The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder.

Repentance:1. "Absurd". It would be absurd if this was the only reason to be con DP, but It helps support my main points.2. I don't at all agree with them being released. I don't know why pro thinks that. 3. It is irrelevant that the prisoner in this case was executed. I showed it to give an example of a prisoner who had repented. I was aware that he suffered execution, but I didn't think it mattered. Religion: 1. Ths argument applies to any religious person not just Christians. So proving that the Bible does not condemn the death penalty is not fully refuting me. 2. There are many laws in the old testament that Christians do not follow today. Christians tend to look to Jesus as an example, not to old testament laws. Jesus taught to forgive and to "turn the other cheek." The opposite of the DP. 3. In those cases in the Bible when people were killed there was a %100 insurance that they were guilty because God was the judge and God knows all. In modern times this is never the case. I will number and address each of my opponents comparison impacts. I will put my opponents impact on the left and my impact that he put down on the right.1. A) DP keeps killer from striking again. v. (B)Innocents have been executed. A. The only cases in which this can happen are when the prisoner kills his inmate, when the prisoner is let go, or when the prisoner escapes.First case will happen but B easily outweighs that.Second case should not happen. Letting murderers go should never happen, but the DP is not the solution. Third case I have shown to be astonishingly uncommon.B. I have shown many cases in which the innocents have been executed. I have brought forth the argument that there have undoubtedly been innocents who have been executed without us ever finding out and perhaps never will find out. Conclusion: Easily out weighed. 2. A) Deterrence/B)prisoners fear DP more than life in prison. v. (C) Murderers suffer more in prison/D)Religion.First, I think it was unfair of my opponent to compare his biggest point to some of my least important. I have shown that there is simply not enough evidence to support the argument of deterrence. Pro has also used fallacious reasoning to support this fact.I showed that at least 60% of the population are religious. Thus I have given a reason for 60% of the population to not support the DP. Also the right to life outweighs this.Conclusion: There is not enough evidence to support the deterrence argument, the right to life outweighs it, and for every innocent executed the deterrence argument is being outweighed. 3. A) DP values the right to life by imposing the strictest punishment on those who violate it. v. (B) Everyone has the right to life.How on earth is killing someone valuing the right to life? Life imprisonment does a much better job of valuling the right to life, because one, it punishes the person who violates anothers right too life. And two, after everything's finished there is less dead people than with the DP. 4. A) Constitution/public opinion support DP. v. (B) Public unaware/constitution does not support it. -My opponents argument was that the DP was not unconstitutional. However the bill of rights is part of the constitution[1]. And therefore it is. -The public opinion is not always right I think everyone would agree. For example president Obama was very popular during the election but now only 28% of American voters strongly approve of his performance as president, and 42% strongly disapprove.[2] Most Americans are probably not aware that the DP is more expensive, and do not have an idea of how many innocents have been executed. Innocents being executed: My opponent attacks my the credibility of my sources saying "he hasn't given any type of credible court source, or a government acknowledgement of innocence." Well first off it is hard to find a non bias source with that information however I do think at least some of the articles clearly prove their innocence. Here's one example of an innocent executed. [3] 69 inmates on death row released since 1973 (Source is 1997 so would be higher now). [4] This clearly shows the risks of the DP. Risks which are completely unnecessary and should be gotten rid of immediately. My opponent has also completely ignored my argument that innocents have undoubtedly been executed without us yet gaining the knowledge that they were innocent. Voters please consider that argument conceded. Right to life: The right to life is the ultimate right. The most important right that a human being can possess. Yet my opponent thinks that we should leave it up to the state to decide who has this right. Without out this right we lose all other rights as well. We must also remember as stated earlier that it is not only the condemned that suffer from the DP. All of the mans family and friends may suffer much as well. Deterrence: My opponents response to my statements that his reasoning is fallacious, is simply to restate what he said earlier. Hardly a refutation. My opponents reasoning: 1. Murder rates were at an all time high in the 90's. 2. The DP act was passed in 1994. 3. Murder rates have been cut in half since then. Conclusion: The DP act was the cause of the murder rates decreasing. This is very poor reasoning and lacking in evidence. There is zero proof that it was the DP act that made the murder rate decrease. There could be countless of other reasons why it decreased. "Sources nowhere near enough to dismiss a deterrent effect." This is hypocritical because my opponent numerous times attacks my sources, yet attacks me when I do it. It would be next to impossible to find a non bias source that dismisses the deterrence argument. Simply claiming that my source is staunchly anti DP is not enough to refute the fact that the evidence for deterrence is lacking. Prevention: As shown previously: 1. 0.5% of inmates escape. 2. Probably most of those weren't murderers which lowers it even further. 3. That was a fairly old source an I have shown security is improving bringing it further down. 4. Most of those that escape don't commit murder afterwards bringing it further down. That is extremely low an therefore the point should not be considered a serious argument argument and should be discarded. My opponent again attacks my sources, however his reasons for doing so are because they are biased. Most of my opponents sources have been biased, so if we discard my sources we should also discard all of his. Constitution: //If this was supposed to be an attack on my contention, I don't see how.// My opponent said the DP was constitutional. I said it was not because of the right to life. My opponent responds by saying the right to life isn't in the constitution. I respond by proving that it is because the bill of rights is legally considered part of the constitution. I don't see how my opponent does not got my argument, but I apologize if I was vague. Cost: Pro falsely asserts that I continue to, " cite evidence from states that do not actively execute criminals." I did that once in the debate. I proved that it is overall more costly to America. I only used the California example once. Pro hypocritically says that I simply attack the credibility of his source instead of the analysis. That is what my opponent has continually been doing to me and even more often than I have done it to him! Also when my opponent attacks my sources credibility his reasons are usually because of the bias of my source. I attacked the article because most statistics show the opposite and the article makes a bunch of ridiculous claims. Thank you pro for this truly enjoyable debate and for your prompt responses! http://www.renewamerica.com... [1] http://www.rasmussenreports.com... [2] http://forejustice.org... [3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4]