The death penalty should NOT be allowed

Rebuttals:(rebuttal for "justice and public support"): "One of the arguments frequently given in support of the death penalty revolves around the idea that the execution of an offender will provide closure to the grieving family of the victim. However, recent research on the topic has suggested that this may not be the case. A 2012 study conducted in Minnesota produced findings indicating that the death penalty likely does not serve to advance the healing process of the families of victims. This particular study represents the first of its kind to systematically examine the healing process of the families of victims when the death penalty has been given as a sentence. The results of this study indicate higher levels of physical, psychological, and behavioral health in victims’ family members in cases where life sentences were given, as opposed to the death penalty, as well as greater satisfaction with the criminal justice system in these individuals." CHECK THIS FOLLOWING LINK FOR THE STUDY: http://discover.umn.edu...The study basically debunks everything you have just stated.(rebuttal for "deterrence"): You are basing your assumption about "fear" from one professor, so I will base mine off of multiple: "H. Lee Sarokin, LLB, former US District Court and US Court of Appeals Judge, wrote in his Jan. 15, 2011 article "Is It Time to Execute the Death Penalty?” on the Huffington Post website: "In my view deterrence plays no part whatsoever. Persons contemplating murder do not sit around the kitchen table and say I won't commit this murder if I face the death penalty, but I will do it if the penalty is life without parole. I do not believe persons contemplating or committing murder plan to get caught or weigh the consequences. Statistics demonstrate that states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states with it, but frankly I think those statistics are immaterial and coincidental. Fear of the death penalty may cause a few to hesitate, but certainly not enough to keep it in force..." "Michael L. Radelet, PhD, Sociology Professor and Department Chair at the University of Colorado-Boulder, wrote in his 2009 article "Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views of Leading Criminologists” in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology: "Our survey indicates that the vast majority of the world’s top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed the deterrence hypothesis for a myth... 88.2% of polled criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent... 9.2% answered that the statement '[t]he death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides' was accurate... Overall, it is clear that however measured, fewer than 10% of the polled experts believe the deterrence effect of the death penalty is stronger than that of long-term imprisonment... Recent econometric studies, which posit that the death penalty has a marginal deterrent effect beyond that of long-term imprisonment, are so limited or flawed that they have failed to undermine consensus. In short, the consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment.""John Lamperti, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Dartmouth College, wrote in his Mar. 2010 paper "Does Capital Punishment Deter Murder? A Brief Look at the Evidence," published at math.dartmouth.edu: "...[I]f there were a substantial net deterrent effect from capital punishment under modern U.S. conditions, the studies we have surveyed should clearly reveal it. They do not... If executions protected innocent lives through deterrence, that would weigh in the balance against capital punishment's heavy social costs. But despite years of trying, this benefit has not been proven to exist; the only certain effects of capital punishment are its liabilities." "Tomislav Kovandzic, PhD, Associate Professor of Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas, wrote in his 2009 paper "Does the Death Penalty Save Lives?" in Criminology and Public Policy: "Our results provide no empirical support for the argument that the existence or application of the death penalty deters prospective offenders from committing homicide... Although policymakers and the public can continue to base support for use of the death penalty on retribution, religion, or other justifications, defending its use based solely on its deterrent effect is contrary to the evidence presented here. At a minimum, policymakers should refrain from justifying its use by claiming that it is a deterrent to homicide and should consider less costly, more effective ways of addressing crime." (http://deathpenalty.procon.org...) (rebuttal for "recidivism"): As you have stated in your first paragraph, "the Death Penalty is only reserved for the most serious crimes." Lets pretend that the death penalty is illegal for this mindset. Now imagine this: the death penalty was just banned and a serial killer was suppost to be put to death a few days later - but he cannot now. The police would NEVER release him to the public again in fear of him killing more people - so they keep him in prison forever. Now back to reality, let that sink in. If the death penalty is only for the worst of the worst, then why, if the penalty did not even exist, would security allow those prisoners out into society again? The answer is, they would'nt/they won't. So save that argument for prisoners who are going to be released who are not on the death row or were suppost to be executed on the first place - and not for prisoners who will not be released anyway. Citations:http://discover.umn.edu...;