States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty

Thanks to my opponent for his response. Opening Statement:In order to understand why we might want to, or why we shouldn't, hobble prosecutors in the manner that Pro suggests, we need to understand why prosecutors currently pursue the death penalty, or offer don't, and why they offer plea bargains. While not an exhaustive list (I'm sure hypotheticals can be conceived of a convoluted nature), in general a prosecutor goes for the death penalty when: A- The crime itself is heinous enough to warrant it AND B- There are no mitigating circumstances. (To understand the second, an example: if one man kills three in cold blood, but only because they are his daughter's rapists, then the prosecutor may go for life in prison. Though the crime was heinous, there is a mitigating circumstance.). A case where the crime is heinous enough to warrant it, and there are no mitigating circumstances, may nonetheless get a plea bargain if: 1- There is uncertainty how the jury will rule (which doesn't mean that the prosecutor is uncertain of the accused's guilt, but rather, knows human nature well enough that he has concerns they will rule in ways that seem inconsistent with the evidence presented. Such a situation leads the prosecutor to accept a plea in order to obtain a measure of certain justice, rather than run the risk of losing it completely) OR 2- There are public perception problems in one way or another (perhaps the public thinks that the case is racially motivated, or religiously motivated. That might lead them to see more leeway in point 3, below, than they would otherwise). OR 3- The crime is technically heinous enough, but within a gray area where a prison sentence might still be an acceptable outcome; in which case the prosecutor may offer a plea bargain that benefits the state and the defendant. A plea bargain may be seen, thus, as a compromise. "Don't make us go through a trial, which we would rather not do for one of a myriad of reasons, and in exchange you will have a lighter sentence". However, in a case where the crime is heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, and there are no mitigating circumstances, and there is almost no question how the jury will rule due to the character of the case, there is no incentive for the State, as represented by the Prosecutor's office, to offer a bargain: their goal is justice, and if they have decided the most just outcome is the death sentence, and that there is no good reason to accept anything less, why should they be forced to?Pro suggests that prosecutors be prohibited from ever going for the death penalty for those who plead guilty. This would have the net effect of making the death penalty nonexistent for the ones who are most likely to qualify for it: Those against whom the state has the most compelling and most complete evidence of heinousness.First Rebuttals:My opponent thinks that death is only warranted to people struggling against the state. This completely ignores the stated goal of the justice system. There isn't, nor should there be, "punishment" for proclaiming your innocence, which is what Pro is advocating. Pro claims "there has always been a standing moral rule, when someone gives up, the violence stops", and that's flatly not true. There have been executions in human society since pretty much forever. The analogies he has drawn fail for lack of similarity: the death penalty is not some inherent, incidental consequence of a not guilty plea, but rather for the crime itself.The soldier's job is to neutralize the enemy. That killing the enemy is generally necessary to do that does not mean that an enemy who has neutralized himself by giving up should be shot because, again, the killing is incidental to the goal, it is not the goal itself, the neutralization is. The same is true for the police officer: his goal is to neutralize the criminal and take him or her into custody. If the criminal gives up, that goal is achieved. It is not his goal to kill the criminal, although that may be necessary. The killing is incidental to the goal, it is not the goal itself, the apprehension is. The goal of the justice system is to see that justice is done as much as possible. If the death penalty is, in general, a sound proposition, as Pro agreed to, then hobbling the prosecution in the manner proposed by Pro does not serve to further that goal. Justice is the goal, and the killing may expressly be the means of achieving that goal.Take the case my opponent is speaking of specifically (The Colorado movie-theater shooter). There may be mitigating circumstances here such as mental illness. But it is not those things that Pro is advocating for as affecting his ultimate sentence, but rather whether he concedes his guilt or not. When there is incentive for the state for that, I can see it. But cost alone is not a compelling incentive. Again, the Prosecutors are attempting to obtain justice. Saving money is a nice perk, but it doesn't further the prosecution's goal of obtaining the maximum correct justice. This crime was clearly heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, if it's ever warranted. Without mitigating factors, and with confidence in the outcome a jury trial, there is simply no reason for the state to take what they feel to be the just punishment off the table.