The death penalty should be abolished.

Thanks Dtaylor. I'll just go over the debate, starting with my case. I. Lives Deterrence My opponents only real arguments here are that the studies are unreliable. This is why my entire argument was logically based, that people follow the incentives the system provides them with. Pro's only response is that LWOP deters murder as well and of course it does, but the question is if it deters murder *as much* as the threat of death, and the answer is a resounding no. Virtually every death row inmate fights tooth and nail to get their sentence commuted to LWOP and like I've previously stated the threat of having your existence terminated is much greater than the threat of having shelter, food, and healthcare for the rest of your life. Prison certainly isn't an ideal place to be but the vast majority of murderers would pick it over death in a heartbeat, which is why so few "voluntary" executions where the condemned has waived their appeals occur. Pro insists on comparing apples to oranges by looking at different states, but the death penalty is a tiny facet of the justice systems and criminal cultures in each state. The real argument to look to is the logical analysis. The takeaway here is to look at the logic. Pro has made only appeals to authority in his argument for why deterrence does not occur, but logically by reducing the incentive to murder by having a death penalty you will reduce some murders. The lack of a death penalty is why Luis Vera committed his murder. The jsutice system should err on the side of caution and execute murderers. Recidivism Pro never responds to the fact that murderers can and do kill again, he just tries to get around the specific examples I brought up. Pro argues that we can just not let any murderers out but this ignores that many of them kill again in prison as the list and the Allen example showed. Moreover, the only way to *ensure* that murderers are not let out is to kill them. Many countries around the world have abolished life without parole, and times change. Part of the reason the UK and the rest of Europe has such liberal prison policies is because they've abolished the death penalty so people wanting weaker sentences for criminals can focus their efforts downward and be rid of life in prison as well. Remember as well that prison escapes can also occur. Pro argues that we can construct more prisons with the money California would save from abolishing the "death penalty" but note that this ignores my argument that we can't look to California with its 1.7% execution rate as a state with an actual death penalty and that unless Pro proves abolishing the death penalty will lead to states investing the money in more prisons he gains no advantage. II. JusticePro asserts that no one deserves death, but this is simply not the case. The punishment should match the crime and there's nothing wrong with someone losing their right to life as they can lose their right to liberty. Pro doesn't show any compelling distinction. Prefer actual philosophers to the UN. As Mill said, we show how we value life by applying the most stringent penalties to those who violate it. Pro argues that we should look the UN for our morals but ignores that when the document was first issued virtually every nation has capital punishment. The right to life is not absolute and certain egregious crimes can cause one to lose it. Pro says that prison is a "living hell' but if it really was we should see a lot more inmates waiving their appeals and accepting their deaths. They don't. The death penalty gives society another tool to punish it's worst human rights violaters. Opponents caseCostPro doesn't refute that the average murder costs society about $17.2 million. I've already proven that death is a greater deterrent than life imprisonment due to almost all prisoners steadfastingly resisting it. The costs of an actual death penalty using the appeals process is about $500,000 more than life without parole using the incredibly generous trial costs in favor of my opponents. Thus if the death penalty deters even 1/34th more murder than life without parole does, society comes out on top economically. I think from the logic of the deterrence argument it's safe to assume that at least this small amount of murders will be deterred, rendering the economic argument moot. Pro's numbers are extremely questionable anyway. There's been some confusion on his $3000 dollars for a *murder trial* source, what I meant to say is that if you go to the *original source* from the Death Penalty Information Center, even the original source does not back up it's ridiculous assertion that murder trials cost $3000 other than "court officials say so". As my other evidence has shown, there's no way that's true. The Dunn trial for example cost $100,000. Automobile *civil trials* cost on average $15,000. I'm being extremely generous in not just throwing my opponents numbers out the window for lack of validity, but even assuming they're true I save society more green in the long run. Pro responds to plea bargaining by asserting that even with it the death penalty still costs more. First even if this is true it mitigates his impact and secondly I'm coming out on top on the economy argument. The effect of plea bargaining cost offsets means that I have to deter or prevent even fewer murders to still win the cost argument. Over 10% more trials end with guilty pleas when we have a death penalty. DeterrenceMost of this argument is taken out in my argument above. If life imprisonment was actually worse than death, the rational thing for most inmates to do would be to commit suicide. They don't. Pro hasn't given any warrants whatsoever for why life imprisonment would be considered a worse sentence than death, so you have to prefer my anaylsis because I actually warranted it. InnocenceMy turn on this argument is the best reason to vote Con. Life imprisonment doesn't protect the innocent better than death does. Life sentences are given with less scrutiny applied to the evidence and yet there is a *far smaller* exoneration proportion from life sentences than from death (.35% vs. 3%). If I lock someone up for the rest of their life I've effectively ended their life just as much as I would have had I just killed them. Life imprisonment results in locking people up, throwing away the key, and never looking back. The death penalty results in applying extra scrutiny to every case at every level to ensure that only the guilty get executed. Pro hasn't proven even a single wrongful death stemming from this impact. Prefer my lives saved as we have reason to believe they actually happen. Pro also fails to refute that there hasn't been an innocent condemned to die that we know of for over a decade. Jurors are increasingly reluctant to sentence someone to die without extremely solid evidence which is why death sentences have been on the decline for quite some time. Jurors are more comfortable sending someone to life imprisonment even if the evidence isn't that solid because they figure that eventually the truth will out itself and the innocents will be freed while the guilty will remain behind bars. The evidence shows that, empirically, that's not the case. If you value the freedom of innocents you need to vote Con. Thanks for the debate Pro.