The death penalty should exist

It appears to me that my opponent has plagiarised literally everything in his case except for his opening two paragraphs. He cites where it all came from, but he made no arguments of his own, and I ask the gentle voter to keep this in mind when voting. To me, it appears as though this breaks rule 4 where it states "keep appropriate conduct", and the general DDO community says that plagiarism is not valid conduct.An easy way to check if he has plagiarised is to look up the phrase "is there any way one can tell" in his argument, and then on the death penalty source he has, and find that not only this quote, but the entire paragraph is plagiarised. If that is a bit too tedious, you can look for the phrase "L960" (not 1960, the 1 is an L), and you will find this mistake in both arguments. Regardless of this severe breach in conduct, I will begin to rebut points that he has stolen.Frank Carrington.Quote I. What Frank is saying in this quote is that nobody has to prove that deterrence from crime exists or doesn't exist because it is wholly impossible. This is in fact completely untrue, in both that the respect that neither side has the burden and that it is impossible to calculate or infer this kind of deterrence. The burden should be shared and it should exist. Make bare assertions that there is or isn't a deterrence in crime is fallacious at its very core. H. Lee Sarokin, a former US Court of Appeals Judge as well as a former US District Court Judge, says on this subject, "In my view deterrence plays no part whatsoever. Persons contemplating murder do not sit around the kitchen table and say I won't commit this murder if I face the death penalty, but I will do it if the penalty is life without parole. I do not believe persons contemplating or committing murder plan to get caught or weigh the consequences". Basically what he is saying is that a person will not commit murder if the punishment is more strict or not, because they do not think about the future at all. He is saying that deterrence is not a logical thing that exists if we have the death penalty or not [1].Quote 2.There is no logical thinking here. He is saying that if there is a bigger punishment then people will be deterred by crime, yet it is logical to assume that the crime rate will not be impacted at all, as shown by Mr. Sarokin. If there is a bigger punishment, murderers will not care, they will still commit these atrocious crimes.Justice Stewart.Justice Stewart is saying in his quote that there is a deterrence in murders from having the death penalty. Not from murderers that act in passion or in the moment, but from cold calculated hitmen. If this is true (which I do not think so, as I will point out soon), then, as The Straight Dope reports, about 3.2% of all murders prosecuted on the federal level are hitmen, which Mr. Stewart is saying will be deterred from murdering if we had the death penalty [2]. However, I ask the gentle voter: does this 3.2% outweigh the lives of the 4.1% that are posthumously declared innocent? If we kill more innocent people than people that would be deterred, we are seriously in a problem, and the death penalty would do just that.When a hitman is planning a hit, he is not thinking about what will happen if he gets caught. He is not weighing death versus life in prison, because both are pretty bad places. If the chance of death is there, he may charge more for a murder and be even more sneaky about it than if there was not a death penalty. This means that he is able to kill around the same amount of people, yet cover up his tracks even better. This would lead to us not actually catching he man and have even more dead people.Crime rate increaseI first have to ask: how is "Internet" a source for this information that you got? I cannot verify this content at all because of poor sourcing, so I ask the voter to keep this in mind. It is impossible for me to be able to verify what you are even talking about.My opponent is employing a logical fallacy - that is, the slippery slope fallacy. If X leads to Y, and Y is bad, X should not exist. If a lack of death penalty leads to more crime (which has been shown to not be true), then we should allow the death penalty, as if this is the only solution to the current crime epidemic in the United States. I propose that we rehabilitate offenders and the problem will be solved better than the death penalty. My opponent's argument about needing the death penalty is not true, thus is effectively rebutted against.Free WillUnrelated contention to this debate, I ask the voter to not consider this at all.Deterrent in 27 StatesMy opponent says that because some studies conducted 50-80 years ago say the death penalty deters crime, then we should allow the death penalty. In terms of validity, and I think my opponent would agree, a study conducted more recently would hold much more weight than one done years and years ago.Michael L. Radelet, PhD, found in 2001 that the vast majority of the world's top criminologists believe that the death penalty is not a deterrent (88.2% total), where only 9.2% answered that it is a significant deterrent. If the experts in this field find it not to be a deterrent, then it most likely is not one, because of their expertise [3].Death FearedWhen someone commits a murder, they do not expect to be caught because they have covered most of their tracks. They fear death, I admit, but they do not think they will be caught regardless if the death penalty is intact. They do not actively think, as Mr. Sarokin says, that they will only commit this murder if the death penalty does not exist. That is ridiculous to imagine.Innocent Executed - no ProofI have linked to proof of this, so this entire contention is void. Besides, this is effectively a rebuttal to my case, not a real point, and this breaks rule 5 which says that one must accept debate structure, and you have broken this. I ask the voter to keep this in mind while voting.[1]. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]. http://www.straightdope.com...[3]. http://www.colorado.edu...I remind the voter to keep in mind of the plagiarism that my opponent has had for the entirety of his case while voting, as well as the breach in structure. Thank you, back to you, pro.