Resolved: The United States of America should abolish the Death Penalty

My opponent seems to misunderstand what the debate is about. In round one, he said that I would have to argue for the use of the death penalty in the United States. He never mentioned that I had to argue for the current system the United States uses. After all, the Unite States has a history of the death penalty being very cheap unlike it is today. So if this was some sort of attempt to get a quick win in this debate...I hope that the voters can see past that. While there is currently a large process of executing a person in the Unite States, it has not always been this way in this country. Recently, the cost have gone up mainly because of the reasons this website lists: https://www.themarshallproject.org... The costs are astounding right now. Things were much simply a few hundred years ago when people quickly had a trail an killed the criminal. You will never fin an example of a death penalty case cost over a million dollars in the 18th Century. My opponent claims "even with arguing for the generic concept of Capital punishment, he doesn't even give us solutions on how it can be cheaper." My response is that it is common sense. We merely need to do things like the people of the past did. Only have two lawyers, have a judge, get an unbiased jury, an have a goo quick trail. If we on't know who did it, we set the person convicted free. It should never be millions of dollars. And for crying out loud, we nee to stop paying people for doing things for their country. It use to be seen as a responsibility to get involve in the government. People don't deserve to get paid all that money for these cases. My opponent also states "no where in the world, does it take 25 cents to execute a criminal. This is almost impossible." My response is that is not even close to being true. There are many places in the world (mainly in the past) where people were just sentenced to death an the costs were nothing. King Henry had many of his wives executed for no cost at all. The point is that it does not have to be expensive. It really is not that hard to get a .25 cent bullet and execute a person. It was then claimed that "North Carolina, it has been realized that the DP does not reduce crime. Yet, according to the N.C. Department of Justice, the state murder rate has declined in the years since executions stopped." Except for the fact that killing a person prevents the person from killing anyone else. Life in imprisonment may seem to do the same thing...but we would have to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars to pay for them to stay there for the rest of their lives. As for the so called highly respected criminologists my opponent has spoke of, (http://nccadp.org...) the link he have about North Carolina does not even mention an author or the writers credentials. It was said that "Con concedes that there is no evidence that states criminal behavior deters crime, because his response was off topic." This is only true to an extent. It is still a fact that killing a prevent prevents them from doing any more harm. My opponent concedes that the death penalty is morally correct. This means one of my points has been made. Morality is the one thing that should go beyond cost. "How do you plan on fixing this flaw? It's mathamathically impossible to be 100% accurate in executing the right guy." If people are uncertain about who id it, then don't execute the person. Only kill those that we are sure of committing the violent crimes. While the death penalty system has become a flawed system, I challenge my opponent to name a system that hasn't become flawed in the United States. Please vote Con for... a. establishing that the death penalty doesn't have to be expensive b. not putting links at the bottom of the page that make it confusing for the readers c. establishing that my opponent has made no argument against the death penalty...only against flaws in the system d. Establishing that the system is morally correct