Death Penalty

I believe it's rebuttals, so here goes nothing. I'd like to take them in the order they were presented. 1. The fact that my opponent presents the possibility of the execution of an innocent person, is morally reprehensible. As of July 1st, 2015 there are 2,984 people on death row in the United States. if 4 percent of them are innocent that means that approximately 119 innocent people are killed. 119 families stripped of their loved one, simply because there is a kink in the system (the death penalty. 2. If my opponent wants to talk statistics, if you click my second link, you can see very clearly that homicide rates in places without the death penalty are significantly lower than places where which the death penalty exists. To quote the same article, " A 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder." 3. I covered the fact that it costs significantly more to execute, than to keep someone in prison for life in my initial argument. 4. I don't see how the bible can be taken as an argument for anything outside of theology. If we're going to execute anyone that the bible tells us to that would include, adulterers, thieves, anyone who works on the sabbath, non-believers, the entire town if one person worships another god, people who pull out during intercourse, people who do unnecessary actions, foreigners, skeptics, and so on. 5. How can my opponent say that the death penalty is just when 1) Innocent lives are at stake, and the same effect of wasting someone's life could be had with a life sentence. What is considered just is subjective to the person you're asking. 2) My opponent advocates the teachings of the bible, which is one of the most immoral documents ever to exist. 6. "How? By the usage of the Death Penalty, which eliminates all the threats of murders within the prison." This is a quote from my opponents opening statement in their "C6." argument. Their argument here is faulty from the beginning, because it makes an unfounded assertion, builds upon that assertion, and suggests reform to the death penalty which I remind the audience, is not what we're arguing (correct me please if i have misinterpreted the premise.) Of course, I would advocate reform in the way of total abolition of the death penalty. 7. Finally, if you'll take the time and look at my fourth link, an astronomically low amount of executions actually take place, largely because the state gets more tax revenue from people on death row being on death row, so it's more a money scam than population control. Also, my opponent presents the alternative instead of the release of non-violent criminals, they propose mass genocide within the prison system. To conclude my rebuttals, if you'll look at my last link, contrary to my opponent's assertions the top three crimes in the U.S. are predominately non-violent. In order of "popularity" 1) Larceny-theft 2) Burglary (This is why I said predominately, but most burglaries don't end in violence.) 3)Motor vehicle theft. I ask us all, are these worthy of death as my opponent would have you believe? I will conclude by saying that i feel i have shown my opponent's argument to be faulty to the extreme. Vote con https://www.google.com... http://www.amnestyusa.org... (it's in there somewhere with verses cited) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com...