The United States should abolish the Death Penalty.

One single case, will be more expensive, but it is still a lessening of the cost. I am not arguing that the cost effectiveness of the death penalty versus LWOP. My statement said that lowering variables would help with the finances, not turn it around. Your math example you did is correct, although, again, if you read my statement, I did not say it would flip the cost numbers. It would only help reducing the amount of money lost. As for crime, I repeat, your sources did not say and can't prove that crime was raised because of capital punishment since capital punishment in those states was never abolished, so technically, there isn't a starting point meaning time can just be used for any period of crime rising. The states where crime was dropped was because of effective combating of crime, not abolishment of capital punishment. New York, for example, the same time capital punishment was abolish was the same time New York started running anti-corruption programs state wide after rampant police dealings with criminal mafias, 1984. Even when New York did abolish capital punishment, crime still rose for another 5 years to hit it's peak before dropping [1]. This also questions the validity of your sources. California is a state where the death penalty is still alive and has been used in the past 10 years. Their crime rates have been steadily dropping for a long time [2]. I completely refute your belief that crime is directly correlated with capital punishment as New York and California are both the biggest states and contradictions to crime rates in the terms of capital punishment. My example of Russia is relevant, as an international example of my plan. They rarely/never ever use capital punishment because the eligibility for crimes for capital punishment is ridiculously high. This is so the only criminals that could ever possibly 'achieve' that level of crime would be considered such a threat to society that their death would be a necessity for protection and security. Russia was an example of my plan and how it already works in another nation similar to the US in terms of national crime. Your plan for putting serial killers inside solitary confinement is another serious human rights crime that the United States is currently a part of [3]. You're replacing one human rights violation with another. If anything, now this debate becomes a matter of which is worse- Solitary confinement, or capital punishment? Besides, the purpose of prisons is for rehabilitation, not punishment. If a prisoner's state of mind is so criminally active and violent, they need to be placed under a council of criminal psychologists who determine whether his mind is worth saving or killing in the name of society. As for paragraph 4, I SHOULD have used the term serial killer instead of mass murderer, so you got me there, I screwed up my use of words, a-doyh. Serial killers need capital punishment, not crimes like Willingham. Serial killers kill multiple people under a large geographical area in multiple periods of time. If I had used the term serial killer, like I should have, Willingham wouldn't have applied. Besides, it's sad that people get put in jail when their innocent, but it happens. Some criminals get LWOP when actually innocent and spend 70% of their life in prison for something they didn't do. Then it becomes another matter of opinion. Would you rather die or spend life in prison? The chance of a working appeal in the United States is SO hard, it's at 3 percent [4]! It's virtually worthless to attempt an appeal in the US criminal court system! When you talk about John Wayne Gacy with your quote- "How is that? ". I refuse to believe you think I meant his death would bring people back. Obviously, what I mean was that his death would prevent any more murders and any more people to experience family devastation and the loss of a loved one. Again, your plan for another human rights violation is not a proper substitute to capital punishment. The government does not do it's best as you say. That argument is another matter of opinions. If the US did more, maybe Willingham wouldn't have been falsely accused of killing his children. If the US did more, maybe the appeals cases wouldn't be as low as 3%. The ONLY argument that I believe that you may have over mine, is cost. The only argument I have against cost of the death penalty, which is questionable, is that while capital punishment uses a lot of money, under a percentage scale of yearly cost to the US and state-wide, it is really low. US government spends about $100-200 million dollars a year on capital punishment [5]. The US federal income per year is $3.6 trillion [6]. Doing simple math, capital punishment composes about a 0.002% cost on US income. Sources: [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]. http://www.ppic.org... [2]. https://www.aclu.org... [4]. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org... [5]. http://www.amnestyusa.org... [6] . https://www.nationalpriorities.org...