The modern death penalty is beneficial to the economy of the United States.

Thank you Dylan for this great debate. My last round shall be devoted to refuting his remaining points, since I think the statistics provided in the last two rounds speak for themselves. ========== Pro's final case ========== 'I think what I intended to prove here was that the cost of death penalty CASES is irrelevant, considering that there are CONSIDERABLY less' --> Apart from being false (as already shown, the death penalty costs an exorbitant amount), this objection, like in the last round, completely misses the point. It isn't Pro's burden to demonstrate that the death penalty is only a minor drain on the public wallet: it's his burden to demonstrate that it's BENEFICIAL to the economy. 'mainly because with the death penalty actually being enforced, the amount of murder cases will decrease' --> Pro decides to barely assert a highly controversial argument in the last round; given that, I don't feel particularly compelled to respond. However, since some people might hold it against me: [1], [2]. 88% of criminologists do not think the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. Many studies have demonstrated that murderers simply do not weigh the costs and benefits of their actions. 'UNFORTUNATELY, I DID tell how the diseases affect the overall cost of incarcerating prisoners' --> At the moment, without any figures to back it up, this stands as a very weak argument in favour of the cost of life imprisonment. I would even say that it should be completely dismissed in the face of overwhelming evidence presented that life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty. This is nowhere near enough to affirm the resolution, and it falls flat in face of the actual facts. 'NEW POINTS' --> Uh, not sure you can actually do that in the last round, but whatever... 'Prisoner escapes or parole give the convict another chance to kill. When a prisoner escapes or is given parole, the statistics say that he or she will end up back in jail at LEAST 50% of the time' --> I'm a little dubious of Pro's source (having never used 'ChaCha' before), but let's accept it. What does it have to do with the resolution? This is an argument in favour of the general claim that the death penalty should be allowed, but not in favour of the argument that it specifically favours the economy. 'The modern death penalty gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system' --> First let me note that Pro's source says the following: 'Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life'. I don't hold that against my opponent, but I'd like to add it as a source in my favour [3]. I can accept the point, while still maintaining that it has little impact on the resolution as a whole - regardless, life imprisonment is still cheaper overall. 'If there was no death penalty, the prisons would become overpopulated. When they are so crowded, especially with murder convicts, people are more likely to:' --> and then Pro lists a load of 'facts'. None of which are sourced, none of which give any specific indication of how much they cost, none of which carry any weight in the debate at ALL. I'm going to do something I don't want to, and ignore the lot; I simply don't feel any compulsion to respond - they're worthless to the Pro side of this debate. I've already provided sources which demonstrate that the resolution is false and Pro has not contested any of them: the resolution is negated. Vote Con. [1] http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] http://www.physorg.com... [3] http://www.balancedpolitics.org...