Rehabilitation ought to be valued above Retribution in the US Crimial Justice system

Retribution ought to be valued above Rehabilitation in the United States Criminal Justice system. ~~~Pro's Case~~~ "If one focuses on the equal value of all rational beings, then equal consideration dictates that one may sacrifice some to save many." Consequentialism dictates that the life of one individual may be sacrificed for the greater good of society. So, the life of a mass murderer may be sacrificed to satisfy the desire of society for retribution against the murderer. Contention 1 - the current system is not the only system that can value retribution over rehabilitation. Thus, proving the current system causes more harm than good does not prove the resolution. Indeed, the current system can be improved while still valuing retribution over rehabilitation, causing it to do more good than harm. Sub. A: Overcrowding is directly contradicted by the introduction of the death penalty as described in sub B. Sub. B: Correlation is not causation - the studies which Pro provided are not controlled experiments and do not accurately measure the effects of retribution vs. rehabilitation. Regarding the BBC link, Pro's own consequentialist framework contradicts all of the supporting points on the page: 1. Value of human life -> deontology is concerned with values; consequentialism cares about societal consequences and accepts that in some cases, it is better for society to sacrifice members for the greater good. 2. Right to live: "everyone has an inalienable human right to life" -> again, this directly contradicts consequentialism. Pro's argument that "retributive punishment such as the death penalty increases crime" is not supported by any definitive evidence. Biology directly contradicts this assertion - empirically, humans and other animals can be made to avoid undesirable behavior via operant conditioning. Although an argument can be made that the death penalty, one specific type of retributive punishment, is not an effective deterrent, it is unarguable that retributive punishment works and does discourage crime. I challenge Pro to find a single scientist who disagrees or a single nation that does not have any form of retributive punishment. ~~Con's Case~~ 1. Retribution deters crime: "More generally, even if the threat of punishment is no longer a deterrent to a relatively small number of repeat offenders, that does not mean that the prospect of punishment, such as imprisonment, for instance, is not a deterrent to the majority of people who otherwise might be more tempted to break the law and violate the rights of others in pursuit of their own goals and interests. At best, the evidence on this point is inconclusive, but the phenomenon of sharp increases in mindless vandalism, looting, and violence by otherwise law abiding citizens when they feel that they can get away with it, should cause us to re-think the wisdom of rejecting punishment altogether." (Barton, 99: Empowerment and Retribution in Criminal and Restorative Justice, Professional Ethics, A Multidisciplinary Journal. Volume 7, Issue 3/4, Fall/Winter 1999, Selected Papers from the 1999 Conference of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics, Charles Barton, Pages 111-135.) 2. Almost all democratic nations have some form of retributive punishment. It follows that people care about retribution, making it important for society to have retributive punishment so that these people will be content.