The United States should Abolish the Death Penalty

SocialDemocrat, once again, glad to have a debate with you. I love debating with you, as the challenge you offer is amazing! I will refrain from rebutting the points you have stated in Round 1 to allow you to elaborate on it. Without further ado, I will now present my points.I. DeterrentFirst off, let me start by saying this: It is proven that death penalty has deterred many people from commiting crimes."The Rational Choice Theory" by Gary Becker is a great example on this. He states that criminals are rational. They, like us law abiding citizens, respond to costs and benefits. If something is more expensive, people would tend to use less of the product because the benefits are severely less. Similarly, crime works the same way. If the severity and certainty of a punishment increases, Crime will naturally decrease.Before the changes, being a cop is a very dangerous cop. Murder rates of police officers are 1:5600, including both accidental and intentional deaths. This made police deterred; They wear bulletproof vests, receive trainings on shooting situations, and learn many specific technics to approach different situations. They change their behavior due to the threat. From a statistics done in 2015, execution rate for murderers was 1:278. A murderer has a 20 times chance of dying compared to a police officer being shot. If police officers changed their behaviors over a significantly smaller risk compared to murderers, it would be stupid if criminals would not change their behaviors while having a 20 times larger risk than police's.From a case study regarding the act of deterrence (link:http://www.nber.org...), we can see that when arrests on violent crimes increase, juvenile crimes across the board decreases.Joanna Shepard used data from 1977 - 1999 to study the effect of death penalty. For every death row sentence, 4.5 murders are deterred. Each execution deterred 3 murders, and one murder is deterred for every 2.75 years reduction spent on death row. These results stands even after robustness checks, and also takes into account other variables. Emory University released a paper regarding this. Instead of using state data, Emory used the data of the whole country. Each execution deterred 18 murders. In the above picture, you can see deterrent in effect. I can go on if you are not convinced. Just call me out and I'll present more evidence. II. Death Penalty isn't evil. In fact, it might be considered just.Why are punishments given? (1) deterrence (2) retribution (3) rehabilitation.As I've shown above, death penalty has an effective method of deterrence. However, punishments involve 2 more goals. The two remaining goal is (2) let them receive an equivalent to their offense, (3) Fix the person. To many people, including Edward Feser, the most important goal of a punishment is retribution. We shouldn't correct someone who does not deserve correction. Crimes like stealing, or drug abuse, deserve correction. Murderers do not. Ok, before my opposition badgers this point, I'd like to say that I'm not implying that all murderers should be sentenced to death. I'm just saying that this might be a preferable course of action. Let's give a scenario. A little girl, the age of 9 is murdered by her father. Not only was she murdered, she had signs of being beaten, starved, whipped, and even had evidence that her father raped her. The Death Penalty may or may not be the best option for the murderer, her father, but no one would have a moral objection against this. In fact, many would prefer to execute him. It is for cases like this, where the acts of the criminal is indisputable and heinous.Before my opposition tries to mention that "Who is the government to take away lives as they warrant", I'd say they do. That's why cops are armed with firearms and not just tazers or tranquilizers. Furthermore, the army kills people every single day.