Capitol punishment should be abolished

1. InnocenceMy opponent misunderstands my turn, the issue at hand is not that an execution is irreversible, that cannot and will not be denied. The turn was in the fact that the need for urgency and certainty in capital cases, an innocent convicted has a substantially greater chance of walking free than an innocent convicted to life w/o parole. My opponents own evidence proves this by showing us how death sentences are resisted to the end. I repeat, there is no moral distinction between executing an innocent and locking an innocent up to die forever. My opponent hasn't given any examples of innocents freed from life without parole, the reason? It's simply an incredible rarity. Further, my opponent drops the CSI effect evidence showing Juries now require more evidence to hand down a sentence, and doesn't respond to the turn that if we can free these people from cases years ago with modern day evidence, than the chance of convicting an innocent now is virtually nonexistent. Her only response to my point of how we can't just assume these people guilty is a non-sequitar regarding human error. Agreed, Humans make mistakes however my opponent hasn't given any reason to believe that entire institutions commonly make mistakes. Her indictment of the Supreme court as ignorant to the facts and details of the capital cases presented to it is absolutely and totally unwarranted. Prefer the experts opinions. There has not been a single person executed in the modern era of capital punishment that has been recognized as innocent by any serious authority and thus we they are, for all intents and purposes, guilty. If my opponent wishes to debate the guilt or innocence of individual cases that's fine, but she cant just assert that they're innocent when every single legitimate authority that is qualified to judge has put them down as guilty. Pro calls my car analogy "ridiculous", without any justification. The debate has to come down to the societal benefits of the DP. If we are to throw out something because it may cost innocent lives, we must throw away literally every human institution. Moreover, this isn't an argument against Capital Punishment, it's an argument against lax evidence requirements. I could easily offer a counterplan of only executing the obviously guilty, such as Timothy McVeigh or Peter Cantu. 2. CostMy Opponent fails to counter my argument that justice is priceless---her own logic is an argument for capital punishment. Executing every prisoner immediately without trial would certainly be cheaper than imprisoning them for any longer, but such summary executions would be no doubt unjust. But I guess we have to look at the facts, and the facts are that a .45 Caliber handgun bullet costs around $0.32 per round. Imprisonment is too expensive for a country in such a debt. She drops my argument about California being irrelevant because it doesn't actually execute many people, only to emphasize how the money could be used to pay off our debt. It's funny that she emphasizes that the debt is an incredible $15 trillion, when $156 million is a mere .00000104% of that. Her only response to DPIC being biased is that it says ". org" so that makes it ok; anyone who has spent any amount of time on DPIC knows that it's biased, so this is really just a silly argument. She totally drops my attack on the studies methodolgy, so you can extend it's irrelevance. She drops the PDP study showing the death penalty to be, over time, less exensive. You can vote Con already. Her only response to my plea bargaining point reinforces it, yes trials cost a lot. .. that's why it's good to have plea bargains. Let's refute the rest of her studies:Turn the Kansas & Tennesee & Maryland studies: DP trials costing more means more money allocated to pursuing Justice, and thus the possibility of handing down an unjust guilty sentence is reduced. Besides, I never argud that trial costs were lesser for the Death Penalty, it's the over all costs that need to be considered. Further, I've already shown the holes in the California Commision study, so there's no reason for Pro to merely repeat it without first addressing the damning flaws in its methodology. She hasn't given you a trade off argument anyway, IE use X money for Y. So money spent in the pursuit of justice (Neg world) is preferable to money spent on unknown ends (Aff world). 3. MoralityShe tries to write off her fallacies as logic by again asserting that Rogue nations like Iran & N. K. execute felons, while democratic ones often do not. But we've already established this--she's proven correlation, but not causation. The U. S. is not Europe, she needs to first prove that the Death penalty is immoral/a human rights violation before we write it off. Moreover, the reason the capital punishment is gone from the European judicial landscape is not because of some fictional love of human rights as my opponent would have you believe, but rather an undemocratic abolition by their activist and ideologically driven leaders, consider that 65% of Britons wanted the Death Penalty reinstated in 2011[1]. My opponent hasn't proven how retaining the Ultimate penalty will lead to the U. S. not being considered "a fair, free, civilized nation", and thus you can ignore it. Logically, it makes no sense what so ever to assume that other nations will negatively judge the United States based on it's execution of a few dozen vicious murderers per year in light of the common knowledge that the U. S. invades and occupies other countries just to spread it's ideology and secure it's hegemony and forces its European allies to contribute. ==My Case== 1. JusticeMy Opponents only response to the pendulum theory is that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". .. umm, no. An eye for an eye makes the criminal blind. She doesn't give you another way to view justice anyway, so you have to prefer mine --> The death penalty is thus just, and the resolution negated. 2. Innocent livesExtend the Department of Justice evidence, showing how over 5% of those sentenced to die committed their murder while serving a sentence. This shows that even maximum security prisons, her counterplan, are not safe enough. Consider the Texas 7, who broke out of a maximum secuity prison[2]. This filth went on a crime spree and murdered a heroic and innocent police officer who was just doing his duty after they robbed a store. To even consider the lives of convicted murderers when their are lives of innocents at stake is, quite simply, morally despicable. Her response to deterrence is the argument that life without parole is "worse than death". This is irionic in that it completely destroys her human rights argument (why abolish the DP when the alternative is worse? ), but is also an argument made in light of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. Indeed, I offer an extension of the dropped Westley Lowe evidence, showing how the death penalties implementation has saved lives and deterred crime. Most prisoners fear the death penalty anyway. Over 96% of inmates sentenced to die fight their sentences tooth and nail[3]. You can see that my opponents contentions are flawed and impactless while mine are virtually untouched, and thus you cast a negative ballot. Sources:1. . http://www.angus-reid.com...;2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...3. . http://www.debate.org...(sources in contention 2, subpoint B)