Death Penalty

I have not mentioned my fifth point in my second debate because my opponent has agreed with it, so need I go on and debate something we both agree on? The National Coalition To Abolish The Death Penalty or NCADP does agree with me in saying that 23 innocent people have been killed. Yes there was not DNA testing until recent times, and my opponent claims that now we can be assured of guilt. This is a complete fallacy. We can never be assured of guilt. All that DNA testing does is decreases the odds of innocence, its never completely abolishes them. We never can be 100% assured that everybody who is on death row is guilty(as shown in all the releases states have made due to innocence). The next person to be executed may be innocent, the is no 100% chance that we will ever know, and by the system not being completely 100%, anything under 100% I cannot support. There is no evidence or logical argument to say that out of the thousands of people who have died on death row, that the United States judicial system is so perfect that all of these people have been completely guilty. You are right that a council of a jury decides innocence or guilt, in which a scenario of guilt can be the death penalty. These people on jury are people of all different background, morals, and levels of intelligence whom all determine if the person is guilty or not. It can be a council of 12 people where all but one think that he is guilty. It may take that one person to look into the case more in depth and convince those other 11 people that the person is innocent, which he really is. And what if that one person was not there, if it was another one of those 11 people who think that the person on death row in guilty. If it would have been a council of those 12 people who think that he is guilty, they have just killed an innocent. And who is to say such a scenario has not happened of the enormous amount of people who have served on jury duty of people on death row. Who is to say that they all have been so accurate in making the correct decision. My opponent fails to realize that still states of all different sizes and populations that do not have the death penalty have one single common trend, that they still have lower crime and homicide rates then states that do. My opponent says that because those states that have a bigger urban population which that that is why the crime is higher then the states that do not have the death penalty with lower populations. And if for example if California(state with a HUGE crime/homicide rate) suddenly abolishes the death penalty,would you not agree that they would have more money to spend of law enforcement and different sorts of crime prevention that would then lower the crime/homicide rates and still be a lower amount of money then when they had the death penalty. My opponent connects his points about the prison gangs and that keeping them alive, and says it is encouraging those gang lords to further conduct what they are doing? ! Are you aware that people of life imprisonment only go out on the "yard' by themselves with no human interaction other then of the guards that take them out and watch over them. These people are kept completely away from other inmates and so they have no interaction with them. My opponent uses Wikipedia which is a site to have been proven wrong so his argument has no solid evidence or foundation so it collapses. One could see this sort of life imprisonment as torture, and would you rather be tortured then killed or be killed right away, what is the plus side of the first choice? The average cost of a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.... If you look here, all states that have capital punishment have such enormous costs then if they did not. Having the system itself is so much more expensive then all the people in a state on death row(there could be 200) and they could all be on death row for 20 years. The states then has to pay an enormous burden in which I have said earlier could use that money for law enforcement and crime prevention. My opponent uses justice in his case. Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity. And by my ethics and morals, I don't support the death penalty, and by yours, you do. Everybody has different eyes in seeing justice, so justice cannot be used as a debate topic, so this point falls.