These United States should retain the Death Penalty for murder.

These are my reasons for objecting to the death penalty - I know there are others. This debate has really come down to two issues. The first is the "moral" harm caused by (or reduced by) the death penalty, where "moral" has been our little buzzword for "saves the most innocents. " The second is the issue of "guilt," stemming from my accusation that the death penalty transfers the guilt from the convict to the state. I agree with my opponent that the first issue is more important than the second, however, the second cannot be dismissed just because it is less important than the first. Moral harmInnocents saved by stopping reoffendingThis was my opponent's only big point. I told you that murderers will always be running around murdering people, death penalty or no death penalty, so having 1% more won't make a big difference. Last round he states that since my link showed 9 wrongly executed people, the recidivism rate is double that for murder. Obviously he did not look at my link very carefully. It gives 9 examples of wrongly executed people - there are others. And that's just the people we have so far found strong evidence for. As I stated last round, and as Antonin Scalia pointed out in the New York Times, the number of falsely executed people can never be known. Innocents killed by mistakeI told you that as judges are not impartial and make mistakes, innocents will be killed with the death penalty. My opponent boldly (pun) states that judges are actually qualified to determine guilt or innocents so they won't make mistakes. Sorry, but even the experts make mistakes. Politicians are experts at politics, and just look at how many mistakes they make. Besides, the vast majority of the cases on the site I linked are backed up by evidence that wouldn't have been available at the trial, or even before the execution. You can't expect judges to know evidence that they are not given. Aside from that, his only rebuttal was to appeal to the fact that he thinks he has won the last point. Think again. Besides, the last point doesn't dismiss this one, only reduces it. Deterrance vs Mass brutalisationCan I first state how amusing it is to read that my opponent won't respond to examples from outside of the United States, which I gave as a response to his example in round one from . .. outside the United States (the European abolishion of life without parole). Yet another double standard. Besides, the United States really needs to do something about its homicide rates, where other countries have shown it an effective answer that has never yet failed, which is completely relevant given the wide range of conditions that exist in all the countries and states that have abolished the death penalty. He calls my evidence dubious and misleading - which is strange because my link on this point was to a peer-reviewed academic paper, whereas his was to a sensasionalist media site. This evidence proves that there is no causation, only correlation. It also proves that where there is correlation, it more often favors my side of the argument than yours. Therefore I find it strange to assert that "I have shown that a trend of deterrence exists" with no further explaination. These inconsistancies in my opponent's case aside, my opponent claims to have had more logic on this point in the debate. People don't like to die, criminals stop and think about how crappy dieing would be before they commit their murder, and therefore decide not to murder. Sorry, but that isn't logic. That's a fairy-tale. First, criminals don't stop and think. Second, it's empirically false - I gave examples from individual US states, between US states, and between countries to show that the fairytale doesn't match up to reality. My logic is that we can see it happening. Anything else, as I say, is statistical over-analysis. The bottom lineThe death penalty kills many more innocents than it saves. The death penalty brutalises society, kills innocents, and murderers are still going to kill. GuiltState takes on guiltI told you that states who commit the crimes they punish are responsible for those crimes. I told you that unless this responsibility is used to repair the harm, rather than giving the murderer what they deserve, the use of that power is wrong on moral grounds. Prison is a reformative punishment because the harm of going to prison creates guilt. Death is a retributive punishment because it does nothing to repair the harm done, and only creates more harm. I told you that this is supported by the declaration of independance, where the right to life is an inalienable right. While it does say that there is a right to liberty, the concept of liberty presupposes a way of life, and therefore life as opposed to death. My opponent's counter-analysis was essentially that the constitution says that if it happens you need to have a grand jury, therefore it must happen. Doesn't really follow. All that follows is that it happened. In days gone by, humans did do some pretty crazy things. I'm not saying it isn't important - it is - but it needs to be a living document, adapted to new situations as they arise, rather than an ancient one collecting dust. We don't need to keep alive an inhumane custom just so as to give effect to a law in the constitution restricting said inhumane custom. Indeed I think we should re-word the amendment just a little more strongly so as to do away with capital punishment, as is consistant with the declaration. He also tells us that murder is only murder when committed against somebody who is innocent. That's stupid. If you owed me $10 and were behind on your repayments, could I legally murder you? No. Even if you were a murderer, I would still be prosecuted if I murdered you. This is the double standard I'm talking about. It doesn't matter how humanely I kill the murderer, I will be prosecuted nonetheless. The only other thing he said was that murder is self-defence. I told you that would only be true if there was no other option. Then my opponent (last round) stated the other option doesn't defend the state because prison guards die. That's like saying we shouldn't eat fish because fishermen die. The harm of 1.2% is outweighed by the 98.8%. The contention stands. Criminals don'tMy point was that we, and particulary the victim's family, need the prisoner to feel remorse and guilt for their crimes. This does not happen with the death penalty because you can't feel remorse once you're dead. My opponent states murderers are beyond feeling remorse. He gave no evidence to support that. 98.8% of inmates must forsake their life of crime for a reason. The only other thing he does is appeal to his moral harm point. First, I won that point. Second, that's no reason to dismiss this argument. The bottom lineThe death penalty is a calculated means by which a murderer can escape facing up to his crimes. No harm is repaired, no guilt is faced, and the purpose of the justice system is defeated. The BIG finaleFirst, let me say it has been an honor to debate my opponent, who has done an excellent job of explaining what benefits there are to the death penalty, and has always responded promptly. The only problem is that these benefits are ephermal at best, and are massively outweighed by the harms that I have shown in all my substantive rounds.