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

=Defense= 1: (I will lump both deterrence arguments together and answer them in my rebuttal) 2: First I will say that the source I used was devoted to brining one facts about the death penalty but nonetheless I will provide more evidence to prove my point. Here I will post some quotes regarding cost: "A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000)."[1] "In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case."[1] I reserve the right to bring in more evidence. On SP1: I am showing that in our debt rampant nation, the death penalty is just NOT cost effective. The resolution of this debate was "Resolved: The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder." and I am merely showing why it should not be. On SP3: This does not prove it to be a special case at all, it merely shows that even with the low number of actual deaths the cost is still high. Also, see [1]. On SP4: See new sources and see above. Also, the evidence is originally from here: http://tinyurl.com... This is the Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice and I somehow doubt that it is biased. Also, if the voters will look at the link they can see that all the evidence on the "biased" site is just showing info from state reports. On SP5: This is true but it does not detract from the cost and with people complaining that taxes are too high and spending is too much, my evidence shows that a good way to cut spending is by executing the death penalty. On SP6: I will respond to this in my rebuttal. On SP7: My opponent provides no evidence as to how much "significant amounts of money" is thus I will say the following, it is still cheaper to abolish the death penalty. My contention stands. On 3: I will not give you four cases, I will give you 21 cases where people have been convicted of murder but, luckily, the court system prevailed and showed that they were innocent. While it is true that they were not yet killed this just goes to show you that if 21 people (from one source alone) were all sentenced to death and found innocent there are most likely many more who have been killed and who are innocent. (For the sake of characters I will just post their names but you can read the info in the link) Samuel Poole, James Creamer, Dale Johnston, Jay Smith, James Robison, Muneer Deeb, Andrew Golden, Clarence Smith, Joseph Burrows, Adolph Munson, Robert Charles Cruz, Rolando Cruz, Alejandro Hernandez, Sabrina Butler, Verneal Jimerson, Dennis Williams, Roberto Miranda, Gary Gauger, Troy Lee Jones, Carl Lawson, Ricardo Aldape Guerra [2] But let's look at more: Roger Keith Coleman pleaded innocence and had evidence to back it up but no court would review his evidence. He then had an unfair conviction and was killed.[2] Leonel Herrera was a man who was thought to be innocent and another man even said he was and said man admitted to the crime but Leonel was killed regardless. Also, "Numerous other pieces of new evidence also threw doubt on his conviction".[2] Jesse Jacobs was tried for murder but the prosecution even admitted he did not kill the victim but that didn't matter, he was killed regardless.[2] Coleman Wayne Gray the state convicting Gray ignored rules of discloser, and gave him an unfair trial as a Federal Court Judge cited. Gray was killed.[2] I have given you 25 cases of innocent people convicted of murder, some of whom were executed, thus I have fulfilled your requirement of four people. I dare say I win. (Vote Con) On 4: I will drop this. It has been proven wrong. On 5: My opponent concedes that life w/o parole is harsher but he then says we're rational and could never commit terrible crimes. This is making the assumption that rational people can't commit terrible crimes. Where is your evidence for this? Our thoughts on this are entirely valid since we are the ones imposing the punishment! Also, obviously they don't want to die but life in prison doing nothing is still worse. Also, how is it not as safe? Do you have evidence that shows that? The only evidence you have from R1 is when the people were released. (granted there is the case of Mr. Taylor but I would say that with higher prison security things of that nature are improbable) This point stands. On 6: I will drop this. It has been proven wrong. =Rebuttal= C1, SPA: Most of the evidence here is about people who have been let out of jail but I advocate for life w/o parole instead of the death penalty thus the cases where people are let out are moot. The only case of relevance is Mr. Taylor's case but with higher prison security things of that nature are improbable. Also, that could occur with anyone who is in prison. This is assuming that since they are a murder they are the only ones who would ever kill for racial tensions in jail but this is not so. If my opponent was really worried he would advocate for the killing of all prisoners. This point falls. SPB: According to my opponent's link about the Emory study, a famous law professor, Cass Sunstein, said that "the data needs more study". Also, the link points out several flaws in the evidence itself "Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment."[see opponent's 5] The evidence in his own link contradicts his claim. The first part of my opponent's [6] just is talking in theory with no data behind it but in the interest of characters I will bring in my evidence now. States with the death penalty have statistically higher rates of murder.[3] For example, in 2009 states with the death penalty had a murder rate of 5.26 whereas ones without had a murder rate of 3.9. This trend continues back to the end of the data in the year 1990. In 2008 death penalty states had a 5.72 murder rate while non death penalty ones had 4.05. I could go on but I urge voters to look at the graph. Here is a graph: http://tinyurl.com... Also, extend my ACLU evidence. I will bring in more detterance evidence next round. C2, SPA: //If the Death Penalty is abolished, the next thing to go will be life without parole// There is no evidence to support that this will happen in America. All this is a slippery slope fallacy where you are saying this might happen if this happens. This is baseless. Regarding Moss, this is a rare case. Do you have evidence that this will happen more if the death penalty is repealed? SPB: See point 5 above ^^ C3: I never argued this. Do you really want me to respond to it? It is irrelevant. (sorry for the small rebuttals but I am running out of characters) Conclusion: My 1, 2, 3 and 5 still stand. I have shown that the possibility of an innocent being killed is very real and very high while my opponent has not refuted it. I have shown that the death penalty is NOT a detterant and is better than life w/o parole. I have refuted my opponent's arguments and I hope you vote Con. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...