The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Con has essentially dropped all of my arguments in R3, and has attempted to refute only the points of retribution vs. revenge, costs and the sentencing to be held within mental health institutions.In his R4 statement, Con capitalizes on the point of retribution vs revenge. Con bases his argument on the definitions I have put forth to claim that the content of both a retributive punishment and a punishment based on revenge are different. Con claims that retribution is a just response, and is logically and morally supported. However, the same concepts I have presented can be formulated into this summarizing argument:1) The intent of revenge is to inflict pain in response to an originally inflicted pain.2) The intent of retribution is to inflict punishment in response (and in clear proportion) to a crime (in judicial terms).3) Revenge, as a concept, is a type of retribution.4) The death penalty is a form of revenge, and therefore also a form of retribution.5) Revenge is immoral.6) The death penalty is immoral.My opponent directs all of his arguments at the idea of the differences between retribution and revenge. I agree that there are some key differences, even some my opponent has failed to mention. However, revenge, as a concept, is evidently a type of retribution. I have been inferring this all along, the idea of revenge is to make up for an original pain, and in a judicial setting, this is essentially the same for retribution, however, he fails to refute the clear relation and similarity between the two. Of course, they are not completely the same. I never said these similarities were absolute. However, as a concept, revenge is a type of retribution.My opponent, in his first rebuttal, tries to refute the claim that the death penalty is a form of revenge. He becomes obsessed with the idea that retribution and revenge are not exactly the same thing, therefore, there is a clear moral distinction. Instead of making this distinction, which effectively concedes my point on the immorality of the death penalty, my opponent strikes down my claims on the similarities, without recognizing that I am not claiming that these similarities mean the two concepts are exactly the same. I would not use the term retribution in substitution for the term revenge, as I am aware that they share differences.Balanced punishment and retribution are also not the same thing. Balanced punishment takes into account the moral implications of the punishment, as well as the possible expenses that detract from the justice system's ability to institute the punishment. In all, balanced punishment and retribution are not the same thing: would my opponent argue that time in prison for a rapist would not be a balanced punishment? It is not inflicting the type of suffering the rapist inflicted upon his victims, nor is it exactly proportional to the seriousness of the crime, yet it is a perfectly appropriate, balanced response to such a criminal act, as our judicial system recognizes.As I have distinguished between balanced punishment and retribution (and within retribution, revenge), it is clear that the death penalty does not apply to the realm of balanced punishment. Even more of a reason to abolish it, in line with my previous claims.On mental institutions, it is important to recognize that criminals who have mental disorders (like some pedophiles) are still held in mental institutions which are specifically designed for treating them, hand in hand with instituting a balanced punishment. In specific cases where this is appropriate (these cases are common), this is an undeniable truth.On costs, my opponent says that this does not mean we should not abolish it. But this fails to recognize the pointlessness of having a more expensive punishment that has no more of an effect (in terms of deterrence) as life in prison does. It is irrational to pay more for a punishment that does not improve upon the deterrence effect. My opponent equates this argument to wanting to ban $800 shoes because they do just as much as less expensive shoes. On the contrary, there are benefits to buying more expensive shoes (like the pride of owning expensive shoes) that are not shared by cheaper options. Even if this distinction did not exist, it is still an unfair comparison to make when equating shoe shopping to public policy.In all, it is undeniable that all my opponent's points stand refutes, while most of mine lay untouched by my opponent. It is resolved that the death penalty should be abolished.