The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder.

Viewers keep in mind I will first be finishing addressing my opponents round 2 rebuttal.Defense: C.4, Jury less likely to condemn. I would like some evidence that the jury are able to choose the sentence of the criminal, because I've been searching for it but can't find it.The DP saves only the lives of criminals being murdered, besides cases when murderers are let go with should not happen. The DP sometimes kills innocents. Defense: C.5, Innocence. Here's a case in which a man was framed by the police. [1] This source says that well over eighty people in the past quarter century have been condemned but then released before execution [2]This source shows accounts of 11 innocents being executed. [3] Here is a quote from one study taken." In my current research into probable innocents that have been executed, I have uncovered at least 74 cases in which wrongful executions have most likely taken place." [2]Let me also add what I said in the previous round. There have undoubtedly been cases in which the innocent have been executed but have not been proved innocent afterwards. After being executed there is usually not much need for someone to try too prove the innocence of someone who is already dead. So there are undoubtedly instances in the past where we have executed an innocent man but did not know so, and still do not know. With life imprisonment there is zero chance of killing an innocent man.Defense: C.6, Life imprisonment just as effective removing those who cause harm. The only people murderers can harm is their fellow inmates, assuming they were not sentenced to solitary confinement. This is far outweighed by the fact that executing innocents is a much bigger a problem than murderers and rapists killing each other. Defense: C.8, Violates the right to life. 1. Not outweighed: The lives saved by the DP are the lives of rapists and murderers. The lives saved by life imprisonment are the lives on innocent people wrongly condemned. 2. "Not comparable morally": The murderer of course has no right to take another mans life. So what makes it right for us to take his life? 3. Murderer is guilty, but not deserved of death: What makes it right for the guilty person to be deserved of the same thing he's being executed for? Of course he's guilty, but life imprisonment is a better means of punishing the guilty. 4. DP Vengeful: My opponents analogy's are faulty. His first analogy doesn't even make sense because what he's saying is it would be absurd to kidnap someone to show that kidnapping is wrong. I agree that would be absurd, which is why killing people to show killing people is wrong is also absurd. His second analogy is completely wrong because cops don't punish those who speed by speeding. 5. Violating anothers rights does not deprive you of your own: John Stuart Mill is essentially saying the "eye for eye tooth for tooth" concept is right. Proving that the DP is vengeful. This concept is widely accepted as wrong. 6. I'm not sure exactly what my opponent means by personal liberty, but putting a man in prison for murder is easily justified while the DP is not. 7. The fact of whether war is justified is completely another matter. 8. "Protecting the right to life": Every time the DP is used the right to life is violated. As for lives saved, see my first point. Deterrence. It is fallacious reasoning to assume that, because murder rates were dropping at the time the DP was used that means it was because of the DP.The only way life imprisonment causes murders to happen is by inmates killing each other. This is out weighed by the fact that innocents get executed with the DP. Round 2 has been cleared up so now on to round 3.Escaping and murdering again:It is exceedingly rare for those confined in prison to escape. It was reported that 0.5% of inmates escaped.[4] The number of murderers who escaped would be even less as that includes all inmates. Also those statistics were from 1998, the amount would be even lower now. Experts are saying that prison escapes are becoming less common. [5] As for my opponents last sentence I have now shown many examples in which innocents have been executed.Deterrence:Study shows that there there is not enough evidence to support the fact that the death penalty does not act as a deterrence. [6] [7] Quote from source:"When one considers all the evidence the empirical support for the proposition that the death penalty deters is at best weak and inconclusive.""Life does not always mean life" 1. This is mere speculation. No convincing evidence. 2. Just because there are movements for something doesn't mean we should be worried about it. In politics there are movements going on for tons of things. "Prisoners prefer life" I think that it all depends for different people. Being locked in a single small room in solitary confinement for years on end is certainly not very pleasant. Constitutionality: Although allot of people don't know it, the Bill of Rights is legally considered part of the original Constitution. [8] This is true and so my point still stands. Cost: 1. My opponent states that it is only my personal opinion. I showed substantial evidence to support my claims so I don't know why my opponent claims this. //I have given specific examples of killers who killed again so this does not outweigh.// I have given many examples of innocents being executed which in turn outweighs this or at least cancels it out. My opponent posts two examples. One of a gang raping and murdering some teens and one of an execution. He then says; //Are we really supposed to believe that these two actions are morally similar? Even if the DP is immoral to claim that murder and execution are the same morally is simply absurd.// Everyone in those examples have the right to life. This is what we disagree on. It is certainly worse to rape and kill someone than to execute someone by use of injection, or some other means. But does this make it right to kill them back? The whole point is even the murderer has the right to life, and is deserved of having the rest of his life to have the chance of repenting. //Rather than attacking my rebuttals, Con often just attacks my sources.// Not necessarily true. In the example of cost I attacked the study that was done, and showed that it is likely wrong. In other cases my opponent unintentionally didn't post the article, but only the home page of the website. In these cases I made it clear that I could not properly refute my opponent without proper sources. //He brings up the federal government, which again is like California. Populated death row, few executions. // I'll ask my opponent to elaborate more in the next round, because I'm not sure what he means and have no idea which argument or rebuttal I even used this for. //I admitted that the source was biased, but rather than attack the cost analysis, he again attacks the credibility. So my evidence stands.// False. The source itself states that the studies taken say the DP is more expensive, but that the anti death penalty movement is full of lies and deceit and that is why these statistics are wrong. Evidence show the DP is more expensive. The study does not show how these statistic lie nor how the anti death penalty movement is full of lies and deceit. I've run out of characters so will try to respond to the rest in the future. Sources:http://beta.nodeathpenalty.org... [1]http://www.the-slammer.org... [2] http://www.justicedenied.org... [3]http://www.slate.com... [4] http://abcnews.go.com... [5] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [6] http://www.studentabolition.org... [7] http://www.renewamerica.com... [8]