Capital Punishment Ought to be Eliminated

My opponent is correct in asserting that I have BOP, but misguided as to how this works. First, because I noted in round 1 that the US kept CP, that I had to show an instance of it being unjust to fulfill my BOP for the complete abolishion of it. My opponent fails to understand it has to be more than just one instance of it being justified, he has to refute all of my cases. Claims Framework: None was actually noted. In fact you only mentioned Pol Pot and Hitler, if you were actually doing it in the frame work of world leaders, why not Stalin, Mao, Melosivic, Hussein, and Mousilini while your at it? I know why! Because you are lieing. At NO point did you ever frame it around crimes against humanities. You instead framed it around Carl Eugene Watts! In fact I noted that it was in the US in general in the first round which is why I justified having BOP. Thus, the claim of my appealing to ignorance is non-existant. "I showed not the way the judicial system operates but what it ought to be" - I noted this at the begining of round 3 so my so-called claim that the US is unequivocally rehabilitative is nonsense. In fact I agree with my opponent on this. But is that legal system effective? I do not think so, which is why I brought it up! Regarding Rehabilitation: I also agree with him here. I never argued against the fact that some may never be rehabilitated because I agree, but this view is far too simplistic! Is that reason enough to kill someone? My position is no, and it is also that because I know some won't be rehabilitated that I advocated for LWOP. Otherwise, my position would have been hypocritical. My opponent really does not introduce any compelling arguments here. .. it's more of a summary of my position. CP/Justification: First, as I have shown I think a case can be made that CP is unconstitutional under the notion that it is cruel punishment, as earlier shown with the botched executions. I also shown that it damages the people killing the killers, the judges compelling these people to death, and the family victims who have to relive the events when the barriage of appeals come in, coupled with watching a man die. As noted with the Lancet report, our way of enforcing CP and the procedures have lower standards than putting down an animal. And even worse, should a judge kill someone innocent, that judge will NOT be tried for murder -- again as I noted this implies that he is in fact above the law. Weakening the very rule of law Western society cherishes so much. These are unjustifiable. And while not all murder leads to CP, it can, and so can treason (Adam Gadahn anyone? ) and rape. CP cannot be used as the ultimate punishment, because it simply is unlogical, it sends the message "lets kill the guy who killed because we hate killing". The argument simply does not follow. And good, however, if that is the case, whats the use in CP anymore? Deterrence/Plea Bargaining: YOU never claimed causation, but the sources you used sure did, and I explained why they are nonsense. They have to account for all factors and isolate them to truly see the impact of CP on crime. Turns out this is not possible, so we're stuck with correlation, and that shows there is less crime than those with CP. Because correaltion does not imply causation, the sources used are weak and should be disregarded. I not only showed that crime increased in those states with CP but explained why they increased. And plea bargins are important in high crimes, it means the difference between a diminished due process or not. Everyone is suppose to be equal above the law, and intimidating someone who may not be charged with a crime for good reason and threatening him with CP is not only ineffective (as noted in my previous sources) but fails to uphold the Rule of Law for everyone. Sources: . http://users.nber.org...(BEPress).pdfhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.ncmoratorium.org...http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... *Note: Unlike my opponent I give a reason as to why his studies are to be disregarded; correlation is not causation, and claiming "saved lives" as a result is false, because it relies on ceteris paribus to justify the count of "saved lives" but this is assuming the same pattern of human behavior continues. This is technically impossible, as human's are unpredictable as previously noted, and relies on the rate of killings, which is subject to flucuations. He never explains why my studies should be disregarded for his. What deterrence? Eugene Watts:The man had an intelligence bordering on mentally retarded. Him and logic go together like fish and bicycles. He didn't want a long life in prison; he couldn't get his killing fix. Source/Research:The source never claimed to actually be unbiased. In fact it's just a differing method of research as I showed earlier. This is the critical method, and is just as valid as the positivist approach. This is like saying Noam Chomsky's examination of the news is invalid because he is an anarchist and will make his research through that lens. You can be the most bias person in the world, and be an excellent researcher, so I fail to see your point. Hitler/Pol Pot:What the criminal did was irrelevant? Well then I guess this argument is over . .. oh it isn't? Alright then! Hitler's legacy still lives on; Neo-nazi's still exist as a result of his death, they had to burn his body and scatter them to prevent people from worshiping him. They had to do the same thing with Bin Laden, and Pol Pot due to their deaths resulting in a martyr like status, I ask my opponent why is Al Qaeda still around as well? Clearly killing these people made them martyrs, this is not absurd. And in our criminal system an excellent example of martyrship would be Charles Manson and his helter skelter campagin should he have been killed due to his cult. So yes actually it can happen in the US legal system. Wrongful convition:My opponent is wrong, I noted that CSI's do make mistakes, and in fact in the Mass. state 34,000 prisoners are being released due to a forensic scientist's fraud. Hence wrongful convition may occur even still today; a failure of CP because it does not determine who is innocent or not. And while that case means his couldn't be re-opened, that argument strengthens my argument for the weakening of due process of law NOT yours. Crime/Punishment:My opponent is correct, yet isn;t it interesting that the person being sued never loses his house over it? If that is the case, then why should the state have the ability to systemically revoke your life? Which is the most impoertant private property! Insanity:My opponent is right, but completely drops the fact that ASPD IS treatable and thus justification that the state shouldn't kill someone with those personality traits. Innocents:That was 1) to protect Judges, and 2) see if prisoners have the right to habaeus corpus (or retrial) they ruled that prisoners are not entitled to retrials, furthering my point that CP ought to be abolishedPolitical Agenda:My opponent committs a bare assertion fallacy that this is irrelevant. It is not; a violation of international law is an outrage and again implies that the state is above the law, it is disproportinate and therefore unjustified. My opponent has failed to prevent me from reaching my BOP. I have shown the inefficencies of CP, along with the impacts both physically, psychologically, and legally. It is costly, inefficent, and relies on flawed studies to continue it's use. It harms the people not involved, and the victims even more than LWOP in comparison. It would in fact be wise of the US to abolish CP. Criminologists agree, so to medial personel. Thank you and eliminate CP! VOTE PRO! !! Sources: see previous round.