The Death Penalty Should stay legal.

Now that Pro has presented his initial argument, I will go on and dive into a few issues I have with the presentation. Pro's main argument appears to be that the Death Penalty will lower crime rates in certain areas, because of the natural human's imminent fear of death. This, in some cases, is true. However, as Pro mentioned in his argument, when faced with a situation requiring a quick (and sometimes impulsive) decision, the mind makes clouded decisions. Especially in our current court and legal system, Con argues that there would still be a considerable amount of instances where murder is committed because of an impulsive decision. Con also argues that being threatened with a life sentence would be more effective in the containment of crime rates, not using such an impractical technique to punish those who made decisions that weren't well thought through. Con argues that being put to death is an unusually cruel punishment for a decision that wasn't consciously thought through. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that a mass murderer should be given a second chance in the real world because he made an 'unconscious decision.' However, in retrospect on most cases, murder was obviously not the clear decision that a normal human would make. Pro argued that being faced by the Death Penalty would indefinitely lower crime rates. However, Pro holds no ground on this argument. It IS a fact that there is no credible evidence that the Death Penalty deters crimes more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have the Death Penalty do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. Any claim that execution deters crime or murder rates have been thoroughly discredited through social science research. Pro further argued that it would generally better the public community to have someone who got charged with murder executed. The problem with this claim, Pro, is that we do not live in that sort of society any longer. Pro's argument is that who's to say that the person won't commit the crime again? Well, who's to say the person WON'T commit the crime again? Think about this. Somebody gets charged with murder and has their life ended for a decision that wasn't clearly made, or maybe even never happened. As Con argued earlier, since 1973 (in the U.S.), 138 people (in 2008) and counting had been released from death row due to contradicting evidence that was found later. To put that into clear view, that is 1 innocent person for every 7 executed. Con stands ground that death isn't the solution to someone who has been charged with murder, as it only further shows that killing is the answer to a problem. Pro stated that putting someone charged with murder in prison, more often than not does not rehabilitate them or enforce proper means of punishment. Con argues that a lifetime of imprisonment is an effective means of punishing someone convicted with murder. Not only this, but Pro failed to mention the cost of both means of punishment. Regardless of all methods, it is proven that the death penalty IS a net expense to the state and taxpayers. The process and cost for the Death Penalty is just impractical in our society compared to imprisonment. For a Death Penalty case: -More Pre-trial time -More experts -Twice as many attorneys -2 Trials instead of one are conducted: One for guilt, and one for punishment -And of course a series of appeals during the containment of the inmates in death row. This brings Con to the next argument: Attorneys. A whopping TWO out of three death penalty convictions have been overturned on appeal because of police and prosecution misconduct, not to mention incompetent court-appointed attorneys with little experience in capital cases. How is our country supposed to provide correct forms of justice when they cannot even supply attorney suited for the case? http://deathpenalty.procon.org... Con holds all previous arguments made.