Resolved: Criminals convicted of violent crime should be executed

Thanks, smile emoticonDeath Penalty Is Killing Innocent PeopleI don't dispute the fact that a very small amount of innocent people are/would be killed by the death penalty. I also didn't even mention DNA in my response. The only thing I have to argue against that you've brought up is this figure you're mentioning. The 4.1% is an estimation - it's subjective. Quoting your source, "This makes it possible to use data on death row exonerations to estimate the overall rate of false conviction among death sentences." [1] The key words being estimate and overall rate.For example; if 41 people of 1,000 were exonerated, 4.1% would be the percentage of innocent people in that group. That number would not represent the amount of convicted felons who were later found innocent as a whole. For the 4.1% figure to make sense nationwide, representing all convicts, 4.1% of all convicts would have to be proved not guilty eventually. And because that isn't the case, and as my source [2] shows, approximately 1,500 total exonerations since 1989, and about 100 a year. And if you scroll down to Table 1 of my BJS source [3], you'll see in 2013 there were 2,220,000 prisoners (local and federal prison/jail) in the US. So 100 a year out of 2.2 million is a hell of lot less than 4.1%. The 4.1% is an estimated, subjective number, based strictly on death sentences out of a certain population, whereas the number I've provided (100/year) is as accurate as can be.More Guilty People Would Be Allowed To Go FreeAgain, your argument is strictly based on "death vs life imprisonment," and not "death vs set free." The only options judges would have would be to set a dangerous person free, or sentence them to death. And if found guilty, not sentencing them to death would result in the judge being held in contempt of court. If there is no proof that he is guilty and the sentence relies on the jury and judge, they can decide whether or not he's fit to continue to interact with society. Judges wouldn't have a hard time sentencing someone who is detrimental to society. Even if at first it would be a tough thing to do, after a while it would become the norm and judges would get used to it, if they knew the incredible amount of positive outcomes from doing so.I understand that the idea that judges rule less often as the punishment is more severe, however because the current options are so incredibly vast, it's hard to really compare the current system to my proposed system. And there will always be people willing to take on judicial roles if others aren't willing to sentence people to death. There will always be someone who is okay with that responsibility.Death Penalty Does Not Reduce Crime RatesThe national clearance rate (rate at which crimes are solved/resolved) is about 40 percent less for rape than it is for murder [4]. Murders are solved at about a 65% success rate, where rape is solved at a 40% success rate. This means the chance of someone getting away with rape is greater than getting away with murder. This statistic, along with the "97/100 rapists get away with it" idea [5], show that if you rape someone, you're a lot less likely to be caught than if you murder someone.Also, people who have sex with someone against their will in a "passionate affection" usually are not the type of people to cut up bodies and burn them in a field, as well as destroying all traces of any kind of evidence that point to him and her being together recently.You do have somewhat of a point when you say you can just kill the person so nobody knows you committed a crime, but it's so incredibly difficult to get away with murder nowadays that you're more likely to be caught (as my statistics show) killing someone than performing any other crime. Security cameras, phone records, DNA evidence at the crime scene, all comes into play.Death Penalty Is Condemned By The International CommunityThe death penalty, as implemented now, has not affected foreign relations with other countries. As long as those countries are on the up-and-up, they won't need to worry about anything. We still trade millions of dollars a year with countries like Syria [6] who kill their own citizens and produce terrorists by the tens of thousands, so what makes you think other countries would put a halt on their trade with us if we implemented the death penalty to violent criminals? Drug offenses (billions of dollars in drugs shipped international yearly) would not be punishable by death, so they really have nothing to worry about other than the laws that are in place now.Extended Death Row Period Is NeededYou misunderstood my argument. I never said people who could be a threat to society should be killed. The resolution is "criminals convicted of violent crimes should be executed" - nothing to do with probability of violent behavior, but people who have been tried and found guilty of committing a violent crime. I never said they should be killed strictly if they pose a threat to society, I said they should be killed if they commit a violent crime. The "bettering society" and "removing dangerous people/threats from society" is an added bonus.Like I've shown previously, the chance of an innocent person being sentenced to death (much less than the 4.1% estimation) is so low that even if they were to appeal at a later date, the chances of them being granted a not-guilty sentence is still incredibly low.Money Saved In DeathIt would have been great if you were able to give some numbers and figures to deal with, with some kind of sources. So far all I've got is "people in prison save money" and "prisons create jobs." I don't doubt that people in prison save money, but the amount of money saved (electricity, welfare, etc, I'm assuming?) is a drop in the bucket compared to the $30,000+ a year it costs to hold a prisoner. And of course the jobs created by spending the money saved (as I've said before) on possible buildings such as hospitals, schools, and private residences etc. far outweigh the jobs created with one prison.Penal labour is actually a good point, however I believe it has too many flaws to be successfully implemented. It's a possibility now, as the 13th amendment allows it, but it isn't implemented in very many prisons at all. The main disadvantage (I'm going to skip the unethical forced labour aspect of it as I'm saying to just kill them all off anyway, lol) I see is that it takes away from jobs outside of prison. Anything a prisoner produces could have been produced by a non-prisoner, essentially rewarding the prisoner and taking away from the civilian who hasn't committed any crimes. A high level of security would need to also be implemented, costing more money, in order to ensure the prisoner is being safe, isn't stealing supplies, has created acceptable products, etc. A lot of work would go into ensuring the prisoner is being trustworthy. Larger corporations could go to prisons for cheap labour instead of hiring people outside of prison to work, again essentially rewarding prisoners and putting normal civilians at a huge disadvantage, taking away from jobs outside of prison.Unfortunately regarding penal labour, the cons severely outweigh the pros. It sounds like a good idea, but in the end takes away from hard working civilians.No More Re-offendersAsserting that "the option that costs less lives must be chosen" with no argument to defend this was kind of pointless. The debate is whether or not it's okay to kill people convicted of violent crimes. You basically just said "no" and left it at that. I've also already explained why killing a prisoner is better than giving them a lifetime sentence, in several ways.Crime-Free FutureI have to point out that more than half of what you've said is anecdotal (rape+murder, foreign relations, death penalty not reducing crime rates and more). I believe a level of anecdotal arguments are required for a debate like this, as this is not something that can necessarily be argued for or against with nothing but facts.Dismissing my source because it's related to a man wanting to go to jail in a different country is kind of silly. But because you don't want to accept that people do want to go to jail, here's a story from where I live - Vancouver, Canada - about a man wanting to go to jail [7]. My point is that the average time spent for murder is around 20 years [8], and taking the 75% recidivism rate over 5 years into effect, by killing these murderers instead of setting them free after roughly 20 years with a 75% chance of them committing another crime, possibly murder, we are essentially saving the lives of a hell of a lot of people. Murder By False AccusationYou have somewhat of a point, but for it to be valid, you'll need to provide some recent sources and literal examples of someone being able to accuse someone of something and actually having them sentenced to prison. On top of that, the amount of people actually sentenced would have to outweigh the amount of false claims dismissed. So if you can provide all those statistics, you'll have a point, and my rebuttal (because no more rounds) is that, again, some sacrifices have to be made to make the world a better place in the long run. The chance of someone "proving" someone committed a violent crime, without them committing it, is incredibly low.Well, thanks for a good debate. I'm glad you brought such good points to the table :)Sources[1] http://www.pnas.org...[2] http://www.law.umich.edu...[3] http://www.bjs.gov... [4] https://www.fbi.gov... [5] https://rainn.org... [6] https://www.census.gov... [7] http://www.news1130.com... [8] http://www.dc.state.fl.us...