The Death Penalty should remain legal in the United States

I'm glad that my Opponent has made a timely response. I was going to wait to post my refutations, but I've found some spare time and will do it immediately. At the beginning of the round, my opponent attacks my C1 by charging it with being an appeal to emotion. This is not exactly true. It was an appeal to justice. It was supposed to cause emotion, because we can only understand what is just if our sympathies lie with the victims. Cost of the Death PenaltyThis is by far the most common, and by far the weakest argument against Capital Punishment (henceforth referred to as CP). First I'll criticize his source, than I'll criticize the argument.--> First off, it should be noted immediately that the sourceis biased. Anyone who reads DPIC can quite clearly detect a bias.--> The source specifies Pennslyvania. It should be noted that Pennslyvania has 219 people on it's "death" row, and has executed a whopping three. So for each person executed in the past 35 years, there are 73 others awaiting execution. Thus, you can see that the high cost of CP in Pennslyvania is logicaly due to the lack of executions. --> The source never specifies its methodology. I can claim that CP saves the tax payers hundreds of trillions, but unless I can back up my claim, it's worthless. This is just an appeal to authority. --> The [biased] source fails to explain how it is the death penalty and not criminal justice that makes these costs. It's makes a few assertations, which I will attack. "Thus money that the police desperately need for more effective law enforcement may be wasted on the death penalty." Scratch that, and replace it with "criminal justice". This testimony never explains the difference between life w/o parole and CP, so there is no reason to presume that solvency will be gained by abolishing CP. CP is pricey, so what? Nothing worth having is free, because all societal benefits require some measure of sacrifice. "Every stage of a capital case is more time-consuming and expensive than in a typical criminal case" A) No explanation as to why a capital case is more expensive, and B) you can replace the "capital case" with "first degree murder trial". The high costs are due to the high stakes. With or without CP, it's undoubtebly a major thing to convict someone of 1st degree murder. The state holds a life in its hands (even without CP, LWOP destroys the life of the person convicted forever), and to argue that it shouldn't be more expensive and time consuming to convict someone of the most serious crimes as opposed to "a typical criminal case" is both absurd and unjust. " Jury selection takes much longer; more mental health and forensic experts will be needed" - This can be cross applied to murder trials in general, and is a good thing. The argument that sentencing in a capital trial is more complex gains no solvency. The reason that the sentencing is so complex is becase CP is the highest penalty in our current justice system. If we abolish it and establish LWOP as the harshest penalty, than the resources used by the defense to resist the DP will be applied for LWOP cases. It's claimed that "$137 million" per year is spent on CP. There are large problems with this claim. For instance, the methods are not explained anywhere, nor is any comparison made. It is completely unproven that the abolition of CP will save money, furthermore; no impact is argued. Why is spending money for justice a bad thing?Criticism of the cost argument--> No impact argued, who cares?--> No solvency, as previously mentioned theres no reason to believe that the money will be saved once LWOP becomes the most serious penalty. --> Never have I seen a cost argument that adresses a state that actually performs executions regularly, such as Virginia. Thus you can't take it as a true criticism against CP, because CP involves an actual execution.--> Turn: The costs associated are from those awaiting executions. IE if we recognize that keeping prisoners incarcerated costs so much, than killing the prisoners via CP ends the costs. LWOP would have the same costs, just without an execution at the end.--> This is supported by empirical evidence[1]: This cost analysis shows that executions cost "$1.2 to $3.6 million" less over time than equivalent LWOP cases. --> Ignores the use of CP for plea bargaining. CP is responsible for an estimated 10% of guilty pleas in murder trials[2] (avoiding the cost of a trial entirely).--> It also ignores the cost of a natural death. Since the justice system has an obligation to keep its inmates alive, the high cost of dying[3] (around $13,300 in the last year, and $1,900 each year past 65 for healthcare alone). This can be added to the cost of LWOP, and unless my opponents cost analysis addresses this, it cannot stand because it doesn't address every aspect of cost. Eye for an Eye is bad --> Con confuses a just execution with a brutal murder, please don't consider an execution an "eye for an eye" until he can show them to be morally equivalent. --> Con's argument can be applied to anything that is physcially similar to a crime. My question: If executing someone for murder is an "eye for an eye" and wrong, than isn't arresting and imprisoning someone for kidnapping also an "eye for an eye"? They both lead to the same result: a person held against their will. --> CP is not an eye for an eye. Murderers are not executed in the same manner as they killed their victims. If we raped, tortured, and killed someone for an execution this argument could apply. Otherwise, it can be applied to his plan (LWOP) as well, because LWOP is in retaliation to a crime committed, just like CP.Jurys don't want to condemn Absolutely false. Sentencing is a post conviction matter[4], and if jurors are uncomfortable with sentencing someone to die, than LWOP can be handed down. This argument is irrelevant. Creates sympathy for murderersThis is a good point, but it falls on a few accounts. --> Con brings up a single example for this, thus if I refute the example than this point is dropped. --> Con leaves out a lot of the Williams story. for one thing, the man became a devout Christian, and an anti-violence activist[5]. He appologized for founding the gang, and expressed deep remorse. Whether or not it was true is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he managed to convince people of his repentence. If he was able to do this, than he would've done it if sentenced to LWOP as well. The sympathy to him didn't exist because of his death sentence-it existed because of his post conviction behaviour. --> The justice gained by CP outweighs.--> The innocent lives saved by CP outweigh. --> Con claims there are many examples of this. He needs to show more, or else it isn't significant. Questions (if he runs out of room, I give my opponent my permission to post his replies in the comments section)1. What does the U.S. gain by implementing your case? What is the advantage and impact? How does it outweigh?2. Is there any situation, in your opinion, where CP is justified?3. What is the monetary value of each innocent life?4. Do you see a distinction between physical and moral similarities between crime and punishment? If so, what causes this difference?5. Do you view imprisoning a kidnapper as an "eye for an eye"?My Opponents arguments are refuted, thus you affirm. Thank you.Sources:1. http://bitURL.net...2. http://bitURL.net...3. http://bitURL.net...4. http://bitURL.net...5. http://bitURL.net...