Death Penalty over Life Imprisonment Without Possibility of Parole

My opponent states "My opponent has said 'You can cut costs dramatically with propositions 4 and 3 by...faster trials.' This is not true. A fast trial has no relation towards a cost of a case." This is simply not true. Cost of incarceration for death penalty, currently, has cost California 1 billion dollars alone since the 1980's. Since the 1980's the death penalty has cost 170 million dollars more than life imprisonment [1]. Those in death row might as well be serving life imprisonment in many cases[2]. Although, with a trial with more adequate evidence and being faster would both lower cost to put margins of cost for death penalty below that of life imprisonment [1]. Not only would implementing proposition cut cost of incarceration, though would cut costs from all trial-related happenings. My opponent states "They are bond to be placed in prisons with high security" which is grammatically incorrect. When my opponent states "'(W)ould you not want the murderer to be killed?', my answer would be no" My opponent has never been in the given situation, therefore his opinion is invalid. My opponent states "here are bad people in that prison, tasteless food, etc.. My opponent has not stated many of these challenges." The person deemed eligible of death penalty, under propositions three and four with modifications earlier mentioned, is just as dangerous if not more than the average prisoner, and therefore a danger to the prison system. My opponent states "For death, you might have a lot of suffering in a small amount of time, but the total suffering for life imprisonment is probably more than death." My opponent has no basis of which to make this claim, nor do any sources exist standing by the argument, therefore the statement is invalid. My opponent states "For death, you might have a lot of suffering in a small amount of time, but the total suffering for life imprisonment is probably more than death." Life has suffering. No matter how small of a situation, there is always suffering in life, be it physical, mental, or both [3]. My opponent states "without death penalty, the money saved can go to families for funds and for other causes." The "funds and other causes" would be a misuse of tax revenue. My opponent states "Also without death penalty, the money saved can go to families for funds and for other causes." My opponent did not place a comma directly after the word "Also" therefore the statement is grammatically incorrect. My opponent states "My idea is also vengeance, but I would not want to act like him/her even if it is constitutional." My value was vengeance, not my "idea". Furthermore, the constitution can be modified by elected representatives of these United States of America. The constitution is one of the highest, if not the highest, ruling document in the United States of America, and seeing as judgers of the constitution, and that of itself, have deemed such as justified for the United States of America to use, the death penalty is justified in the United States of America. Those eligible of the death penalty wish to be killed in some cases[4], so not only would we be doing the prison system a favor by removing such persons, but we would be ending the life they themselves deem unfit to live. Such as Parsons put it "I"m not scared about the time between now and my execution. It"s easy. The hard part is living every day here"[4]. My opponent states "My opponent has not stated many of these challenges." To answer this, no person can address every detail of a place, no matter how hard the attempt becomes, there are always things left yet to be described. Sources: [1]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3]http://www.yale.edu... [4]http://www.uvu.edu...