "cruel and unusual punishment". People can be executed in the following ways: 1) Shot by firing squad. Or 2) Poisoned by lethal injection. Or 3) Poisoned by gassing. (A little like in Hitler's concentration camps). Or 4) Electrocuted by electric chair. Or 5) Neck snapping/asphyxiation by hanging. Now "cruel" is defined as: "causing pain or suffering". Fact: I consider this erroneous reasoning; the contemporary definition of the word cruel has no bearing on the legal meaning of the 8th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Legal commentators from across the spectrum have described the Supreme Court"s treatment of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause as "embarrassing," "ineffectual and incoherent," a "mess," and a "train wreck." Justice Scalia"s approach holds that the Clause was intended to prohibit only certain inherently cruel forms of punishment, such as the rack, that were already unacceptable by the end of the eighteenth century.This approach contends that because grossly disproportionate punishments were imposed at the end of the eighteenth century (at least in England), the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause must not have been intended to outlaw disproportionate sentencing. Similarly, because the death penalty was widely available at the end of the eighteenth century, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause must not have been intended to restrict capital punishment significantly [13] As for the methods of execution, which I personally see no problem, the last execution by firing squad was in 1960 (53 years ago), the last hanging was in 1965 (48 years ago), electric chair was in 1966 (47 years ago), and the last use of the gas chamber was 1967 (46 years ago) [14]. Clearly the only method really used is lethal injection and despite my opponent's suggestion, they are put to sleep before the lethal dose is administered. [1] http://www.fbi.gov... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.press.umich.edu... [4] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [5] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [6] http://www.tandfonline.com... [7] http://www.usnews.com... [8] http://abcnews.go.com... [9] http://www.nola.com... [10] http://www.wcvb.com... [11] http://www.usatoday.com... [12] http://www.wishtv.com... [13] http://www.law.northwestern.edu... [14] http://en.wikipedia.org... Given the character limitation, the need to post the other half of my response to the second contention (plus sources), I had no choice but to withdraw any positive argument on my behalf. I would also contend that I can readily defend my usage of 'anti-death penalty zealots' and that it is not a breach of the "rules" of the debate. It would appear you broke #6 several times. Anyway, let's continue.