The death penalty should be abolished

As posted in the comments, last round I accidentally posted my case when I was only about half way finished. Since I went first I originally was going to not post anything this round but to be able to make up for my mistake, con has graciously allowed me to post around 4,000 characters this round. Because of that, I will also only be responding to the rest of cons round 3 (not 4). The only thing I will mention about cons last response though is that it's rather unfair for him to assert I've dropped his points when he knows I accidentally pressed submit when I wasn't near done.Deterministic effect/justiceI was able to get this response done last round. Most at least but due to character space I'll leave it. (Viewers see ^^^). Innocence/deterence I coupled the arguments since they're both about saving lives and some of my responses apply to both.My opponents reasoning isn't entirely accurate. We can establish that punishment deters. That is true. But that doesn't mean there is a continual upward trend of harsher punishment equaling better at deterring. Prison deters. LWP is a harsh punishment. Quite a harsh punishment. I agree that the DP is firmer than LWP in its current form. However, all we've established is that harsh punishment deters. That doesn't mean the harsher punishment are superior to another harsh punishment in deterring. We're not arguing whether the death penalty deters, just whether it deters more than LWP. The LWP deterrs just as well as the DP.And again we notice con is only advocating harsher punishments than LWP. The death penalty isn't the only possible punishment that fits. We could impliment different systems of punishment that are just as harsh as the DP. Why doesn't con argue for that? By cons reasoning, and all the studies he posted, a harsher form of life imprisonment would be satisfactory in deterring. Furthermore, If we only use the death penalty in cases of certainty, (the reasoning con used to refute my "innocents" contention) then it can't possibly act as a deterrent. Detrrence only works if the criminal believes that's the punishment that awaits him if he's caught. Well if we only use the death penalty in times of certainty, we would hardly be using it at all, thus renderring cons main contention flawed. If the death penalty isn't used often, it can't deterr and no criminal that plans his crime is going to believe that if he's caught, the jury will have certainty that he's guilty. And if he doesn't plan his crime than he's not taking into account the after affects so deterrence fails there too.When we see that well over 80 people have been exonerated before being executed, we know that innocent people have many times been sentenced to the death penalty. They just were lucky enough to be exonerated before execution. People have also been exonerated after execution such as the 2004 case my source mentions. Most times executed innocents are not exonerated simply because there's little reason to further investegate the case of a dead person.FunctionI already showed how blatantly inaccurate cons claims on recidivism were. The source he used was from 1984 so it has little relevence and completely undermines his argument and the source claims no innocents have been executed since the 30's when it'a fact some have been exonerated after execution! In round 2 I showed that most states imploy life without parole and the average is increasing upwards. First off, it is again funny that con is accusing me of ad-populum when he already made a large point about how most studies support the deterrent affect(which was never substantiated). The problem here is that con is not drawing the line between deterrent and the best deterrent. I also have no idea where con's getting his claims from. I searched the study trying to find them but couldn't. Bottom line is criminologists affirm the statement that the DP doesn't deterr and abolishing it would not have a significant affect. For cons concerns on what constitutes "significant", I say whatever it means in their professional opinion.