Capital Punishment Ought to be Eliminated

Observation:First, my opponent seems to unable to understand the framework set forth at round 1 of this debate both by himself and me. As such, I will restate them for illustration purpose:My opponent claimed burden of proof.My opponent is for the (total) elimination of CPMy statement is "There are situations that CP is needed and justified."Thus, even if there is one situation where CP is needed and justified, my opponent fails.My opponent himself claimed burden of proof. Further, he himself made the claim which is an opinion he has taken for a fact, as he repeatedly did throughout the debate. Thus the burden of proof rest on him. Any attempt to shift the burden of proof on me is qualified as Argument from Ignorance.I framed my case around only in the event of crimes against humanity, or "high crimes", such as that of mass murders, genocides, war crimes etc, not for CP as currently being used in the US. Thus, argument that can be used only against CP in general will be straw man fallacy.Addressing my opponent claim to fallacies:Claim of argument from Ignorance:As the from my previous observation, my opponent has BoP. Thus, it is valid for me to contest his opinion asserted as claim. In fact, the contrary is often claimed - that the US criminal law system is far more retributive than its European peers [quote].http://nyti.ms...http://herit.ag...Further - he did not address my claim as "there are instance where rehabilitation is impossible". His argument is a sufficient proof that "there is in fact rehabilitative efforts in the judicial system”, which is neither a counter to my claim nor a proof that " what it [ the legal system] ought to be". His claim to lex talionis is false : not all murder leads to CP, and CP is justified - i.e. done by the court of law, under the constitution. Further, I limited my case to In such cases, lex talionis is false.Straw man fallacy: my opponent tried to misconstrue my argument, as I never claim inconsistence - I merely claim the law can never adequately address the crime proportionately with its punishment without CP - CP serves an important function as the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. In fact, 10 to 20 years sentences is common in the US code.http://www.law.cornell.edu...With regards to CP as plea bargaining tool and the deterrence effect of CP:I have never claimed a causation, I simply declared his claim(s) as being disputed, which is has been proven true in round 2 simply by the existence of the many (cited) papers disputing the claim, all of which are published in respected journals. Since his whole reasoning depends on the validity of his claim as undisputed fact, my simple proof is sufficient to discredit his argument. This is my reply to both his assertion of the plea bargaining power of CP and the deterrence of CP.Further, plea bargaining is not relevance in the case of the high crimes, in which the interest to further justice for past victims and to protect potential victims is far more than the monetary interest - the prime reason for plea bargaining. Further, in high crimes, the prosecutors are not interested in plea bargaining in the first place.Source: a list of 24 published papers from 1996 to 2010 on the deterrence effect of CP. I guess this is fair since my opponent did something similar in round 2. Of which, 17 found conclusive evidences for the deterrence effect of CP, 2 against, and 5 non conclusive.http://sharetext.org...With regards to Watts:When a person make a public statement against himself, that will clearly and substantially reduce his chance of obtaining an early release, one is logically to expect that he wants the opposite. Which is a long long life in prison.Addressing my opponent rebuttals:The validity of his source, and its claims versus his claims:My opponent contested neither the fact that his source is from an activist organization, nor the fact that the funding of the research is from an organization for the elimination of CP.After reading the survey, I have a strong reason to believe that the wording of the research was altered to fit the ideological goal of the funding organization.On question 12, 71% of the surveyed answer yes to the question "executing people who commit murder deters others from committing murder", thus rejected my opponent's own claim of quote "that 80% of criminologists believe that CP has no deterrence".On question 8: 61% says there is support for the deterrent effects of CP - some says evidence is weak, but most agree there is support.On question 11, CP tend to increase murder rate, 63.8% disagree, and 17.4% "Strongly disagree", directly refuting the brutalization claim quote "criminologists often suggest that CP may have a strong co-relation to increases in violence [4] as the state justifies the use of killing, the people will as well" of my opponent.Possibility of escape:People on death row averages 10 to 15 years in prison according to DPIC, with far higher security. A LWOP prisoner, naturally, serves far more; the average is 40 years, according to ncadp.org. A living person is far more likely to escape and commit more crimes than a dead one. Both sources are against CP.http://bit.ly...http://bit.ly...Hitler and Pol Pot:I address the crime - not the character. What did the criminal did was irrelevant. Why Claiming making Pol Pot a communist martyr is as ridiculous as claiming killing Watts would make a mass murderer a martyr. The killing of Saddam Hussein did not make him a martyr. His trial and execution is public. Even the killing of Osama Bin Laden, while not before a court of law and a jury, brought justice to the deceases and tremendous satisfaction to the public.Further, turning a person into martyr should never be a factor in our criminal system.With regards to wrongful conviction:My opponent does not contest the fact that forensic evidence is improving, and it is getting harder to administer CP due to Supreme Court. His evident indicates the failure of the prosecution system - not that of CP.In fact, in Herrera v. Collins, the Supreme Court ruled that it is perfectly legal to execute an actual innocent person.http://en.wikipedia.org...Crime and punishment:My opponent said: "when property is damaged or taken by [the accused], [he] isn't forced to surrender his property to the victim as repayment" : I have no idea based on which system of law my opponent takes this from, but in US law system, if one person destroy another person's property, the victim is awarded damage from the convict's property. If the crime is serious, and the convict shows insufficient remorse, the court will award further remedies called punitive damages. One prime example is the case of Jammie Thomas-Rasset vs RIAA, in which US Supreme Court ordered the accused to pay 222,000$ damage for the download of 24 songs, which would have cost around 0.99 USD each. My opponent can refer to the US Civil Code to find it chock-full of such examples.http://www.law.cornell.edu...http://bit.ly...Insanity defenseThe insanity plea is used in the U.S Criminal Justice System in less than 1% of all criminal cases. Only some mental insanity is qualified as a mitigating factor, not all, and it is not a legal defense. The fact that a person enjoy killing - which is a kind of insanity - is neither a legal defense nor a mitigating factor.http://bit.ly...Systemic murder and Execution of InnocentIn Herrera v. Collins, the Supreme Court ruled that it is perfectly legal to execute an actual innocent person.http://bit.ly...Political agendaThe state's political agenda is irrelevant; all laws can be misused. The fact that international law trump federal law, and the state chose to ignore it, is not at all relevance to the usage of CP. My opponent claim that "the state can kill whomever it pleases" is wrong - there is a trial by jury and conviction.