The Death Penalty Should be Ended for ALL Cases

To begin my argument, I will rebuttal against my opponents claim. My opponents first claim that he or she brought was that our country is in the top 5 for being "aggressive" with the Death Penalty. I must ask how this is bad? Isn't it good we have a country that is aggressive, which makes us stand stronger out of the rest? Lets look back at a past President named Ronald Reagan. He was considered one of the most aggressive presidents, and got stuff done. He ended the Cold War and brought jobs among the people. So is it still bad to be an aggressive country? The other countries, my opponent has presented, are already typically; but lets look at China. China is about to past us economically wise, and they are already aggressive; and use the Death Penalty heavily. If my opponent claims that the Death Penalty does not benefit us economically wise, then why is China about to past us? The methods that China uses for the Death Penalty, stated under "Death Penalty Worldwide", include a Lethal Injection and Shooting. Both are actually cheaper and more humane and quickly on killing the individual The cost for a Lethal Injection, stated under "Methods of Execution", is about $86.06. That is much cheaper than the most common method of the Electric Chair, which runs about $265,000. And of course there is shooting, but in China; the shooting is actually one individual at a time, than all at once. That is actually more humane, than inhumane! In a recent article from Ohio, a state that approves the Death Penalty, they are inventing new methods for it. The given example is the "Robotic Arm", where it decapitates the Criminal quickly and pain free. It also plays calming music so the Criminal is not suffering as much as compared with other methods. The pricing for the Robotic Arm would be expensive, but would be a one time buy. Some changes in machinery would be needed, but that is actually more economically beneficial than the other methods presented. The debate should more be about the methods of the Death Penalty, than if it should or shouldn't be banned given the cheaper and more humane options of ending ones life. My opponent then claims about the "racism" given the Death Penalty. In my previous argument, I brought upon a statistic that more whites were given the Death Penalty, than Blacks. Here is the link to the following website that I used: http://deathpenalty.org.... In this round of arguments, my opponent claims that this website states that in 1990 that there was discrimination. To rebuttal against my opponents statement, lets take a look at the official fact of how long one can use a source and claim it "credible". Stated under "Stylebook", it states: "For many disciplines, the currency of information is vital when presuming an argument or some form of essay. The source should at least be 8 years old to be claimed as creditable". So if my opponent is using a source that was taken in 1990, that is not creditable for being too old; especially a source that was used over 10 years ago. While if he scrolls down to the pie chart with the title "Race of Defendants Executed", it shows that more whites are executed, than blacks. So at this point, the Death Penalty is not racially bias; but more so on the criminal doing an action with loads of consequences. Referring back to my previous argument of "self-responsibility". And also stated under the article titled: "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives", it says: "There is little evidence that the federal capital punishment system treats minorities unfairly". Then my opponent brings up the possible "mistakes" that can be made with the Death Penalty. I think me and my opponent can both agree that mistakes happen, and we move on from it; an it happens in life. But my opponent is claiming that the Death Penalty actually makes numerous mistakes, even though they truly do not. Stated under the article "1 in 25 Given Death Penalty Sentence Are Likely Innocent", it is stated that only a minority of inmates receive the Death Penalty; even though they are innocent. That is a really small number, and if my opponent continues to claim that it happens often; then why isn't there more current news stories about the mistakes? Where I actually have recent evidence to rebuttal against my opponents claim. Then my opponent claims that the Death Penalty does not deter crime. I will disprove my opponents claim with two resources. The first, taken from the article titled: "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives", it says: "Criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals rationally maximize their own self-interest (utility) subject to constraints (prices, incomes) that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere. Individuals make their decisions based on the net costs and benefits of each alternative. Thus, deterrence theory provides a basis for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates. Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates. In fact, studies done in recent years, using sophisticated panel data methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents". To even further support the given evidence, state under another article titled: "Do more executions mean fewer murders", it states that each execution would help prevent at least 18 murders of innocent civilians. And also claims that the reason why it seems like the idea does not deter crime is because of how slow the executions take to get into effect. The article claims that if one murderer is executed instantly, it would prevent at least 1 murder of any civilian. So technically, the Death Penalty does deter crime; but the issue is how long it takes for the Death Penalty to take effect. In reality, the Death Penalty should be an instant action, instead of a long drawn out session when the final decision was made. In conclusion, my opponent makes strong claims about the Death Penalty; but uses "rehashed" arguments, than my own. My opponent does not bring a rebuttal to most of my arguments, while I brought more rebuttals to my opponents arguments. My opponent did not argue about the self-responsibility of the criminal, nor the situation of the Boston Marathon Bombing. Because the Death Penalty should not be banned for all cases, only should be used for some. Sources: http://deathpenalty.org... http://www.heritage.org... http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu... http://www.vice.com... http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org... http://www.theonion.com... http://www.slate.com... http://www.seattletimes.com...