On balance, Death Penalty as a punishment has a negative impact on the society

Thanks to Pro for the challenge. FrameworkNote that the resolution is not about if capital punishment is a just punishment, but rather asks us to evaluate it's effect on societies as a whole. This mandates a cost benefit analysis for societies best interest. My argument will thus be based upon the societal effects of capital punishment to determine it's overall worth. I'd also like to apologize in advance for using so much evidence from the US, but as the only "fully developed" Western nation using the death penalty, much of the literature that exists is US specific. My sole contention will be that the death penalty saves innocent lives, which serves the overall betterment of society for obvious reasons. I. Saves innocentsA) RecidivismCapital Punishment aids society by preventing harmful criminals from ever killing again. Life imprisonment often fails to keep prisoners from killing again--take for example the case of Clarence Ray Allen, serving a life sentence in California, who colluded with another inmate to murder the witnesses of his crime once paroled[1], resulting in 3 innocent lives taken. Consider also failures in security systems, leading to escapes of dangerous criminals such as the Texas Seven[2] who killed a police officer and damaged property upon escape. It is for this reason that in 2009 in the US 8.6% of those on death row had a prior homicide conviction, and over 5% of those on death row committed their capital crime while in custody or during an escape[3]. For the US, here's a short list of murderers released to kill again, including Kenneth McDuff who killed 9 women after his death sentence was overturned[4]. Why should a society put its citizens at such a risk?This risk is even higher in poorer countries who cannot afford the extensive and expensive security systems and guards present in the US. The many failures of the US system ought to show us quite clearly the need to permanently take out violent murderers in other countries.Consider also the death penalty as a bulwark protecting the sentence of life imprisonment(with or without parole). That is, as long as the death penalty stands, life without parole will not be challenged by those wishing to lessen sentences for criminals, as they will prefer to lobby against the death penalty instead. This can be empirically shown in countries lacking capital punishment, many of whom have abolished the sentence of life imprisonment[5]. Compare this to countries practicing the death penalty, none of whom have abolished life imprisonment. Moreover the European human rights court just ruled Life Without Parole a human rights violation[6], and time served for murder in the UK, for example, is significantly shorter than in the US[7], so even assuming that prisoners won't escape or kill in prison, life imprisonment won't be safe if the death penalty is gone. The only way to ensure prisoners never get out is to maintain the death penalty. This means my opponents case doesn't even solve for her alternative to capital punishment, "the Nithari killer...locked in solitary confinement"B) DeterrenceAs Murray Rothbard once argued[8]: "While it is impossible to prove the degree of deterrence, it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty." Rothbard further argues that the position that capital punishment doesn't deter comes dangerously close to arguing that no penalties deter crime, a "manifestly absurd" view. A myriad of recent studies have concluded a deterrence effect as well. Contra my opponent who cites evidence criticizing studies made in the 1970s as inconclusive on deterrence, the current literature shows clearly that people follow their incentives. University of Colorado found in 2003 that each execution results in five fewer murders, and a study from Emory University found that each execution led to between 3 and 18 fewer murders[9]. Raw statistics paint a clear picture as well. As a typical example, the state which utilizes the death penalty most earnestly, Texas, shows us that[10]:"...[The] murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1—a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County... Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241—a 72 percent decrease."This is county specific data showing us, once again, that people follow their incentives. This is why William Tucker, in his analysis of the deterrence effect concluded that[11]: "To put the matter simply, over the past 40 years, homicides have gone up when executions have gone down and vice versa." While this statistical peddling is an oversimplification of the issue, the fact remains that all the analysis points in one direction to various degrees, all in my favor.Murderers themselves have even commented on how the threat of execution may have deterred them from their horrific crimes, such as Luis Vera who stated regarding his murder of the tenant of an apartment he was robbing[12]: "I knew I wouldn’t go to the chair."Reducing crime is the primary social (not justice related) function of criminal justice systems[13]. Opponents caseNow let's turn to my opponents case. For clarity I'll divide it into several points of contention.FutileMy opponent argues that the death penalty is futile because giving death for certain "horrific" crimes while not giving it for others is arbitrary and devalues life, and that the pain brought on by deaths are the same no matter how it happened. I agree to a point, however this calls into question *all* punishments. Unless my opponent is advocating governments giving mandatory sentences to every person convicted of a crime (a proposition I'll gladly argue against), inequality in sentences for the same crime, or judging the severity of a crime by somewhat arbitrary standards is going to exist always which could also devalue life, or other values ect. I could just as easily argue that since every prison is different and some are worse than others, giving some murderers life in a nice prison (think Norway) compared to a comparatively bad one in the US. Her impact is non unique to the death penalty and indeed is an argument against punishment in general, while offering no alternative to the current systems worldwide.Moreover, my opponent gives you no way to weigh this. How much does this devalue life? How does it outweigh any positive impacts coming off the death penalty? I argue that failure to implement a policy that will save innocent lives cheapens life more than any abstract point brought up by my opponent. This is not an a priori argument against the death penalty but rather qualms with the current system. Compare this to my arguments that bring out inherent problems with penalties other than death. Innocence This is an easily turnable argument. For one, the very releases she cites are happening due to technological increases. This shows that less innocents will be convicted than would have in the past. Secondly, the impact of innocents being executed is outweighed by the lives saved by executing--remember we're concerned with society, not necessarily justice. More importantly however, due to the urgency of death penalty cases organizations and governments concerned with freeing innocents focus their efforts on death sentences, as the numbers show. There have been 142 innocents released from death row[14]. The total number of death row prisoners combined with the number executed since 1976 is 4455[15][16]. This amounts to 3.1%. There are 140,610 people serving life sentences in the US[17], and 1045 non death row releases[14]. This amounts to .07% of people sentenced to life imprisonment released on innocence, despite more innocents probably being sentenced to life due to plea deals. For an innocent, a sentence of death likely means eventual freedom, imprisonment means almost certain death in prison. http://tinyurl.com...