Death penalty should be allowed

I'll offer rebuttals to my opponent again: I will quote parts of their argument at times, which will be italicized, and then if the part I want to rebut is too lengthy, I'll just summarize it in bold.Now, I notice my opponent offered potential arguments that opponents of the death penalty would have in the first half of this round, and I see no need to rebut them, as they didn't really rebut them themselves. So, I will move onto the points that support the death penalty that my opponent offered. Death penalty costs the government less as opposed to life imprisonment without parole.This is a claim that needs evidence back it up. I claimed the exact opposite above, and offered a source. Here are two more sources that show the death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison without parole[5][6]The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increaseAgain, this is something that needs facts to support it. While in the next sentence you do provide facts, it doesn't support the idea that without the death penalty, there would be less crime. It merely talked about the crime rate over all. It doesn't show, for example, that crime is low or high because of the death penalty. In fact, statistics seem to suggest the opposite. States that don't have the death penalty have fewer murders occur in them than states with the death penalty[7]. Now, I admit that this doesn't suggest that the reason for the murder rate being lower is because of the death penalty. Correlation doesn't equal causation. For example, there could be other reasons why the states without the death penalty had lower rates of murder. Perhaps it is actually the other way around: maybe they chose to have the death penalty removed because they had such a low murder rate and saw it as unnecessary. Or perhaps there is some other cause of the murders being lower. Who knows? Nonetheless, a logical conclusion that can be made from the evidence is that life in prison without parole might seem to be a worse punishment than death. I mean, life in prison might actually be a worse punishment. Who wants to spend the rest of their life in prison? You'd probably want to commit suicide if you were sentenced to that, so death would be a relief. Now, that is a logical conclusion, what you offered is not a logical conclusion because you offered no data that showed correlation between the death penalty and amount of crime.It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight Amendment which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments, including torture.This appears to be a non sequitur. which is when the conclusion doesn't follow the premise. You can read about it here and determine for yourself if it was a non sequitur[8]. The reason this is a non-sequitur is because my opponent is using this as a reason for the death penalty, but it doesn't seem to support why the death penalty should be done. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you should do it. Lying is also legal, but should you lie to your loved ones? Actually, thinking about it, this might be more of a circular reasoning. We're more or less saying whether the death penalty should be allowed(legal) and my opponent brout up the fact that it is legal as reason for why it should be legal. That's circular reasoning. Again, you can read about it here and determine for yourself if this is circular reasoning[9]. This might actually be considered both fallacies.Re: death penalty is justice because you're killing someone who killedI suppose I can't refute this one, but I believe the cons that I've outlined in my arguments so far: how there is a chance for an innocent person to be killed, how life in prison seems to deter crime better than the death penalty, and how the death penalty is more expensive to keep the life in prison outweigh this argument. What would you want the judge to say if you or a loved one got killed, or maybe your whole family except for you that no has to suffer from what happened? Please answer.You're asking the wrong person this lol. You're talking to someone who was sexually mollested as a child but protects the perpetrator and is good friends with the perpetrator now(weird I know, but I swear I don't have stockholm syndrome). I am a strong believer in forgiving people for what they've done and letting them go. To be honest, if I was president, I'd probably pardon most criminals out there. So, my answer should be obvious: I wouldn't want the judge to give them the death penalty if they killed all of my family. Rather, I'd require that they be given some sort of rehabilitation, perhaps therapy, and other techniques used on them to make them a productive member of society who would no longer have a desire to kill anyone. Sources:[5] https://www.forbes.com...[6] http://www.nbcrightnow.com...[7] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[8] https://en.wikipedia.org...(logic) [9] https://en.wikipedia.org...