The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder.

=Sources=Con is 100% correct when he states that my sources do not lead to the actual articles. How this happened, I have no idea but I will repost them. I am very sorry. 1. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us...4. http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...5. http://www.cbsnews.com...6. http://www.heritage.org...7. http://en.wikipedia.org...8. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...9. http://www.defenestrator.org...10. http://www.globalpolitician.com...11. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...12. http://en.wikipedia.org...13. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...=Defense=Life imprisonment V. DP.Life without parole does not keep a killer from striking again as well as the death penalty. Here's some examples:Donald Dillbeck- sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 1979, escaped in 1990 and murdered a woman while attempting to steal her car.[1]James Prestridge-sentenced to life w/o parole for murder, escaped from prison and murdered his fellow escapee (serving a sentence for robbery)[2].The Texas 7, I do not know what their sentences were, but they were in a maximum security prison and still escaped, and went on a crime spree killing many innocent people, showing that escape is always possible.[3]Martsay Bolder, sentenced to life imprisonment and murdered his cellmate.[4] These are only some of the many examples. Innocent lives are saved by preventing future murders. The recidivism rate for executed offenders is 0%.My opponent contends that innocents have been executed. He has provided no examples, but he said he would in his next rebuttal so I will leave this point for now.DeterrenceI appologize for the link issues, but now since my Opponent (and the judges) can see my sources, this point again stands.With deterrence there are two logical scenarios. If we execute murderers, and there is no deterrent affect than we have a bunch of dead murderers. If we do not execute murderers and there is a deterrent affect, than we have a bunch of dead innocents. Surely it's better to risk the former than the latter.Life does not always mean lifeAgain, I am sorry for the link issues. However now that I have re-posted them, this point again stands. He has not responded to the Moore example, and thus I extend it. He states that just because there are movements to abolish it, doesn't prove it will happen. True, however the likelihood of its abolition is much more likely because there are current movements. I have also established a historical precedent using Europe as an example.Prisoners prefer lifeThe raw statistics make it astonishingly clear that prisoners prefer life w/o parole to the DP. If life was truly a worse punishment, than we would see large amounts of prisoners committing suicide. While suicide rates in prison are higher than the national average, the vast majority do not commit suicide. ConstitutionalityCon states that "The constitution says every man has a right to life" In this statement, I believe he is referring to the famous "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" line from the declaration of independence. If we were to accept Con's argument, we would have to abolish prisons and fines too because the violate the rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness respectively. =His Case=Cost--> He claims that life is more just than the DP. Again, only his personal opinion. Life gives a prisoner a chance to strike again. I have given specific examples of killers who killed again so this does not outweigh.--> He falsely equates executing a convicted killer, to brutally murderering an innocent. Here's an example:Here is an account of how the victims of the murderer Peter Cantu died: "As the teens cried and struggled, six gang members took turns raping them. Finally, gang leader Peter Cantu told Medellin, "We're going to have to kill them." Gang members Derrick O'Brien and Raul Villarreal looped a belt around Jennifer's throat, pulling with such force that the belt broke. Cantu, Medellin and Efrain Perez strangled Elizabeth with a shoelace. Then they stomped on the girls' throats for good measure."[5].Here's an account of Cantu's humane execution:"At this point the warden asked the prisoner if he wished to make a final statement. Cantu, staring straight to the ceiling, replied defiantly "No!" The hope that many people had that this murderer would show some remorse or accept some reponsibility for his crimes was gone with one short word. With that, the warden instructed the executioner to begin the flow of lethal drugs. Cantu closed his eyes and breathed in deeply before exhaling heavily. He would not move again."[6]Are we really supposed to believe that these two actions are morally similar? Even if the DP is immoral to claim that murder and execution are the same morally is simply absurd.--> Rather than attacking my rebuttals, Con often just attacks my sources.--> He brings up the federal government, which again is like California. Populated death row, few executions. --> I admitted that the source was biased, but rather than attack the cost analysis, he again attacks the credibility. So my evidence stands.Repentance--> Risking innocent lives to try and rehabilitate a brutal murderer is simply absurd.--> His argument could just as easily be used to justify releasing those condemend to life w/o parole, why is the line drawn at the DP?--> He ironically gives an example of a repented murderer, however if you read his source it shows that those were her final words before execution. Thus this example supports my side showing how people are more willing to repent when death is imminent.PunishmentThis, I believe, is Cons most ironic point. Con tries to show that the DP is not a true punishment. While this point is dubious at best, and massively outweighed, his religion argument contradicts this. Indeed, if he is truly interested in punishing murderers, than why keep them on Earth? God could dish out an infinitely worse punishment in purgatory/hell than we could ever imagine! So you can see that Cons true goal is not to punish criminals. This point falls.ReligionInterestingly enough, Con tries to use religion as a tool against the DP. Here are some examples, showing how Christianity supports the DP.“‘Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. They are to be put to death." Numbers 35:31"Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it." Numbers 35:33"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Genesis 9:6"eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Exodus 21:24Remember, Christ did not come to abolish God's law.I think I've made my point, although I will bring more verses in later if need be.Thanks for an excellent response Phantom, and I strongly urge a pro vote.Sources:1. http://crime.about.com...2. http://articles.latimes.com...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://missourideathrow.com...5. http://www.chron.com...6. http://abclocal.go.com...