The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder.

DefenseC1.SPACon attempts to belittle the loss of innocent life by showing the conviction rate for homicide to be low. First off his link is a broken link so completely dis regard it. Secondly it's from the UK not the US and thus is irrelevant in this round. Lastly, his number is false. Here are two examples of homicide conviction ratres well over 90%.[1][2]Con ignores the analysis about how many of those on death row committed their crimes WHILE imprisoned, however not on death row. Extend it.Con says that racial tensions can happen between all inmates not just murderers. Sadly, this fails to capture the full extent of the argument. The point is, killers can and do strike again. The evidence proves this to be true.Con misunderstands that Allen example. Allens paroled friend killed the witnesses to Allens crimes. Unless Con is arguing for solitary confinement of all inmates (which IS cruel and unusual) than his rebuttal falls.Con says that life without parole also keeps inmates from re-offending. Sadly, this is completely untrue as I have shown.SPBCon states that the DP does not deter. He only provides links to some websites. Since he has made no arguments himself, I feel no need to respond. I have provided studies, statistical analysis, and logic. Con has provided only links no argumentation. Pro wins on this point. Con also says that since states without the DP have generally lower murder rates, this proves deterrence to be false. Umm no that isn't comparing apples to apples so to speak. States with the DP often have other factors relating to the crime rate (such as higher poverty rates ect.). The fact remains that every scrap of statistical evidence brought into this round shows that when executions increase murder rates decrease. Con drops all of my studies and evidence. Extend them.C2.SPACon says that I've only given one example so this point falls. However if you look at the evidence provided, it mentions a change in sentencing laws. So it happened to many inmates not just the example I've shown. furthermore the McDuff evidence shows us that parole boards make mistakes. Also TURN: Amnesty international is staunchly against juvenile Life w/o Parole. If AA gets to decide what is or isn't a human rights violation like my Opponent wishes than he is also arguing against juvenile life w/o parole. The Case of Dalton Prejean[3] (committed his first murder at age 14, was released and killed again at 17) shows us that juveniles are not exempt from re-offending. So cons appeal to AA supports both of my Sub-points A.SPBCon says that the death penalty is not a punishment. By the very definition of the words involved, he's wrong. He also concedes that prisoners view the DP as harsh. This can be applied to my deterrence argument because logic proves that a harsher penalty makes criminals less likely to commit the crime. Surely there would be more murder if there were no laws against it, so logically the harsher the penalty implemented the less crime committed.Con also states that it's a "reckless disregard of human life to kill in order to set an example for someone else." No, actually it's a disregard to human life to NOT set an example. Using this logic it's a reckless disregard of human freedom to imprison someone. Con case1. Human RightsCons entire argument here is just one massive appeal to authority. He has given absolutely no reasoning to indicate that the DP is a violation of human rights. Also, I do not know why my Opponent believes that AA is the supreme authority on human rights, and he has not justified this belief. Again, his entire argument is an appeal to authority.Also, he drops my objections about this same logic being used to treat life w/o parole as a violation of liberty, and of this point being outweighed. Extend them.2. MedievalCon again claims that public support for the DP is declining. I have shown this to be epirically false, and he still has argued no impact. Con absurdly claims that AA is impartial, and that we should believe their pollings. He has been using AA as a source against the DP for the entire debate. Clearly it's biased. Gallup makes no statements on the DP, positive or negative. Con also tried to claim that the DP means a sign of less civilization. No logical analysis for this. Just because some modern day countries have abolished the DP doesn't mean it's a good idea.3. CostHe has ignored everything I've said against this point. Extend it all. Yes, some studies, like the one shown in the source, show the DP to be more expensive. However I have argued (and he has dropped) that states which ACTUALLY execute do not have these high costs. I have also discredited these cost analysis's with my plea bargaining example. This point falls, and even if it does not it is impactless.4. InnocenceCon gives examples of people released from Death Row. Ok 1. They were released. This shows that our current appeals system works! Secondly, if you examine the cases of innocence, almost all of them occurred years ago, before the rise of prevelence in DNA and forensic evidence, and before recent supreme court cases limiting the usage of the DP. Con tries to argue that I would just let innocent people die, however he has shown 0 examples of executed innocents, because none exist. I have show that the DP saves far more innocent lives than it takes (it takes none) so I am the one better protecting the innocent. Vote Pro.5. Other OptionsCon offensively blames the prison guards for escaped killers. The fact remains that life without parole simply is NOT as effective as the DP as I have shown in my case.6. Doesn't help familyCon claims that "taking a life is wrong by any standards". He is confusing the physical similarites between murder and execution with their moral similarity. Again, he has not shown why the justice system cannot take life as a punishment. I have shown why it can, for public safety. Vote Pro. He also asks what the victims families gain from execution. They gain the satisfaction off seeing justice served and knowing that the criminal will never harm another human being again. Even if I'm wrong about this, the fact remains that they DO gain something so Con loses on this point.7. Cruel and UnusualCon gives no reason to believe that the DP is cruel and unusual. I have shown why it is not. This point falls. He says that since most in Western Europe oppose the DP than that makes it cruel and unusual. Maybe by European standards. However we are debating the United States, not Europe so it is U.S. opinion, no others, that mater in this discussion. Also the Supreme courts opinion on what is cruel and unusual is much more relevant than my Opponents.F16 it has been a pleasure to debate you, judges I urge you to vote Pro.1. http://bitURL.net... 2. http://bitURL.net...3. http://bitURL.net...