Capital Punishment should not be Used as a Punishment in the United States

"Pro Contention 1: Safety Basically what my opponent is attempting to refute is that there is not a correlation between death penalty states and non-death penalty states. This is false. Just because you have evidence that says there is a rise and fall of homicide rates that followed a similar pattern means nothing. It just means there were more in this year, less in that year, and so on, and so on. What my opponent obviously doesn't see is in point A when Van Wormer says 'the AVERAGE homicide rate in the twelve states prohibiting the death penalty is considerable lower than the AVERAGE homicide rate in the thirty-eight states where execution is legal. THE EFFECT IS INTERACTIVE.' This clearly states that violence causes violence. I'm afraid my opponent cannot argue with an expert of the field on this one." Yet you still provide no evidence that the effect is interactive. "Apparently my opponent does not understand credentials. My opponent is a college student, whereas my source is a Ph.D, has written numerous articles and books, and has been a professor... (http://www.uni.edu......) It's obvious who you should listen to. If Van Wormer says this is happening, it's probably happening. There are even 25 case studies provided, not to mentions those not provided." Logically speaking, credentials mean nothing. Evidence is all that matters. The person who presents that evidence is insignificant. "These situations are not only possible, they are true. All 25 of them. And when we stop these criminals we are stopping deaths of the future victims, not only ones they have already killed." Twenty-five murderers do not constitute a majority. They constitute a very small minority. "Now, there are two points I would like to state in accordance with this contention. a) My opponent didn't even touch the victim's justice and the justice the family of the victim is due. b) Notice I do not say all murders are like this. I believe that even if we are able to save one life, we are doing a good deed. Banning capital punishment saves the lives of potential victims. This is justice." Justice is not relative from person to person. Justice is justice. How the hell does banning capital punishment save the lives of potential victims? The ONLY way to guarantee that a murderer does not kill again is to execute him. "a) As I said before, we know what prison is like. They may get food and shelter, but it is a horrifying experience, no matter who you are. Jail is made to keep criminals away from innocent people. This is something that is generally agreed upon. We must protect innocent people." Actually, most of us don't know what prison is like. All you have is your assumptions. I have known people who have been in prison. The experience varies depending on the individual and the prison. Prisons are made to protect the public, but escape is always possible. Prison could never do as good a job of protecting the public as simply eliminating the murderer. "b) "They get free food, shelter, legal counsel, and medical care while the poor sleep on the street, starve, and die of disease." While this is true, the poor have an opportunity to better themselves through hard work and devotion. People in jail are stuck where they are. This is a huge difference. They may have food, but it isn't good. They may have shelter, but it is cramped. They may have legal counsel, but a lot of the time it is a lawyer working pro bono who doesn't care one way of another. And even the poor can get medical treatment of some sort." That's still better than what most homeless people get. Your contention that capital punishment causes more murder is ridiculous. You have no proof, and I have submitted evidence that demonstrates the opposite.