Capital Punishment Should Not Be Practiced as a Form of Legal Discipline

Note: Due to DDO-related technical problems, Con was unable to post his round 2 arguments; as such, the voters are not to deprive him of conduct points. As Con was unable to post his arguments here, he has posted them on Google CS at http://www.tinyurl.com...; I will be responding to those arguments herein.Criminal Justice Theories:Here my opponent attempts to make his case by providing us with the four theories of criminal justice -- restraint, education (rehabilitation), retribution, and deterrence; furthermore, he asserts that if the fulfillment of even one such theory relies on the utilization of capital punishment, he has effectively proven his case; however, as I hope to demonstrate, capital punishment is not at all necessary to fulfill such theories.Restraint:I'm confident that both I and my opponent can agree that sentencing capital offenders to life in prison without parole is sufficient enough to restrain criminals from harming the public; however, my opponent argues is that the death penalty is necessary for restraining capital offenders from harming their fellow inmates.However, for my opponent's point to be valid at all, he would need to establish unequivocally that capital offenders (on average) are more dangerous among general prison populations than their non-capital-offender counterparts; fortunately for my case, however, the evidence tends to point directly against such an assertion.A very impressive study conducted by Dr. Mark Cunningham and Dr. Jon Sorensen and published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law effectively demonstrated that capital offenders are not more violent among general populations than their fellow inmates. The abstract of the published study states that "during postconviction prison tenures averaging 4.4 years, none of the capital defendants was cited for accomplished serious assaults...Rates of misconduct among the capital offenders were equivalent to those among all inmates [1]."Therefore, my opponent's assertion that capital offenders are too dangerous to place among general prison populations is a demonstrably false assumption.Education (Rehabilitation):Although my opponent states that the second theory of criminal justice is education, it's usually called "rehabilitation [2]." Moreover, contrary to what my opponent suggests, the rehabilitation theory has nothing to do with educating the public on society's view of criminal offenses; rather, it solely entails "reform[ing] offenders by bringing about change in their future behaviour, both in the interests of society and of the offenders themselves [3]"; as such, capital punishment can in no wise fulfill such a principle inasmuch as it completely obliterates all potential attempts at rehabilitating offenders.Retribution:Here my opponent attempts to make the case that, at times, retribution demands the use of capital punishment; however, who is to say that life in prison without parole is not just retribution for capital offenders? Surely losing the rest of your life in prison is fair recompense for any and all capital crimes.Obviously my opponent and I could engage in an endless philosophical discussion as to what is just and not; however, as it stands, I see no a priori reason to assume that losing the rest of your life via a prison sentence and losing the rest of your life via a euthanasia shot are any different in terms of justice.Deterrence:I have presented numerous arguments against the assertion that capital punishment serves as any kind of a deterrent. Ultimately, there exists conflicting (yet equally authoritative) evidence on both sides of this debate.In the end, all that can be said for certain is that we have contradictory and inconsistent data; as such, it can in no wise be claimed that capital punishment is proven to work as a deterrent; nevertheless, I would go so far as to assert that the evidence leans (perhaps only slightly) in my favor:1) California and Oklahoma experienced a decrease in crime when they did not employ capital punishment [4]2) States which do not employ the death penalty consistently exhibit lower crime rates [5]3) Canada's crime rates have dropped 27% since abandoning the death penalty [6]4) Countries which have abandoned capital punishment consistently exhibit lower crime rates than the US [7]5) The experts overwhelmingly agree that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent [8]I imagine my opponent and I will continue to debate this issue; the voters will ultimately decide who presented the stronger case.Sustaining: Capital Punishment Presents Unwarranted Risks:Here my opponent tries to refute my case that human bias, prejudice, and fallibility present a legitimate obstacle for the practice capital punishment to be executed (excuse the pun) safely; in his attempt to debunk my assertions, my opponent claims that such arguments are red herrings, ad hocs, and misleading statements.Despite my opponent's claims, however, I believe I have effectively demonstrated that socioeconomic factors play a key role in determining whether or not an offender will be sentenced to death row; such a fact makes death row an unfair and unsafe method of legal discipline. Allow me to reiterate my previous contentions:1) Offenders are several times more likely to be executed if the victim was white, and studies have consistently demonstrated this [9]2) Studies show that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American [10]3) Almost all death row inmates could not afford their own attorney at trial [11]My assertions are not red herrings, ad hocs, and misleading statements; rather, they effectively demonstrate that humans are too flawed and fallible to fairly and justly exercise capital punishment; indeed, why should it ever be assumed that humans are capable of justly determining who should live and should die? As the ACLU states:"Although there has been much attention surrounding the use of DNA testing, only 13 death row inmates of 113 have been exonerated by use of DNA. Many people falsely believe that DNA testing is a panacea that guarantees innocent people will not be put to death. However, it is important to note that DNA testing is not always able to determine the killer. In many cases, there is no physical evidence to test. DNA testing can be a critical tool for proving innocence, but it is still only available in a fraction of cases. For instance, five of the seventeen people released from death row were released because DNA evidence revealed their innocence [12]."Sentencing an innocent individual to death is a very real possibility; ending the death penalty altogether is simply the best way to end that possibility.My opponent also argues that it's very difficult to get an individual sentenced to death row; however, the simple fact of the matter is that despite how careful and tedious the justice system is, there is always room for human error and incompetence -- that's simply reality.Sustaining: Capital Punishment Fails as a Deterrent:Due to my character limit, I'll have to try and address my opponent's contentions on this matter next round, as I simply haven't enough room left to cover this point adequately; however, I believe the arguments I've hitherto raised in this round and in my previous one will suffice for now.Sustaining: Capital Punishment is Overly Expensive:Here my opponent argues that because the four theories of criminal justice rely on capital punishment, the costs are justified; however, as I believe I've effectively demonstrated, capital punishment is not in fact needed to fulfill any of the theory of criminal justice; as such, I believe my opponent's argument here is moot.My sources will be posted in the comment section, as I've nearly exhausted my character limit.