The United States should retain usage of the Death Penalty

Thanks blackvoid, now I'll refute your case.C1. DamageA. Con contends that since executioners have in the past committed suicide, this proves that the DP results in the deaths of innocents. First off, nowhere has it been proven that the executions are what caused the suicides. Indeed, people commit suicide all the time. What's interesting, is not that not only is his source staunchly anti-DP, it also provides no evidence that these suicides even happened! It does not even give the names of these people who committed suicide or even a date, so we cannot look them up to see if it's true, or to see what the actual reasoning behind their suicide was. So until Con provides real evidence for this, consider this point dropped. Con gives a quote from a former executioner, about the emotional trauma. This is a good example for Con's point, however it is just that, an example. Con provides one example of how this can harm executioners emotionally. When looking at all the benefits from the DP as indicated in my case, you can see quite clearly that this point is vastly outweighed.B. Con tries to show how witnessing an execution can be harmful. First of all, his "study" that he linked is cited as "ibid". I have no idea what that means, so until Con provides actual evidence for this point consider it dropped as well. Secondly, even if Con wins on this point, this doesn't show that we should abolish the death penalty, rather it merely shows that we should stop allowing witnesses. It would be beyond foolish to abolish the DP because of a problem with such a simple solution. C. Con tries to argue that since it's hard for the criminal family to see them executed, we shouldn't do it. How absurd. Surely it's hard for them to see their loved one in prison as well, but we shouldn't abolish prisons. Perhaps the psychological trauma truly comes from the fact that their loved one brutally murdered an innocent person. When considering this point, we must think about who is to blame in all this. The only person to blame is the criminal. It's sad that the family has to suffer, but the criminal chose to commit a crime punishable by death in our society. We can;t let justice be obstructed for this reason. As for the families of the victims, their wishes are ir-relevent. If the punishment handed down by our justice system is consistent with their ideology, than so much the better, if not than that's unfortunate. To give an example of why the families wishes cannot always be honored, I know for a fact that if anyone ever killed my mother or sister, my father would want to kill the murderer himself, most likely painfully. This certainly undermines Cons position, and if we are to take the wishes of the family into account, than we would have to honor this wish as well. Also, heres a link containing over 350 quotes from victims family members in support of the death penalty[1]. C2. Death qualified juriesI ask the judges to completely drop this point. If you look at the definition Con provides, he has overlooked a very crucial part. Here is a definition of what it takes to be a death-qualified juror. You must not be a person who is: "1. not categorically opposed to the imposition of capital punishment; and 2. not of the belief that the death penalty must be imposed in all instances of capital murder."[2][3] So jurors must be willing to consider both the death penalty, and life imprisonment. This makes sense, because those are the only two punishments that can arrise from a first degree murder conviction. The reason that all jurors must be willing to consider the death penalty, is to ensure that they will not vote for a not guilty veridict, just because they do not want the defendant to possibly be sentenced to death. (my Opponents source says that itself.)A. This is all explained above. Cons own source states that those excluded from a jury in a capital case are "Those indicating that their views on capital punishment would preclude them from rendering an impartial verdict on the defendant’s guilt or innocence (i.e., whether he actually did the criminal act, rather than what punishment he should receive) were also excluded."B.Con says that Jurors are more likely to convict in a capital case. While his evidence indicates this to be true, how do we know that the death qualification is responsible? That is to say, could it be that a conviction is more likely in a capital case due to the fact that the prosecution spends quite alot more in capital cases than otherwise? Capital cases are also more likely to get the best prosecuters, so logically the reasoning behind a higher conviction rate is simply because that the state performs better in a Capital case than otherwise. Even if this point seems to still stand, it can easily be fixed by eliminating the need for a death qualification in a capital case. This point provides no compelling reason to abolish capital punishment. C3. MoralityA.Con tries to show electrocution to be barbaric and cruel. Not only did the Supreme Court find electrocution to not be cruel and unusual punishment[4], but electrocution is a method that is used increasingly rarely, so this point falls.In his attack on lethal injection, my Opponent brings up Maryland as an example. What's interesting about that is that according to DPIC, Maryland currently has a moratorium on executions until it decides on new lethal injection protocol.[5] This shows that the better way to solve these problems is to.. *drumroll* solve them! Rather than abolish the penalty, fix the method if it's so cruel! B.Con wants us to condemn the DP based on an exception to the rule. Con wants us to abolish the ultimate penalty based on a 3.4% failure rate (43/1261). The only specific example provided by Con is an execution by lethal gas, which is, like electrocution, used extremely rarely. Con wants us to condemn the DP based on the claim that "Sometimes multiple injections are required, and this magnifies the pain the prisoner often experiences." Because the prisoner might, in very rare scenarios, have to feel a needle piercing his skin more than once, we should abolish the DP. This impact is incredibly outweighed by the innocent lives saved through the DP. In conclusion, my Opponent's contentions are refuted, they are all exceptions, and even if they all still stand they only offer reasoning to alter our protocol for the Death Penalty, not to abolish it. I urge a Pro vote. Thank you. Sources:1. http://pro-dp.appspot.com...2. http://definitions.uslegal.com...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...