Resolved: Capital punishment ought not be continued in the United States.

While my opponent makes some good arguments, I feel I must defend some of my previously stated arguments. He claims that, "This proves my point more that we should abolish the death penalty sense getting someone to death row is so costly because of the lengthy appeals process and just how expensive the facilities are. These arguments further prove that if we were to abolish the death penalty these facilities would no longer be needed saving us millions of dollars. " He misses my point here. The points were these: First, many death row inmates serve out life sentences anyway, and all the money spent on them is included in the death row statistics. This skews the numbers, so that they appear to be higher on the capitol punishment side. Also, I feel I must defend the attack on my sources. My sources came from a neutral site, with absolutely no bias for or against capitol punishment. Notice how is has pro and con in the title itself. Furthermore, the majority of my opponents' argument is taken from an anti-death penalty propaganda site. . http://www.amnestyusa.org... I encourage unbiased readers to peruse this site. I also feel no further need to defend my argument against skewed monetary statistics. Next, my opponent tries to debunk my argument on modern forensic science. I am personally somewhat disappointed that he tried to use that same website to refute my argument. He quotes the site by saying, " since 2003 alone, 10 people have been released from death row after they were found to be innocent. " He fails to mention that these men were convicted before current forensic advancements, and vindicated using modern methods, which I had already stated in my first round. In fact, the most recent murder conviction on that site was from 1995. I feel no further need to defend my argument for modern day forensic science, and would very much appreciate a retraction of the statement, "So therefore, his argument saying that all the people who were convicted before our forensic advancements falls since we can see even in the past decade when DNA technology was around innocent people were being wrongfully convicted by our own justice system. " This statement is NOT factual, and the argument does not fall. My opponent states there is no evidence that the death penalty acts a deterrent. I say, no evidence is necessary. It would certainly deter me. The point is that most people are not murderers and rapists. Those that are not deterred by laws and the subsequent punishments do not need to be kept alive. All they do while being kept alive is cost money, and endanger the people around them. My opponent states, " My opponent makes arguments which would all seem valid, however when you see them through current evidence they fall apart. The death penalty is still very costly as shown my recent studies and our money would be better put to life imprisonment. Our judicial system, even with DNA testing, is flawed and can't be trusted 100% for putting the right person away. Finally, we can see that the death penalty isn't the deterrent that we would like to believe it is. " I have negated this entire summation, including this 100% accuracy idea. If a man/woman is convicted, he/she is 100% convicted, therefore we must carry out 100% of the punishment. That is why we have improved all aspects of criminal investigation, and have vindicated 130 people since 1973. I would like to extend a sincere thanks to ZachJarvis for this debate, and the readers, for your time and feedback. I am anxious for my opponents final round, as I am sure it will be a good one.