The death penalty should be abolished

Deterministic effectCon ignores the majority of what I said...I've seen cons refutation used before but unfortunately it fails completely. The jumps in logic that it makes are erroneous. Basically it's says, if determinism were true we would have been determined to reason that it were true. Therefore it can't be true. Our mind is perfectly capable of operating according to the best functions. Con assumes that rationalizing with free-will is superior to rationalizing without it but establishes no argument. Having free-will is in no significant or relevant way logically superior to not having it since either way you're going to make blunders and we still have the illusion of free-will and act on that illusion. Furthermore, I never argued for complete determinism so cons point is irrelevant anyway.That's as far as con goes in addressing the philosophical side of my argument. The psychological evidence I offered con agrees as fact but thinks it's insignificant. I don't see how this can be the case however. The evidence, along with the philosophical reasoning I gave, prove that men are not wholly responsible for their crimes. I agree I never proved choice didn't exist. I don't know why con brings that up. The point is, factors irrelevant to their will are so prevalent that they cannot possibly deserve death. All I'm doing is proving they are much less responsible then what would require the death penalty. Not that they are completely free of responsibility. Furthermore con strawmans me. I never advocated that criminals just be let free. That would be absurd. I very clearly stated that we should focus our efforts towards rehabilitation and segregation. How could that imply letting criminals go?Innocents DNA testing started the late 1800's. (http://www.ehow.com...). Cons rebuttal rested on the claim that it probably started around 2000 so it's safe to saw the viewers can ignore that. The accuracy of DNA testing is not a valid refutation since innocents have been being executed since it's been in use.Showing all the prisoners released before execution does help my case. Just because they were found to be innocent in times does not erase it. It shows the flaws in the judicial process of determining a man innocent or guilty. Those men were lucky to escape with their lives. They should have been determined innocent at the initial process. Not after being sentenced to death! That clearly shows the uncertainty of the judicial system.My opponent points fingers are my 1997 sources but ignores the 2009 one.I can'tFunction Remember the main purpose of this was to show life imprisonment accomplished the extra goal of rehabilitation. Con doesn't respond to that so he concedes that it is a significant enough goal. It's funny that con accuses me of appeal to consensus when that was his very first argument in regards to studies saying the DP had a deterent effect!Cons caseSaves lives Con drops his argument that more studies affirm the deterrent affect. The DP does deter but the thing is, so does life imprisonment. Cons studies themselves concluded harsh punishments deter. That doesn't even necessitate the death penalty.I never once stated criminals should be set free due to my contention 1. Con is misrepresenting my argument.My opponent admits that the DP is harsh and I have to agree with him. That is why it's unjust. By far the biggest reasons that affect are choice are external to our will. We live in a causal world. No-one deserves the death penalty because moral responsibility is incredibly diminished by the deterministic affect.It does not matter that certain people can't be rehabilitated. I mentioned it last round. So what we can't rehabilitated them? It doesn't mean the deserve the death penalty.