The United States should abolish the Death Penalty.

Thank you for the very well-organized argument you have presented, although my opinion has not been swayed. In my previous argument, I did advocate to lessen the amount of current capital punishment sentences but not completely abolish the death penalty. I do submit and realize that currently, the death penalty has a more expensive long term cost than LWOP in the United States. In my plan, I advocated for the reduction of capital punishment eligible crimes which would only apply to mass murders or rapes, war crime material. Through research, the states that don't have the death penalty can afford not to have it as their crimes were already low compared to the states that have death penalties and had never abolished them. LWOP is currently only more effective because numbers provide 85% of the argument. The current ratio of ultra-violent crimes eligible to capital punishment is not synonymous enough with the price in order to be cost-effective. Saying that the death penalty causes crime was not supported by your sources. As I mentioned before, the only reason the states that have abolished capital punishment have lower crime rates, is because they can afford to do so due to their already peaceful nature even during their period of practicing capital punishment. Abolishing the death penalty, in my opinion, would be held with low disregard to the future and unforeseen probabilities where capital punishment may later be necessary. Nations such as Russia have not abolished capital punishment by law, but instead by practice. Meaning that the eligibility of meeting a crime that would need the death penalty is so high (An extremely brutal crime), their line hasn't been passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although, just in case, Russia has not legislatively abolished capital punishment because the very rare one that ends up causing that crime, it would be cost effective to execute the outlier instead of adding to the LWOP list. Your example of Todd Willingham isn't effective against my argument because my plan would consider his crime as a life sentence, at most, not capital punishment. Another factor to capital punishment is the deteriorated mental state of the criminal. As I argued in Round 1, their mental state may be so corrupted, that while it does not pass the mark for the criminally insane, their mindset is so warped that any sort of medical treatment would not be able to repair their psychological conditions in order to officially state this person would be a safe part of society. Also, considering your criterion has been named as 'Health', a person that had the capacity to commit such horrendous crimes such as mass killings, would NOT be a safe person to be around even inside the prison. The United States is one of the only few developed countries on earth that still practices the debatable human rights violation of solitary confinement and life sentences until death. Using morality as an argument when you're advocating for LWOP is a double-edged sword. A prime example of a mass killer who deserved the death sentence for their warped state of mind was John Wayne Gacy. People like him, are rarely ever found in society although his murders of 33 young men was a significant criminal record which deserved to be found with capital punishment as he would also prove a deadly threat to fellow prisoners. With your criterion of health, his death would benefit many. My defence against the cost of trial and jury against capital punishment is also held in regards to fiscal mismanagement. The United States Department of Justice should use better accounting for pouring money into the defence of these cases. Another reason I can make against the cost of fiscal mismanagement is that with a raised eligibility factor, these cases will rarely ever have to be put in court. All in all, I advocate for 'abolishing' capital punishment in practice, not by law, in the form that eligibility of crimes would be raised so high, only the ultra-violent would be able to suffer this penalty. With such a high difference between general crimes and near human rights violations made by individuals, the bar needs to be raised instead of throwing away the bar in total. Capital punishment, when you change the factor of eligibility would end up being cost effective. Meaning that our arguments are almost completely synonymous except you argue for legislative abolishment, and I argue for virtual practice abolishment.