Resolved: Criminals convicted of violent crime should be executed

Death Penalty Is Killing Innocent PeoplePro disputes that about 4% if death sentences kill innocent people and claims "The 4.1% is an estimation - it's subjective". The source clearly shows how they used scientific methodology to reach that conclusion instead of gut feelings. There is a difference between people who are proven innocent afterwards and people who are innocent. All of Pro's sources give numbers for people who have been proven innocent and my source uses those numbers to estimate the number of people who are innocent. The difference between my 4% and Pro's numbers is that a lot of cases are just not looked at after the people have been killed, so many false positives go undetected. More Guilty People Would Be Allowed To Go FreePro does not dispute my argument but rather doubts that the effects would be the same in his hypothetical system. However, as I mentioned in a whole paragraph that Pro just ignored those effects can be seen even in todays system. I cite myself: "Even in current law systems (e. g. in Florida) judges are practically forced to decide on death penalty vs. freedom as only the verdict phase requires an unanimous vote while the punishment phase is majority based. Therefore the only way to effectively avoid death penalty for a judge is to vote "not guilty" which, as the sources show, some of them are doing". This shows that there is no doubt to the validity of the argument. Death Penalty Does Not Reduce Crime RatesPro agrees with my point that murder after rape is free to try but argues that due to clearance rates that murder is more likely to be solved than the rape. The reason for the low rape clearance rate is that for rape there is a considerable false accusation rate that is not present for murder. This rate lowers the clearance rate as those cases are less likely to be cleared. Also there are some less-violent forms of rape where people agree on having had intercourse but disagree on whether it was consensual. Thus my point is still valid: In some cases of violent rape, the rapist would rather murder the victim than letting it go free just because of the death penalty. Also Pro claims that it is "so incredibly difficult to get away with murder". However this completely ignores that this would be different in the proposed system as shown by my previous point. Death Penalty Is Condemned By The International CommunityI am not talking about a complete stop to the trade. However, if a country violates human rights and transitions into a police state, other countries will not ignore this. Just look at all the embargoes that are enforced on North Korea or Iran. Even today criminals are not extradited to the US just because of the death penalty [1]Extended Death Row Period Is NeededPro claims "I never said people who could be a threat to society should be killed. " yet his whole point "No more re-offenders" was exactly about how the chance of committing another crime after being released justifies death penalty. I extend my point that it is inhumane to sentence millions of people to death without the chance of appealing to higher courts knowing that there is a considerable false positive rate (which I showed to be about 4.1%). Re: Money Saved In DeathThe problem with macro-economic effects is that you cannot see them working in small detail but only on a large scale. However if you think about it, it becomes obvious: Where should the money end if it is not returning to the state? It could end up in some peoples bank account where it is never touched again but that is unlikely to happen very often as most people spend their money rather than stockpiling it. Another possibility would be that the money leaves the country but also that is neglectable as the US trace balance is -40 billion but the total spending is about 4 trillions dollars. All the rest of the money circulates and therefore returns to the government. Whether or not penal labor is able to make prisons self-sustaining is debatable but there are countries that successfully use it to reduce the costs dramatically. Due to the focus on America I cannot detail this but still it shows a considerable potential. Re: No More Re-offendersPro is right, my whole reason to dismiss this point is based on the assumption that governments should seek to minimize the amount of citizens that have to die. If one denies this assumption and argues that governments should try to kill as many citizens as possible, I must drop this point. Any other reasons why killing prisoners would be better than lifetime sentence are discussed in the other points and do not belong here as they both have the same result regarding re-offence rates. Re: Crime-Free FuturePro is confused about the meaning of "anecdotal": Anecdotal evidence (or "stories") only cover one specific case and therefore can never say anything about a society in general. That is the reason why during this debate I did not tell any of the thousands of heartbreaking stories of people who got taken away from their beloved ones, falsely sentenced to death, and executed. I do not dispute that there are some people who want to go to jail but I claim that this effect is neglectable and none of the stories claim that this is some kind of trend. Pro failed to show how his proposal would result in a "Crime-Free Future". Murder By False AccusationPro states: "You have somewhat of a point, but for it to be valid, you'll need to provide some recent sources and literal examples of someone being able to accuse someone of something and actually having them sentenced to prison". [3] contains 25 examples. This is happening right now in todays system. It is easy to imagine what would happen in a system that has guaranteed death penalty for lots of crimes. Also since the proposed system does not provide any way to appeal to higher courts, the fake evidence only has to stand in a single trial. Summarizing all of my points, I have conclusively shown that 1) death penalty kills innocent people, that 2) because of that, criminals are more likely to go free, that 3) therefore death penalty is not able to reduce crime rates. Also I have shown 4) that the proposed system would have a negative impact on foreign relations and that 5) this system would allow people to murder by false accusation. I also have successfully refuted Pro's claims about financial savings and a crime-free future. [1]: . http://www.nytimes.com...[2]: . http://www.census.gov...[3]: . http://list25.com...