Resolved: In the United States, capital punishment should be outlawed.

Thanks to JohnnyDoe for his rebuttals. Now, I will provide my rebuttals for his contentions from Round 2.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If I could sum up half of the Pro's arguments in one contention, it would be that of the one he mentioned as "Contention 3,""Studies' results on capital punishment's deterrence effect are inconclusive and divisive."The first contention, that "capital punishment is unjust", does not fit into this category.However, the second contention is summarized along with contention 3 also.The definition of "study", according to dictionary.com, is as follows;"a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation." I want to first make it known that I am not going to enter a battle of political correctness or definitions, however the definition of the word 'study' is important here. In Contention 2 of the Pro's arguments, he gives evidence supporting his argument that even criminologists and people working in the police force don't believe the death penalty to be a deterrent. My point is, the people that expressed their opinions in this subject weren't exactly taking part in immense studies of their own; but from their own experience, they were able to investigate and analyze the subject to come to a personal conclusion. Therefore, Contention 2 of the Pro's arguments merge with Contention 3, combining evidences against whether deterrence actually exists when the death penalty is involved. Contention 1 stands alone. Contention 1, from the Pro's argument reads,"Capital Punishment is Unjust" and in his arguments, the Pro mainly talks about the innocence rate of those executed in the federal justice system, and provides evidence to back it up.And if anyone were to simply do the research on their own, they could easily find in just a few moments, countless stories of people that were wrongly executed by the death penalty. The completely honest truth is, there are innocent people that have been wrongly accused of a crime, and have either already been executed or are on death row.According to many resources, including the one the Pro mentioned at [1], the approximated percentage of people executed by the death penalty that are innocent, is about 4.1%. Last year, in 2014, there were 35 people that were subject to capital punishment. [2] Out of 35, that 4.1% comes out to 1.435. or realistically, just one person. Studies have shown that probably one out of 35 people executed in a year are innocent of the crimes charged against them. The justice system in our country is not perfect, but it has improved. In the link found here [3], there is an article by the Huffington Post that talks about the "Shocking Number of Innocent People Sentenced to the Death Penalty"; but that it beside my point right now. Towards the end of the article, any reader could find the slideshow of pictures provided by the Huffington Post of "Wrongfully Accused" people to back up that article posted above.Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Huffington Post, and have nothing against them. However, after reading the stories of people wrongfully accused in that slide show, very few of them were actually sentenced to the death penalty.Those that were wrongfully sentenced to death row were either: A) Sentenced and exonerated in the 1990's [4]or B) Were actually guilty of a crime, although not the one they were convicted of. [5]In a broader sense, people sentenced the death penalty today are apart of cases that were contemplated carefully, to ensure that 4.1% of people executed are not innocent and have a chance to be proven innocent. This means that today, there is insufficent evidence to eliminate the death penalty, as it is reserved for criminals with proven guilt. Contention 3 (and actually 2, as I talked about), says, "Studies' results on capital punishment's deterrence effect are inconclusive and divisive."and in this argument, the Pro literally talks about how studies that prove deterrence are not 100% true, and can be faulty.This argument is also true. As a matter of fact, all studies on deterrence are wavered.In a quote by Supreme Court Justice Stewart, in the case Gregg v. Georgia, it states,"Although some of the studies suggest that the death penalty may not function as a significantly greater deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing empirical evidence supporting or refuting this view.We may nevertheless assume safely there are murders, such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of death has little or no deterrent effect. But for many others, the death penalty undoubtedly, is a significant deterrent. There are carefully contemplated murders, such as murder for hire, where the possible penalty of death may well enter the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act." [6] This quote is mostly self-explanatory, but there are still points that I would like to point out. Obviously, those who act in the midst of passion, for example, those convicted with voluntary manslaughter, do not consider the death penalty to be a deterrent. Yet, contemplated and premeditated murders are more than likely going to be deterred by the idea of a future penalty involving capital punishment.It is simple probability and common sense to assume that if the threat of the death penalty decreases, the rate of murders will increase-- and if the threat had increased, the homicide rate may decrease. ~So, as I have provided my evidence refuting the Pro's opening arguments from Round 2, I have given counter-arguments against his contentions, and await his rebuttals for my own. Once again, I have only provided rebuttals for Round 2, and will refute his rebuttals against mine the next round.I also want to apologize to JohnnyDoe for referring to him as the Con in my arguments from Round 2.[1] http://time.com...[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://articles.baltimoresun.com...[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[6] http://law2.umkc.edu...