Resolved: The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder.

I appologize for my untimely response, I've been very busy.=Rebuttal=Costs:My Opponent continues to speak of the costs of the Death Penalty. Before I refute his evidence I have a very simple question that you (the judges) should think on when deciding this round. So what? Even if life w/o parole is cheaper, I've shown in my case that it doesn't provide as much justice as the Death Penalty, and is less safe. Keeping someone in prison for 20 years would certainly be cheaper than keeping them in for life, but it surely (in many cases) isn't as safe. The same can be said for life w/o parole, I have given 3 people killed by the actions of a man sentenced to life without parole, and I will give more in my rebuttal. Justice is NOT about what kind of punishment is cheaper, after all if it's only about the money, why prosecute criminals at all? It is a matter of public safety.Now on to his evidence.He brings up Kansas as an example, First off, the quote he uses speaks only of a Death Penalty case not the total costs associated with the DP V. Life w/o Parole. Furthermore Kansas is like California, since Kansas has sentenced 10 people to die, yet has not performed one single Execution in the past 35 years[1]. In states such as these, the "death penalty" is essentially life without parole with better security, and lets look at my Opponents definition of the Death Penalty (which I agree with) "The punishment of execution, administered to someone convicted of a capital crime." Since this is how we are defining the Death Penalty, individuals sentenced to die but who aren't executed (such as most of people in California and all in Kansas) aren't truly being subjected to the Death Penalty (notice the use of the word administered in the definition.) Therefore his Kansas evidence is irrelevant because they do not have a true Death Penalty.In his Maryland evidence, it also exclusively mentions a case, not the total costs associated.Also, he has made no response to the source I linked showing how life w/o parole is more expensive than the Death Penalty. (and unlike the sources he's linked, unless I've missed something, mine actually shows how the cost is calculated.)He claims I did not provide evidence for the Death Penalty and plea bargaining, however I did as you can see in my last round, and also it's based on logic. The evidence shows that criminals fear the Death Penalty (96% fight it) so naturally they would be more likely to plead guilty to the more feared punishment of death than life.Innocence:Observation: My Opponent has not given one single case of a posthumous pardon. We can all claim that an individual is innocent, but the fact remains that every single one of these people was found guilty by the state, sentenced to die (except in a few exceptions such as Florida) by a unanimous desicion from a jury of their peers, sentence affirmed by a Judge, their death sentences survived review intact, all of their appeals were denied, and the Supreme Court of the United States (nearly always) reviews a last minute appeal for these individuals. He gives an example of 23 people release from Death Row. 1. In the source he linked, the most recent Conviction (forgive me in I'm wrong) was from 1990. These are not recent cases, all were sentenced before forensic and DNA evidence. They were also Convicted before recent (relatively) Supreme Court cases limiting the use of the Death Penalty. For example, until 2002[2], the aggravating factors for the Death Penalty could be decided by a judge, not a jury of peers. Until 2004[3], all migitating factors did not have to be considered. Until even 2009[4] the state still had the right to deny an inmate habeas counsel after their conviction if they could not afford it. Until 1982[5] a person who was involved with a crime but did "not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill" could still be sentneced to die. Basically what I'm saying is that the miscarriages of justice my Opponent has pointed out are much less likely to happen today than years ago, when they did happen. I would ask him to show me a recent case.Furthermore, all this shows is that our current system of appeals works! Indeed, I would be much more concerned if the executions marched on with no commutations or pardons than an occasional release. He brings up several cases of individuals who were "wrongfully executed" and while I don't have the time nor space to look through every case and argue in support of the conviction, I would like to point out that not a single one of them was pardoned after death. I find it both foolish and arrogant that the site my Opponent has linked believes it knows more about the case than the prosecutor, jurors, judge, Governer of the state in question, the board of paroles and pardons of the state in question, and the United States Supreme Court, all of whom were involved in the executions.Not a punishment1. This is completely irrelevant, the Death Penalty is more safe for the public which takes full priority.2. Rational people can't commit the terrible crimes to meet the Death Penalty. It seems my Opponent is claiming that brutally murdering in cold blood with an aggravating factor can be done by ration people. Rational: "Based on or in accordance with reason or logic"[6] 3. "Our thoughts on this are entirely valid since we are the ones imposing the punishment!" - I didn't make myself clear here, I meant what seems like a worse punishment for us doesn't matter because we aren't the ones who commit these crimes.4. "Also, obviously they don't want to die but life in prison doing nothing is still worse." Prove it. If Life w.o Parole was worse less criminals would fight their death sentences. Also, it is not doing nothing, the vast majority if not all of prisoners have contact with other prisoners, get to work in the exercise yard, ect. So no, it isn't sitting in a padded room 24 hours a day as my Opponent would have you believe. =My Case=C1.SPA: He gives a very weak response to my Taylor evidence, stating that "higher prison security things of that nature are improbable." Unless he is advocating solitary confinement for all murderers (which is ironic considering how much he speaks of cost) human contact between prisoners will still happen, and therefore tensions will still happen. Also he didn't respond to the Allen case which is also highly relevant in this.Also, let my reinforce this point. I'll give another example, the case of Robert Pruett who was serving a life sentence for murder when he killed a corrections officer[7]. I concur with Associate U.S. Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen when he stated that without Capital Punishment prison murders are impossible to deter because "without a death sentence, a violent life-termer has free rein to continue to murder as opportunity and his perverse motives dictate." SPB:He mentions how my source contained criticism of the studies. That certainly doesn't invalidate them. A simple criticism from a few anonymous scientists certainly is not enough to invalidate an entire study. As to the evidence I've pointed out myself in my second round, he makes no response. He asserts that States w/ the DP have a higher murder rate. This is true, however these states are motivated to have the DP because of their high crime rates. Also, to give an example, Murder rates have certainly fallen in Texas since the DP act of 1994.[8].C2.I have provided evidence that there are movements to abolish life in the U.S. I have shown an examle from the U.S. and many from Europe. There is a historical precedent. To claim that I haven't provided any evidence is very unfair.C3. Fair enough, since my Opponent agrees, this contention will no longer be debated. I thank my worthy Opponent for his excelltent response, and I look forward to our next round.Source in comments.