The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

RebuttalAs my opponent has not responded to any of my arguments or counterarguments but a single point I have made, my arguments stand as unrefuted and my opponent, I assume, has conceded those arguments. This response will aim to address the points my opponent has made against the following:"The death penalty is sought by the victim's family often for the purpose of closure." My opponent has denied this statement, to protect his own idea of the death penalty being completely moral and outside of the definition of revenge. However, this is blatantly false. The death penalty is sought by the victim's family so they feel justice has been served, and to pursue closure (to think the victim's murder is somehow made up for).Mark Klaas, parent of a brutally murdered child: "I believe [Davis’] execution would bring closure to my daughter. She is the one that he contemplates as he acts out in his prison cell." Davis, the murderer of his daughter, is currently on California's death row at San Quentin.But, as I have already stated, this closure is non-existent; the institution of capital punishment will not affect the situation in any way. Here is Jeanne Woodford, warden at San Quentin Prison, home of the only male death row in California: "People wait years for an execution that may or may not happen. People come to the prison thinking that the execution will somehow bring closure to them. I’ve just never had someone who that’s happened to. In fact, I’ve had reporters tell me that family members told them a month or two after the execution that they regretted having been involved in the process. "Your argument appears to be a bit confused. You bring up the example of Michael Slager, a police officer who maliciously shot an unarmed black man to the ground. Then, you say because he deserves the death penalty, somehow my argument is invalid, because the judge/jury makes the decision.Although I don't see a lot of clarity in my opponent's claims, I will attempt to respond.First, I have already made the argument that the death penalty is unjust (and my opponent has appeared to concede that argument). My opponent seems to think that because a judge/jury makes the decision to institute capital punishment in a capital trial, somehow the death penalty is just. This is simply warped logic. The judicial system enforces capital punishment because it is an option inscribed within the law in a handful of states; because this is an option endorsed by the government does not make it a just one.Second, my opponent claims that the victim's families do not make the decision, so they are not in pursuit of closure. This is lacking consideration for the role of the victim's families in capital cases. The family of the victim often testifies against the criminal in hope of an indictment of capital punishment. As warden Woodford has stated, the family does this in pursuit of closure, only to find after the indictment that they regret this pursuit.Third, my opponent questions the logic of the victim's family pursuing capital punishment for the criminal. I would like to clarify that this is completely true in countless capital cases, as represented by Mark Klaas above.------------------------The death penalty is unjust, financially irresponsible to enforce and does not deter crime. My opponent seems to concede pretty much all of the points within these arguments, and defends the death penalty by claiming sympathy on behalf of the victim's family. However, my opponent rejects the premise that the victim's families pursue capital punishment for the criminal, which is obviously true, shown above by the examples of Klaas and warden Woodford. He also rejects the premise that the death penalty is morally wrong, but fails to bring up any evidence, philosophical argumentation or real-life examples to support this claim.I await my opponent's response.