The Death Penalty Should Be Eliminated

My argumentsDeath Penalty is JustI never said "The criminals should be punished with exactly what they committed". Not all murderers receive the death penalty, only the ones who cross a further line must be put to death. So it's not "eye for an eye". Punishment proportional to the crime's seriousness is exactly how the law works. Tell me, what is the difference between someone who serves ten years in prison and someone serving two years, if not the one who committed more serious crime will be put in prison for longer? Therefore, death penalty is not revenge, it's a punishment for someone who deserves it. If that is not justice, then I don't know what is.Pro suggested an alternative for the death penalty: "put him in solitary confinement for twenty three and a half hours a day", and denying him other needs. This is torture. Now we have something clearly morally wrong, devaluing human life and unconstitutional. Pro said it himself: "worse than death". So he wants to abolish the death penalty then replace it with something even worse?Death Penalty deter crimesPro said the studies I cited are outdated. Unless someone can prove that the related circumstances have changed so much that those results are no longer true, it's not outdated.* 88% of criminologists think that the death penalty does not deter crimeThose are nothing but their opinions. We can not simply trust someone's opinion just because who he is. If I were a criminologist, would I automatically win this debate? Obviously not. Therefore, those people, whoever they are, need to present their studies and explain why they think that way instead of a simple "yes" or "no". Otherwise, their opinions don't really worth anything.* American states that utilize the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states that do not have the death penaltyAnd Venezuela, the first country abolishing the death penalty, has a very high murder rate while Japan, a country having the capital punishment, has a very low one. You can say that Japan and Venezuela are different, then I will say that Massachusetts and Louisiana are different. That is the point. Homicide rates are affected by a lot of factors. In order to know whether the death penalty deters crimes we need to compare the homicide rates in the same state when it has and has not the capital punishment. And someone already did that. Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh of Emory University and Joanna Shepherd of Clemson University, after analysing the panel data covering the fifty states from 1960 to 2000, found out that the murder rate increases when the death penalty is abolished and decreases when it is reinstated [1]. The following figure is taken from their study: In another study, Joana Shepherd found out that the death penalty "deters murders previously believed to be undeterrable: crimes of passion and murders by intimates" [2].The second part of Pro's argument is "common sense", or I should say "his assumption". I would like Pro to include some evidence to back it up, especially after I've presented some studies that states otherwise.RebuttalsMoralityI don't really understand what Pro tried to argue here.* 63% of Americans support the death penalty, forcing more than a third of us to kill against our willSorry, that is how democracy works. Policies are chosen by majority and the rest are forced to obey whether they like it or not. Otherwise, I think we should abolish the president election too.* If murder is a crime in the US (which it is) and killing is wrong, then it makes no sense, morally or in any other way, to punish murder with murderI have to say it again: Not all killing are murder, and the death penalty is not murder. So we do not punish murder with murder.Then we come back to the paradox, what Pro said in Round 1 is:1/ Because killing is crime so the state is committing crime2/ Because the state commits crime so the taxplayers are guilty too (I already said I can debate with him about this but it's not necessary)3/ Because we are guilty of killing so we deserve death too (his own word: "When we are guilty of killing, we also must be put to death")Obviously the paradox need all three above conditions to be true. But I pointed out that the third one is false: Not all guilty of killing will be put to death. So no paradox.Capital punishment is unconstitutionalEighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. [3]Cruel and Unusual Punishment:Such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. [4]The death penalty is only applied to the ones who deserve it. It does not cause suffering or humiliation to the person subjected to it. It does not "shock the moral sense of the community" either (according to Pro, 63% of the Americans support the death penalty so I think it's safe to assume that it's not shocking enough).Fifth Amendment:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [5]I fail to see how the death penalty violates the Fifth Amendment.There are innocent people on death rowTwo people are exonerated from the death row in 2012, not "Two people are sentenced to death (wrongfully) in 2012". Seth Penalver was convicted in 1994 while Damon Thibodeaux was convicted in 1997. Looking at the list of people recently exonerated, most of them were convicted before 2000 and many of them are proven innocent by using DNA testing. [6]Yes, nothing is 100% right, but nowaday DNA testing and other methods help us accurately find out whether someone is the true culprit. If you doubt the DNA testing, then maybe Damon Thibodeaux is not innocent at all.[1] "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a 'Judicial Experiment'", Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Joanna Shepherd (2003)[2] "Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment", Joanna Shepherd (2003)[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[4] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[5] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[6] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...