The Death Penalty should be legal

Pro, unfortunately, has been unable to log in to their account. Therefore, they have placed their argument in a Google Doc; the link is here (https://docs.google.com...). Please do not penalize Pro for the forfeit. I accept all of Pro's observations. But I do not accept Pro's structure. Pro is inserting a new structure, saying I must only rebut Pro's statements from Round 2. This is overly restrictive, and is not specified in the rules. Defending my contentions is a "rebuttal," and, since the Round 1 set-up allows for rebuttals in this round, I can defend my case in this round.Now, onto the rebuttals.(1) The morality argument is especially vague. All Pro argues is that the death penalty honors human dignity. I'm not gaining anything relevant from this. So what? I don't gain any link here -- I'm not seeing why the death penalty should be put into practice. Why does the death penalty be put into practice if it honors dignity? Pro is extremely unclear here. I don't see how (a) honoring human dignity upholds morality, and (b) what is moral ought to be done by the government. Pro assumes a government is a moral actor. But governments are based on utilitarian calculations, not on calculations that serve only morality. The very basis of government is to ensure safety, liberty, and happiness. That's exactly what utilitarianism is. The U.S., which is the only part of the world relevant to my plan, frequently employs utilitarian calculations. The Supreme Court has frequently interpreted the Consitution as being utilitarian in nature. In Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court employed a utilitarian calculation todecide what procedural due process is afforded by the Constitution. Any additional laws that are meaningless in practice, despite morality, should not be enforced.(2) The "money" argument makes no sense. First, Pro says "we have the death penalty for a reason . . . [w]e should kill these people because they killed people and did something . . . bad." I don't see how this entails. It's a non-sequitur. The argument states, "they killed people," and then concludes, "we should kill the[m]." I don't see how anyone who kills another person should be given capital punishment. There's no warrant given. Second, Pro argues from a standpoint of recidivism. Pro doesn't give me any statistics here. How many in-prison murders exist? There are examples, but these are very few. Life without parole and other criminal punishment will prevent this as well. Further, this is outweighed (impact calculus) by the lives lost as a result of terrorist attacks compromised by capital punishment acting as a barrier to extradition of terrorist suspects; this is also outweighed by the severe costs and psychological damage caused by the death penalty. Finally, Pro says something about money. "They want money" and "they will kill others" really has no link that Pro establishes. Everything Pro says here is a bare assertion.Everything under the lives saved by the death penalty is a bare assertion. In fact, the majority of evidence suggests that the death penalty has next to no deterrent effect. There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. Most researchers agree that the death penalty likely does not deter homicides. [1] States without the death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates. [2] (3) Now, onto psychological damage. Pro's response makes no sense. I'm not saying the *criminals* are stressed about the death penalty. I'm talking about the executioners. Pro has completely misinterpreted my argument. My argument was about psychological damage being caused to (1) executioners, (2) witnesses, and (3) children of the executed. Nowhere in my argument did I mention those that are executed. I'm talking about the people who perform executions -- executioners. This argument is completely dropped. (4) Next, costs. Pro argues we must have people safe, and that saving people outweighs costs. How does the death penalty make people safe? Pro is very unclear here. He concedes cost entirely, and seems to be arguing from a perspective of weighing it against deterrence. I concede that lives outweigh costs, but I've proven that there isn't a deterrent effect. These costs could be used for constructive, administrative purposes, instead of an ineffectual death penalty. (5) Fifth, extradition. Once more, Pro doesn't seem to understand this argument one bit. I quote Pro, "This is the argument of Con saying that the death penalty will not work in some occasions." This is a red herring. What does "extradition" have to do with "the death penalty won't work?" I have no clue how Pro gained this complete misinterpretation. I clearly stated that the death penalty is a barrier to extradition, and made the impact clear. Pro drops all of this. (6) Pro, once more, misrepresents my argument from customary international law. I didn't say the U.S. executed other citizens -- I said U.S. citizens were executed by other countries. The U.S. has always desired to protect its citizens, especially from non-violent crimes. In China and Singapore, United States citizens have been executed for *nonviolent* crimes; if the United States stops capital punishment, it adopts customary international law, and there will be no more executions of US citizens. Pro basically misrepresents all my arguments, dropping them, and has weak contentions. Therefore, vote Con. Sources:1. http://nccadp.org...2. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...