Death Penalty should be Abolished in all States

I have accepted the debate and will be taking the con side of the argument, that the death penalty should not be abolished in any state. I will be listing my reasons why capital punishment should stay in our society and justice system with, of course, sources that I will list at the end of the post. I wish my opponent the best of luck and I am very happy to be able to debate this with him/her. If states were to abolish the death penalty, the highest punishment then given would be life without parole. If the death penalty is a consequence for an individual that is deemed not fit for society, then why would that individual be fit for a prison? Are we lessening the lives of people inside of prison and allowing a convict, someone who was supposed to be killed for their heinous and flagrant crimes, be able to live among other people inside of a prison where they could do it again in a controlled environment? The death penalty, for the most part, is used when there is a felony crime with aggravating factors. Some of these factors include, but are not limited to: a murder involving depraved and violent torture, a lack of remorse when the murder was committed and after, and recidivism (relapsing back into crime). The individual must have had a very large number of aggravating factors to receive the death penalty and putting these people back into society, through prison, isn't such a good idea. There's nothing stopping them from doing it again to the other people inside the prison (who may not be in for crimes that caused harm) and I believe you're putting too much trust into the prison systems for controlling said individuals who require capital punishment. Also, if we do not impose that the death penalty is a wise form of punishment for people who have committed terrible and heinous crimes, then we may see an increase of crime committed due to criminals seeing the punishment as mild. "A great deal of crime is committed on a cost-benefit schema, wherein the criminal engages in some form of risk assessment as to his or her chances of getting caught and punished in some manner. If he or she estimates the punishment mild, the crime becomes inversely attractive, and vice versa. The fact that those who are condemned to death do everything in their power to get their sentences postponed or reduced to long-term prison sentences, in the way lifers do not, shows that they fear death more than life in prison... (Bedau 1)" We can also show that, financially, the death penalty may be a more economically desirable route than life without parole. "It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher. (Sutherland 1)". Imagine if we were able to find more ethical and fiscally responsible ways to preform capital punishment, the cost of the death penalty could be lowered substantially, which would mean that even if the price of the death penalty were proven to be a larger amount of money up-front, we could always turn to better alternatives of execution to lower that cost. The death penalty also deters crime. "...Our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year... The study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources... There seems to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders increase... (Summers 1)." This goes off of my previous statement, showing that the death penalty is almost a necessity to lower the crime rate and continue to deter criminals considering crime with aggravating factors. You mention a "forgiving and merciful attitude," but if these criminals are showing that they are acting without remorse and aggravating factors when committing crime then why would we trust them not to do it again? Also, if we're putting all of our trust into these criminals, should we also be putting a substantial amount of money into their life without parole prison time where they can simply kill again in a more controlled environment? If we give these people the benefit of the doubt, they will go out and become repeat offenders. If the punishment fits their crime justly, then they should receive that punishment - and, in some cases, the punishment may just need to be capital punishment. Sources: Bedau, Huge Adam. Debating the Death Penalty. Oxford University Press, 2004. Print. Sutherland, Edwin H. Criminology. Oxford University Press, 1974. Print. Summers, Michael. "Capital Punishment Words". Wall Street Journal. 2007. Print.