Capital punishment is justifiable

This week's debate has boiled down to 2 main voting issues, the 3 motions I've set forth and the reliability of information/rebuttals given. Given the information that my opponent & I have presented, I will go over these and give 2 main reasons why a vote for Pro in this debate is warranted. I will work backwards through them so that integrity can be established in this debate, and then the premise can be reviewed. I will make no new arguments in this round, and will only use evidence to support arguments I've already made. Voting issue #2: The integrity of the information points its finger at Pro.This issue is on the integrity of information given. In my first graph, I presented a graph of total US execution numbers and how it effects capital crime on a yearly basis. It is abundantly clear that my opponent has disregarded any of this information and wrote it off with the simple explanation that it is only the study of one state. This is a false statement, and should be seen as none other than a way to write of the integrity of the graph in a fallacious manner. There has never been a state that provided 200 executions for every 66,000 citizens. It is very clear that this is a graph of the entire nation's executions numbers for the years presented. It is very clear that this information shows the deterrence capital punishment has on capital crime. In my opponent's graph (1.0 presented above in his latest post), it is shown that capital punishment is given out at a higher rate from the years 1990-1994, and the result is that from the year 1995-2000, capital crime drops a total of 4 whole points from its peak (9.7-5.7). My opponent then, tries to write off this obvious correlation with the following argument. "whenever a decrease in crime is observed for States which employ the death penalty, a decrease is likewise seen in the crime of non-capital punishment States at the same time; therefore, such decreases in crime cannot be rationally attributed to the utilization of capital punishment... States which refuse the death penalty acquire the same decline; obviously, then, the drops in criminal offenses are the result of another factor, unrelated to capital punishment. "To endorse this statement is to assume that capital punishment is done in secret where no one knows about it outside of the state, and to ignore the obvious correlation between capital punishment and capital crime following both with the conviction that it has no deterrence when the evidence is staring the reader in the face. I am not alone in the realization of the falsehood of this statement. In 2007, a study of capital punishment was done in great extent between the years of 1979 and 2004 by a study posted in the Wall street journey, and it was concluded that for every execution done in the year before, it directly correlated with 74 fewer murders the following year. It is important to [1] The graph is presented bellow. Note that the 3 unrelated studies provided a graph that mimic one another in the conclusion that the more capital punishment is carried out, the more capital crime it presents (including the graph my opponent presented.) My opponent would have you write off such conclusion by stating that the states have unrelated things driving crime rates. I ask the judges to petition to their reason and their logic with the following questions: Is it more plausible that unrelated states have crime rates that rise and fall in sync with one another because of completely irrelevant things happening in each state, each year at the same time? Or is it obvious that capital punishment is deterring capital crime and is the reason that allows for the numbers to rise and fall in sync with the number of times it is administered nationwide?The answer will determine how you vote. Voting Issue #1: My opponent provides no reason why it isn't morally acceptable, and I have established cases in where it is justifiable (& why).This issue is to deal with appealing to the public. I have made the assertion that since capital punishment works in deterring crime & that it handles the most heinous offenses in a way that complies with the structure of our criminal justice system in giving the family closure by implementing retribution while deterring crime. It is important to not that my opponent has provided no moral grounds that capital punishment is bad. In fact, he's has established no reason why he feels it is wrong and has only led an attack on my case. My opponent tries, in his latest round, to make the false equivalence of slavery and capital punishment, "Many things have been implemented by democracy which are not justified, such as slavery,"(ignoring that one punishes criminals and the other is attacking, torturing, demeaning and deeming innocent people property). He is right, if capital punishment was morally reprehensible then the popular vote would mean nothing. Being that it has not been established by him that it is, or even presented to be seen as such, in a democracy we are compelled to follow the will of the people. My opponent states that retribution need not be death. In every instance, of course it wouldn't. In an ordinary instance, of course it wouldn't. Retribution is defined as something justly deserved given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment. My opponent's stance is very eloquently written with great articulation, but in the case of the most heinous offenses against children and the masses, it is clear what the families feel is justly deserved in repayment. [1]http://online.wsj.com...All info provided byhttp://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...https://www.ncjrs.gov...http://thehill.com...http://www.people-press.org...http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...I would like to thank my opponent in this debate. It is by far my most challenging one out of the 3 I've contributed to on the site!