Resolved: The US should abolish capital punishment.

Before we begin, we'd like to note that our opponents have switched sides with us. Thus, they are advocating AGAINST the death penalty (DP) (Pro), and we are advocating for it (Con).I. Criminals Forfeit Their RightsIn this country, we are all endowed with innumerable rights (that is, rights to not be prohibited from doing things) by virtue of our citizenship in the US. While our founding documents value respect for human rights, they only explicitly grant respect to the rights of US citizens. As all other citizens are also endowed with these rights, we gain a duty to not infringe upon their rights, so as to procure respect for our own. Society must sanction deviance from this model our country is founded upon, or our rights do not truly exist (that is, a right that may be violated at any time is not a right, as rights are inalienable, according to the Declaration of Independence). Thus, those who do not respect the rights of others forfeit their own rights. This is the foundation of the criminal justice system. Unless Pro advocates for no restriction of rights whatsoever (ie no criminal justice system, as detention inherently restricts a person's rights), they must agree to this principle.Since the DP is thus not immoral in any respect, we must weigh the costs and benefits of it to determine whether it should remain. We will show the greatest good comes from retention of the death penalty--the saving of innocent human life.II. The DP deters homicideThe DP deters homicides by putting the fear of death into would-be criminals. Rational action theory suggests that all mentally stable humans perform a cost/benefit analysis prior to committing any action. This theory has been applied to criminology, and shows that the DP has a significant deterrent effect on homicides. 3-18 homicides are deterred per execution [1]. Furthermore, state-by-state analysis shows that the DP causes a significant drop in homicide rates. When New York State, New Hampshire and Kansas adopted the death penalty, there was a significant crime drop. When New Jersey and Massachusetts abolished it, the homicide rate rose. [2] Few studies contest the validity of the deterrent effect [3]. These studies are generally unreliable. For example, the study by Levitt, et al. is unreliable because it examines whether the DP deters crime, not homicide rates; however, the DP doesn't have a major effect on non-homicide crimes since it doesn't apply there. The study found that the DP does have an effect on homicide rates and misrepresents its own conclusion.[4] There are at least 17 highly reliable studies that demonstrate a deterrent effect, according to Lott. He correctly concludes: "Generally, the studies over the last decade that examined how the murder rates in each state changed as they changed their execution rate found that each execution saved the lives of roughly 15 to 18 potential murder victims."[5]As further evidence of the power of the deterrent effect, let us examine an actual case of where deterrence could have saved a life. Luis Vera burglarized the apartment of Rosa Velez, who was at home at the time. Vera shot her and killed her in a moment of panic. She later confessed: "Yeah, I shot her...and I knew I wouldn't go to the chair."[6] Had the DP existed, Velez likely would still be alive.In Pro's world, Velez deserved to die. And, on average, in Pro’s world, 448 more people die each year. In the process of saving 28 guilty lives per year, Pro is killing 448 innocents. Don't allow such a horrific world where brutal tragedies take place all the time.On to rebuttals!Sources:1. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 2. http://www.nber.org... 3. http://www.cjlf.org... 4. http://scholar.harvard.edu... 5. http://www.foxnews.com... 6. http://admin.faulkner.edu...