The United States should retain usage of the Death Penalty

Thanks to Thett for his response. I'll refute his case then defend mine.Observation: The resolution says "The US should retain the Death Penalty", not "With reforms, the US should retain the Death Penalty". Pro repeatedly tries to wave his magic wand and say we can change this, change that. However the resolution suggests that we are debating the death penalty as it is now, not how it can be in some imaginary world. This also keeps the debate realistic as it allows us to debate the death penalty as it is actually used. C1A: Capital Punishment keeps a killer from striking again. "1.2% of those convicted of homicide were arrested for another homicide within three years of their release"Turn his first source. According to it, over 70% of thieves reoffend after their release. So murderers = 1.2%, and thieves = 70%. Under his logic, we are justified in executing burglars and larcenists. In fact, his source says that murderers have the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal. So empirically, they are the ones least likely to strike again. If pro wants to kill murderers because they can reoffend, the stats say we should kill everyone who ever commits a crime. Many drug traffickers and extortionists have escaped from prison. Some of these have killed people during their tenure. It doesn't justify execution; it justifies improving the system. Most criminals spend well over a decade on Death Row, so they can escape under a DP system anyway.C1B: DeterrenceStudies1. Only 40-60 executions happen in a year (2). This is a terrible sample space to draw conclusions from.2. Any deterrence study should be tossed because their conclusions are dependant upon the subjective opinion of the writer. His own source says that "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend." Meaning, if a pro-DP writer wants to find stats that support his position, he will find and twist numbers until he gets what he wants. If an Anti-DP writer wants to say that it actually increases murder, he will also find a way to finalize the conclusion he is looking for.3. Simple logic would state that the death penalty doesn't deter. Criminals do not plan on getting caught when they commit the crime, so possible punishment doesn't matter. My logical analysis has already won; pro only gave statistics with no reasoning.Statistics1. A lot of things contribute to homicide rates. One reason more executions may occur is that more murderers are being arrested in the first place, and thus have a chance of being sent to death. In that case, a decrease in crime may be a factor of the increased arrest rate, or risk of being caught. Its near impossible to isolate the Death Penalty as the only variable that determines murder rates, so all of his evidence commits the Correlation/Causation fallacy.2. If you dont buy that, buy this. Since 1990, states with the death penalty have had higher murder rates than states without it, 100% of the time (3). Currently, DP states have 35% higher murder rates.C2A: If the Death Penalty is abolished, the next thing to go will be life without parole1. The United States incarcerates more criminals than any other country, and does so for longer periods of time. Historically, we are tougher on crime than anyone. One report from an Anti-Jail group will not change this mindset; life without parole is here to stay. 2. Remember that murderers have the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal. So them being released early is just as logical as releasing trespassers.3. The Pamela Moss example is flawed. James Moore has been denied parole 14 straight times. This shows that the system is still smart enough to know who they shouldnt release.Sub point B preempts an argument I'm not making. So lets go to the Con case.Con case:C1: Psychological damageA. ExecutionersStraw man. Pro spends a whole paragraph on Suicide. However, I had one sentence on suicide. I had six on mental trauma, which was dropped. My key argument is unanswered; the death penalty causes psychological damage to executioners; the experience is extremely traumatic. Pro wants links to the executioners who killed themselves. Here (4,5). Additionally, trauma from killing other people would magnify any stress coming from other life issues. So even if being an executioner might not be the only cause of suicide, its a strong contributing factor.Pro thinks I only gave one example. However, I linked my source and pointed out how multiple executioners are suffering from the death penalty.B. Witnesses"Ibid" means it is in the previous source. I've already answered his "oh, well we can change that" argument. So extend: People watch executions and suffer from it.C. FamiliesThe emotional reaction from seeing a loved one go to prison is much less than seeing a loved one die. While the family isn't happy on both sides, I at least assure them that their loved one is still alive. Through this, I ultimately prevent more psychological damage than my opponent, who kills them off and scars the family forever. While some families do support the death penalty, the goal is to prevent psychological damage, not be democratic. If my opponent's father, who he referenced, wanted a criminal to die but he only went to prison, he may be unhappy. However, he will not be an emotional wreck. In contrast, if he is categorically opposed to the death penalty but the criminal was sent there anyway, he will be distraught knowing that there are now two dead bodies he didnt want. My (dropped) evidence empirically proves this.C2: Death Penalty juriesPro just restates my definition. Yes, to be a death qualified juror you must be able to support and use the death penalty, or life imprisonment. A. ImpartialPro's quote is meaningless. While the definition says jurors are "supposed" to be impartial, my evidence proves that jurors in DP cases actually aren't. They are empirically looking for a conviction which makes death penalty cases inherently biased.B. BiasedPro thinks other things can contribute to jurors convicting defendants more often in capital cases. Well, he dropped my analysis explaining why it was specific to the death penalty: "Jurors are so eager to exercise their belief towards capital punishment, that they ignore possible doubts of the defendant's guilt." He doesn't refute my analysis so we must assume this to be a cause of the 44% increase. This means more innocents die on the pro side. C3: MoralityA. Methods of executionBased off this, you can vote Con right here. He drops the argument that morality requires the most humane option. He also drops that Life in Prison is a better moral alternative to Quartering and burning at the stake. So, if our current methods of execution are just as inhumane as those, this is an independent reason to vote Con.Electric chairPro brings up the Supreme Court ruling. This is an Appeal to authority AND misinterpretation. The Supreme Court saying the Chair is OK doesn't mean the Chair is OK. Additionally, the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional, not what is moral. So they dont apply to this debate. Lethal injection is the primary execution method, but electrocution is still used occasionally. He has not attacked my logic of the Chair being cruel and barbaric; my point stands.Lethal injectionThis is the biggest point in the round. He has dropped and therefore conceded that lethal injection is extremely painful and inhumane. Since he has also conceded that morality prohibits inhumane behavior in place of an alternative (life in prison), it is proven that lethal injection is immoral. Lethal injection encompasses 97% of all executions (6), so he has basically conceded that the death penalty is immoral 97% of the time. Um, vote Con?I will again thank my opponent for his response and look forward to his final round.1. http://bitURL.net...2. http://bitURL.net...3. http://bitURL.net...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...