Resolved: Capital punishment ought not be continued in the United States.

I agree with the definitions given, and will start with my rebuttals. My opponent starts by basically saying the death penalty costs taxpayers more than a life sentence without possibility of parole. While this would be a great argument, it simply is not fact. The fact is that statistics on this are very skewed. First, there are federal and state statistics to take into consideration. Federal data on the cost of implementing existing death penalty provisions are nonexistent. At the state level, cost data are limited. Few of these states have data on death penalty costs and even when available, the data were incomplete. Most of the studies did not actually compare death sentence cases with non death sentence cases, and some of the studies did not contain actual cost data. Further, even in cases where cost data were cited, these data were incomplete. . http://deathpenalty.procon.org..., the major costs associated with the death penalty are due to fact that many death row inmates live their entire lives without actually being put to death. The appeal process takes forever, and these facilities are extremely expensive to maintain. "What we are paying for at such great cost is essentially our own ambivalence about capital punishment. We try to maintain the apparatus of state killing and another apparatus that almost guarantees that it won't happen. The public pays for both sides. ". http://deathpenalty.procon.org... There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent life sentence cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent life sentence cases are much more expensive than death penalty cases. Opponents claim that the death penalty costs, over time, is more than life sentences. . http://deathpenalty.procon.org... Take all the bureaucratic red tape out of the equation, and it is common sense that it costs less to just get rid of someone, than to feed, clothe, house, and entertain them, right? On to the imperfect judicial system argument. This argument might have held up twenty years ago, but not anymore. With DNA evidence, and the advance of many other forensic technologies, the chances of convicting an innocent man or woman in a murder case is slim to none. . http://www.policyalmanac.org... Furthermore, if someone is convicted, they are considered guilty by a court of law, and deserve whatever penalty the court sees fit. There is no room for second guessing that person's guilt. If that were the case, we would have to revamp the entire judicial system, which is a debate for another time. My opponent uses a statistic that 130 people have been released from death row, but I have already given the reason for that. These people were convicted before all of our forensic advancements, and were vindicated based current technology. In summation of my first round, I would like to point out that the point of the death penalty is not simply justice, although I believe it serves that purpose very well. It is also about discouraging acts punishable by death. It shows our criminal element that if you commit certain crimes, you will be put to death. For the criminals that are not swayed by a death sentence, I would argue that these people are not able to be rehabilitated anyway, and are a danger to anyone they come in contact with. This includes other inmates, who may not have commited a crime worthy of the death penalty. The sollution for criminals like this is the death penalty. It serves as proper justice, saves tax payer dollars, and discourages acts punishable by death. Thanks to the readers, and my opponent for your time, and I look forward to very enjoyable second round.