The death penalty should be abolished in the United States of America

Counter-RebutallsR.C 1Con has to prove that all Americans would agree that rehabilitation is more desirable. I'm sure there is a difference in killing of a murderer, and an innocent man. The first guy, I mentioned violated the law of the United States. therefore is subject the laws of the country. Con is saying that morals are subjective to each person, however the majority of Americans, do favor this punishment. It would make sense to suit the majority population. Not all homicide cases are ruled eligible for the DP. Only those in which the Jury decides are deemed eligible. So, to a certain extent, Americans are not against rehabilation. R.C 2 To begin with, Pro's source does not work, and him providing the source had 0 relavance to his rebutall. Pro seems to interpret that that the execution rates, directly effect the homicide rate. This comparison itself is wrong. If you go back to my earlier round, I said each execution is associated with 3 fewer murders, so, the execution prevented an additional 3 murders. Another professor, John Lott, confirmed these trends. He estimated, that after calculating all other variables, the DP actually prevented 12% to 14% of crime that could have occured in the 90's, when the crime rate was quite high. In this case, the DP actually prevented murders from occuring in the first place. (1) Also, Pro is literally using statistics that range across 50 states. This itself is unfair, because some states had the DP, and some did not. Some states already had high crime rates, and some had some lower ones. What we really need to look at, is which states witnessed a larger drop in crime. I already proved in the first round, DP states witnessed a larger drop in crime, than the states without the DP. Although not 100% accurate, it is more accurate in determining whether the DP deters crime, rather than comparing all 50 states, and stating the DP does not deter crime. Therectically speaking, even if the DP prevented 1 murder from occuring, that would count as detterance. What Pro is trying to say is that it the overall murder rate still rose, but this was also occured when the United States temporally abolished the DP, there isn't a clear correlation in Pro's statement that shows the DP did not deter crime, because he compared the entire countries homicide rate and did not take in factor, when the DP was abolished temporally. Regarding my opponent rebutall for Recidivism, no where did I state that non-violent criminals should be subject of the DP. This simply is a assumption. I even stated, "Out of those, 1.2% of those convicted of homicide were arrested for another homicide within three years of release.(5) These stats are quite high, as reoffending rates for homicide who re-offend between 6 months jump up to 12.5%. Even with the 22.5% of violent crime cases, that still is a very high number, considering that 22.5% of 300,00 is around 50 to 60 K of prisoners who reoffended. Also, my Pro ignores when I said "1.2% of homicides were arrested "within three years of release" So, the stats he gave are only for those within 3 years of release. I already mentioned earlier, reoffending rates for homicide who re-offend between 6 months jump up to 12.5%. Pro concedes my arguments regarding prisoners who murdered other prisoners while in prison themselves. So far, Pro has not really refuted how the DP actually prevents recidivism, but rather it does it small amount. This itself is a concession, and Pro actually misquoted what I said, so the numbers are much higher than what he proposed.R.C 3I was not actually referring to graph itself when I said that, but Pro can look at the graph he provided us to understand how the murder rate rose. Pro's graph regarding executions isn't entirely accurate either, because I mentioned before, the DP is simply one of the variables that effect the crime rate, not the only one. I already demostrated, that most non-DP states, already had lower crime rates than DP states, so simply saying the DP does not reduce crime, because of that, is incorrect. All of these arguments get refuted by the source I provided earlier. DP states witnessed a larger drop in crime, than non-DP states. It may not be the only variable that went into factor, but it certainly did factor in the detterance. Since the BOP is on Pro, he needs to show that abolishing the DP would not play any factor in the crime rates. He has yet to do it, because he compared different states, with either very high or very low murder rates, and came to the conclusion the DP does not deter crime, even though other state he mentioned already had a lower crime rate, compared the other one. (reffering to the Texas and Vermont comparision)So far, I do not believe Pro has provided substancial evidence for the DP to be abolished in the United States. I have already refuted that the costs of LWP do not factor Plea Bargaining, and even in some juristrictions, the cost for LWP and DP are the same. I have shown that the # of lives saved from the the DP, is far more than the wrongful executions, and Capital punishment states witnessed a larger drop in crime that their counterparts. For these reasons I mentioned above, I believe that the DP should remain, as it serves as a detterance to crime.Thank you Midnight for this debate.Note* My stat regarding 67% of DR prisoners are released is false. Please disregard thatSources (also from my previous round) .http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.........http://www.jstor.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.aclunc.org...http://www.fbi.gov......... http://www.bus.lsu.edu......... http://www.wesleylowe.com......... http://www.pnas.org.........http://www.ucrdatatool.gov...; http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......http://www.cato-unbound.org......... http://www.cjlf.org......... . Sorensen, Jonathan R., and Rocky LeAnn Pilgrim. Lethal Injection: Capital Punishment in Texas during the Modern Era. Austin, TX: University of Texas, 2006. http://www.soc.iastate.edu......... http://www.heritage.org.........