The Death Penalty Should be Illegal

Contention 1: Detterance There is no increase in massive shootings. There's just a greater coverage of it by the media. If we observe the above graph we can see that since the first studies done in the mid to late 1970's we can see that states where there is a Death Penalty we can see that the Murder rates have fallen drastically and there is a signifcant difference in the two. (Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment Joanna M. Shepherd* August, 2003 Clemson University ) We can also extend across my argument on economists being better at these graphs and studies then those who study crime, because their graphs don't include the lag that is included in the Death Penalty studies. This is important as it disproves Pros's one and only refutation souce on the subject. She also states that they are not in the right state of mind when they rob, but think about this. WHy hasn't anyone tried to rob Fort Knox yet? It's simply because the costs of failure outweigh that of the oppertunity of success and such is included in the Criminal's thought. If we observe the works of Fyodor Dostoyveski in his work Crime and Punishment we can see that his observance of the character Radion Raskonlinikov that the Criminal plans everything out in advance and then goes to the greatest lengths to justify it not actually carying about it. He was quoted saying that killin g the old pawnbroker was that she was a principle and he killed a principle not a person. He also goes to use the theories of Utilitarianism and the Overman theory to justify his murder showing that it doesn't mater what he did as the murder in his own mind was justified. My opponent also dropps the fact that killing one criminal leads to the prevention of 3-18 murder which is indeed a lot and a huge benefit for society so we can see that this will be a great benefit to society and my opponent dropped this point. She also dropped Paul Rubin's testimony that my opponent's evidence is invalid and has no scientific backings. She also drops that the less time you spend on Death Row the high the deterrance. She also drops my Ehrlich evidence that I've brought up. Contention 2: Innocents and costs. Mistakes will happen no matter what, but once again I extend across my evidense that shows that the rate for error is that of 0.28% which is incrediatably small and with newer and newer technology coming out we can see that the error rate is getting very miniscule and though there will always be errors due to the theory of infinate probability meaning that my opponent's worries are all for nothing. If they don't want to do lethal injection that's okay. There are other means of the death penalty like firing squad or gas chamber. So if you're ever in Utah you can select your death penalty and can pick your one way American ticket for the Hollicaust. Contention 3: "Easy" Way Out. Well lets do some math here. The average prisoner lives about 50 years so when we do the math that's about $5 million while it costs $3 million at most for a death penalty meaning that it's chearper to do the death penalty. If my math skills are right we save more money doing to the death penalty. My opponent says that prison life is tough, but how's that when you've got a colored TV, can get a college degree, internet, and you can get buff for free. Remind you that this is the death penalty so many of these people that would be in jail for life couldn't do much with your "fellon" box. In conclusion, I have shown several times that the accidental rate is less than 1% and that it's a great deterance. My opponent has dropped several very key arguments of mine that hinder her case and because of that this resolution has been negated.