The Death Penalty Should be Abolished in the USA

-Rebuttals Expanded- -Inconsistent Application- The problem with the "inconsistent application" argument is that it argues inconsistency to be a valid reason to abolish something. Should we then get rid of prisons too? As people are more likely to be unjustly sentenced for longer and harsher terms based on their race (racism, which I remind, is a point Pro makes in round 2)? Pro does not address the inconsistency in the logic of his own arguments. In regards to the Supreme Court ruling, the Court upheld the death penalty, upheld the need for a jury, and upheld that there be a capacity for "mercy" to be shown based on the person's character and individual case. I do not see how this helps Pro's case. -Innocent Deaths- No system will ever be perfect. There will always be flaws. The point is that the innocent deaths are not fault of the death penalty, but the poor way the prosecution and judge judged the situation despite the lack of near-absolute proof. An innocent man that spends life in prison is arguably just as bad if not worse. -Deterrent- Pro admits that correlation is not the same as causation. Showing a one person difference between x:100,000 does not at all support that the death penalty make people more violent by proxy. I have already shown the causes for violent crimes in the previous section, and if Pro feels strongly about his statistics, it is his burden to prove that his argument is sound after admitting its flaw. In regards to the death penalty not being a good enough deterrent, this is a relativity issue to begin with, as some inmates prefer one over the other. Both are bad, it is not a matter of which is a better deterrent, as both still do not prevent crime from taking place. It is more so a matter of giving which sentence provides the greatest punishment for the criminals in question. -Cost- Pro misrepresents my rebuttal. My argument is that any form of punishment will incur a price. If the focus of justice is to be cheap, then you might as well avoid a trial in the first place to save money. Also the death penalty itself is not inherently expensive, it is the current system that makes it so. However, as I already pointed out, this whole question is irrelevant as you cannot put a price on justice. -Consensus- Pro's arguments revolve around the majority fallacy (argumentum ad populum), what the majority believes is right does not make it so. -My Case- Pro concedes that "Justice is ideally the equal punishment or redistribution for a crime committed, and in the case that equal punishment or redistribution are impossible, the greatest possible punishment be given". He then goes on to state, "The mental anguish that murderers feel in jail should not be underestimated. The murderers must think about what they have done and the consequences." However, this is not the case for all prisoners [1][2]. Some prisoners enjoy prison life, and contrary to being repentant, they boast about how good they have it in prison to the victims. I am, of course, not stating this is a universal case, but the argument remains that one must have options when deciding which punishment is "the greatest possible punishment". Perhaps sometimes that means life in prison. Other times, you have to take what the criminal values most, which is his life. As Pro does not dispute my argument of social contract and forfeiture of one's life upon gratuitous murder, I also take he accepts this premise. I look forward to his conclusion in the next round. [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2]http://m.nzherald.co.nz...