Death Penalty

REBUTTAL, PRICESince my opponent's argument here is essentially for us to wait til he proves deterrence to be false, I don't have much to say here. It appears he concedes my case about misrepresnted costs.REBUTTAL, DETERRENCEPart A:Someone besides my opponent argues that anyone thinking rationally, who is calculating the possible losses in committing a murder, will not receive extra deterrence from the possibility of death. The person says that it is unbelievable that someone would be ok with the life sentence but not the death penalty. Well I'd like to say first off, that I think there could be people who think that way. They know the risk, and they know that the risk isn't death. So if they were kinda on the fence about going through with the murder, and thinking about the worst case scenario, knowing that they won't die even if they do get caught could be what gives them the proper push, especially if they really want that person dead. But outside that line of thought, consider a scenario where a person is not acting in the spur of the moment without any thought, but nor are they planning the manner out in a detailed manner like a hitman. The possible negative consequences of their actions may not be at the forefront of their thought process at that moment, but since they aren't acting completely in the spur of the moment, a significant thought could pull them out of their planning.It'd be like driving down the road zoned out versus driving down the road reading all the billboards you pass. In the latter, you'll be seeing everything. In the former, you might only see a bright neon green billboard that caught your attention out of the corner of your eye.The Death Penalty can be that bright green neon billboard. It is clearly a bigger deal to be killed than it is to be a prisoner forever, and so it stands to reason that the possibility of execution would be more likely to intrude upon the thoughts of a semi-thinking possible murderer than the idea of life without parole would.Part B:The person talking for my opponent merely lists what other people think. Experts, admittedly, but experts have been wrong before. For thousands of years, early scientists presumed the universe revolved around the Earth. But most of us accept by now that that isn't the case. Same with the thought about the Earth being flat. Just because there's a minority of experts who agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong. The minority, historically, can be right just as often as the majority. And let's pretend that this is a credible argument. So there's no proven deterrence. While there is no proven deterrence, that doesn't mean deterrence isn't real. And as I have shown, and my opponent has conceded, money taken from the state to give to the Death Penalty is unlikely to be of any amount significant enough to have saved lives. That being the case, wouldn't it be better to act under the assumption that the 74 per execution figure is correct, with the alternative being risking the deaths of numerous innocents?REBUTTAL, EXECUTION OF INNOCENTSThe person who does the talking for my opponent does a lot of meandering and finally gets to the point towards the end, where he says that with a system that routinely executes innocents, we cannot justify deterrence. The use of the word 'routinely' is horribly incorrect. Only 2.8% of executions have been (supposedly) of innocents[1][2]. This is hardly routine, and, as I have already said, these can be taken on as a necessary evil when considering the 74 number. REBUTTAL, POLICE CHIEFSAgain, this is an example of what people think. It does not actually give support for why they think it. I would apply the same rebuttal that I did to criminologists to police chiefs. Thanks for reading. Vote Pro. To my opponent: In your last round you said you were defending your case from my rebuttals, and that in your next round you'd respond to my new arguments. You did not respond to/conceded a few of the arguments from my previous round, and I believe it would be a cheap shot of you to respond to them in the next round, leaving me not even one opportunity to defend against the counter-rebuttal. I bring this to everyone's attention only so people are extra aware of the fairness of how my opponent responds in the final round. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...