The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder.

=Impact calculus=My impacts will be bolded, my Opponents will by underlined. This is paraphrase, not actual quotes. I will make it quite obvious that my points outweigh."The DP is proven to save innocent lives be keeping a killer from striking again." v. "take my word, and the word of the websites I've linked over the word of the court who is actually qualified to assess guilt/innocence, innocents have been executed.""The DP has a deterrent effect, and based on evidence, prisoners fear it more than life imprisonment." v. "Murderers need to suffer by sitting in prison, and theres a greater chance for them becoming a christian if they live.""The DP values the right to life by imposing the strictest punishment on those who violate it." v. "everyone has a right to life.""The constitution and public opinion supports the DP." v. "the public is misinformed, and the declaration of independence gives the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and we must take this to condemn the DP because it violates the right to life, however impriosnment doesn't violate the rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness.""The DP saves innocent lives through deterrence and prevention." v. "the DP costs more."Ok, now I'll go over his case and attack it, starting with his most important point.InnocenceCon claims innocents have been executed. Notice, he hasn't given any type of credible court source, or a government acknowledgement of innocence. Rather he links us to the sources "nodeathpenalty.org", "the-slammer" (which, here's a quote from it's homepage: "The-SLAMMER is dedicated to all the people that spend time behind those doors in that other world — the inmates, former inmates,..." and if you read the website, it is staunchly anti-death penalty) and "justicedenied.org".So, basically Con wants us to accept the word of innocence from known anti-DP sources rather than the veridict from the court system. Logical? Hardly. The only decent example Con brings up is Kevin Cooper. His anti=death penalty source claims that Cooper was "framed by the poice." K, let's look at an actual CREDIBLE assessment of his guilt. Here's a quote from the district court case denying his petition for Habeas Corpus. "As the district court, and all state courts, have repeatedly found, evidence of Cooper's guilt was overwhelming. The tests that he asked for to show his innocence 'once and for all' show nothing of the sort."[1]In Con's source, it gives several quotes from one of the judges in this very case, in his dissenting opinion. Con wants us to value the thoughts of the minority opinion rather than the majority.Oh, and let's also look at Coopers prior criminal record: "On October 8, 1982, Cooper burglarized a Pennsylvania home and kidnapped and raped the high school student who interrupted him. He was convicted of two other burglaries in Los Angeles and began serving his sentence at the California Institution for Men (CIM) in Chino on April 29, 1983, under the alias David Trautman. On June 1, he was transferred to the minimum-security portion of the prison and escaped on foot the next day."[2]. Jurors less likely to condemnCon wanted a source, so I will link him one. You can clearly see that sentencing is covered under POST CONVICTION matters.[3] This point falls. Right to lifeCon wants us to believe that the right to life is violated by the DP. He wants us to value his opinion over the vast majority of Amerians (65%) who believe the DP is morally acceptable.[4] Con fasley states that everyone killed by prior offenders is a "rapist" or "murderer" and we shouldn't concern oursleves with their deaths. Con is dismissing out of hand the lives of murderers, which completely undermines his entire argument about the right to life! This is not even a valid claim, because if you look at my examples, many of them were not about inmates. Con wants us to believe that because we don't have the right to take the life of another person the state shouldn't have the right to. We don't have the right to take other peoples money, but the state does through taxation and fines. We do not have the right to speed, but police do to catch speeders, we do not have the right to imprison people, but the justice system does. Unless Con is advocating anarchy, and giving no unique rights to the state, this point falls. Con gives no reason why the right to life is uniqye among the rights our justice system can take away.He also rejects my kidnapping analogy out of hand, so to elaborate:Kidnapping is the forced taking of someone by another person, violating their right to freedom, to a place of their takers choice for the benefit of the taker. Arrest/imprisonment is the forced taking of someone be the state, to a place of the states choice for the benefit of the state. Using Con's own logic, this would not be morally acceptable because of the physical similarities between crime and punishment.Con states the concept of an eye for an eye is unjust. Ok. If you look at the account of murder I gave, and compare it to the account of execution, the suffering from the execution is nowhere near similar. If the DP was truly an Eye for an Eye, Peter Cantu would've been raped and strangled and had his throat stomped on. He wasn't. The DP is not an eye for an eye, and even if it was the physical similarities between crime and punishment does not make them morally similar. As for the liberty violation from imprisonment, liberty if defined by merriam webster as "the power to do as one pleases". Prison takes away this power. By Cons logic, we are unjustified in imprisoning anyone. DeterrenceCon states that it is false reasoning to correlate dropping murder rates to executions. Murders reached an all time high in the 1990's.[5] The government passed the DP act of 1994, making use of the DP much simpler and executon numbers climbed. Murder rates have almost been cut in half since. Con states that there is not enough evidence to support that the DP deters, and cites DPIC and "studentabolition.org", two staunchly anti DP sources. This is nowhere near enough to dismiss a deterrent effect.He ignores my studies, and the stastical evidence brought in. Extend this evidence.PreventionCon shows that .5% of inmates escape. That in no way invalidates my argument, because this proves prisoners DO escape, abliet rarely, and I've given an example (clarence allen) oh a man who's actions caused the killing of innocents WHILE he was imprisoned. I've also given specific examples of escaped prisoners, so it does happen despite what Con wants you to believe.Con also falsely claims that he's shown innocents to be executed. He has not provided a single example of innocents being executed from a source qualified to decide. I'll take the veridict of the court, supported by the states board of paroles and pardons, the governers of the state and the Supreme Court, over some dubious writings on the internet.ConstitutionCon states "the Bill of Rights is legally considered part of the original Constitution". If this was supposed to be an attack on my contention, I don't see how.CostCon continues to cite evidence from states that do not actively execute criminals. He's brought up California and the Federal Gov't so far. California- 13 executions, 697 on death row. Federal govt- 3 executions, 59 on death row[6]. It takes only common sense to realize that the reason executions are so expensive in these cases, is because they happen so rarely! Also, Con again attacks the credibility of my source not it's cost analysis. Con, it has been a true honor debating you. Judges, I urge a pro vote.Sources1. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(inmate)3. http://www.havinpa.org...4. http://www.gallup.com...5. http://www.disastercenter.com...6. http://en.wikipedia.org...