The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder.

Because of the set up of this debate, viewers please keep in mind that it was impossible for me to respond completely to all of my opponents second round rebuttal._________I will first address my opponents first contention "Capital Punishment saves innocent lives. SPA: Capital Punishment keeps a killer from striking again." I will address this argument in two ways. 1. Life imprisonment is almost, if not just as effective in saving lives.2. Capital punishment contrarily ends innocent lives. Defense of first premise:First, my opponent says there have been many instances when a murderer has re-offended. Yet when he shows the figures it is only 1.2%. Now I do not support at all murderers being released. I don't think the solution is the death penalty, the solution is not too let them go. I don't know why they would release murderers, but how often does it even happen? Not much. Life imprisonment needs to be strongly enforced. If so than it is almost just as effective as the death penalty in saving lives. The only cases when someone serving a life sentence can kill someone is when he kills his own inmate as my opponent has shown. However life imprisonment could also be just as effective in which I will show in my defense of my second premise. Defense of second premise:The death penalty ends innocent lives. This was one of my arguments in the last round. There have been instances when the convicted has been executed but latter proved innocent. I will bring up some instances in my latter rebuttal. Let me also point out to the viewers, and to my opponent that there have undoubtedly been cases in which the innocent have been executed but have not been proved innocent afterwards. This is without doubt true, because for one after being executed there is usually not much need to for someone to try too prove the innocence of someone who is already dead. So there are undoubtedly instances in the past where we have executed an innocent man but did not know so, and still do not know. So with life imprisonment we will have criminals murdered. With the death penalty we will have innocent people murdered, and wrongly accused. Response too "SPB: Capital Punishment has a deterrent effect." My opponents first example: It appears his link only leads to a website. Not any article or study. I cannot properly respond to this if my opponent does not provide an article of the study that was done. Also I very highly doubt those statistics are right. My opponents second example: See above.And it appears my opponents third example is just the same....How can I respond to statistics my opponent has shown if we don't even have any link to an article or study? I ask the viewers to drop these statistics until my opponent has properly supported them.Response to "SPA: Life without parole does not always mean life."First my opponent again posts sources to the home pages of websites, but not to articles. Even his Wikipedia source is only the homepage. So I would like to again point out to the viewers that I can not properly respond. //There is already a movement to abolish life without parole in the United States for juveniles and even for adult offenders!//There are movements for a ton of things. Doesn't mean it will happen. Reply to "SPB: Prisoners view the Death Penalty as a harsher punishment than Life without parole."The prisoners don't have much time to reflect upon their guilt with the death penalty. Also addressed latter. Reply to "C3. Capital Punishment is not unconstitutional."The constitution says every man has a right to life, so yes it does, or at least contradicts itself. (I'll try to bring up more latter). Too save space the R's represent reply.Defense. Cost:R1st point: My opponent says that justice should not be sold to the lowest bidder. I agree, but life sentence is even more just as well as less costly. Or is killing someone for killing someone more just? R2nd point: The article makes clear that the main reason the DP is more expensive is because of the, "long and complex judicial process" necessary for capital cases. Not because of how many inmates there are on death row. Also my opponent uses Wikipedia as a source which is not credible, so we can't be sure these statistics are accurate. R3d point: Actually I don't think that's true. The source says, "The federal court system spends approximately $12 million on defending death row inmates in federal court." This sounds very much like it's taking everything into account unlike what my opponent says. R4th point: This source seems to rest solely on the fact that the anti-death penalty movement is a fraud. Here's a quote from the article. "The culture of lies and deceit so dominates that movement that many of the falsehoods are now wrongly accepted as fact"This all assumes that the the anti-death penalty statistics as the article says "specializes in the abolition of truth". This is ridiculous. We see that facts show other wise, we need proof that the statistics are lies to consider this.R5th point: I accept these statistics to be reasonably true for now, but reserve the right to latter bring up contrary evidence. But still a large portion do not support it, and I think it's most likely that a large amount are not even aware that the DP require them to pay more. I myself did not know that until recent because at first it would seem that life imprisonment would require more payment. Additional point: Those serving life sentences are able to help pay off their costs by working while those executed obviously cannot, being dead.Defense. Repentance:R1st point: We should give everyone the chance to repent for the good of man kind. R2nd point: My opponent misinterprets me. If I made it seem this way I apologize, but I do not at all support for those who repent of the crime to be set free. R3rd point: Why is more than one example needed to make a point? My opponent only uses a few examples for some of his arguments. Nevertheless I will show another example. Karla Faye Tucker murdered a man by striking him 28 times in the head with a pick axe, and latter even expressed that she received sexual gratification each time she struck. [2] She underwent conversion and her last words were; “ Yes sir, I would like to say to all of you — the Thornton family and Jerry Dean’s family — that I am so sorry. I hope God will give you peace with this. Baby, I love you. Ron, give Peggy a hug for me. Everybody has been so good to me. I love all of you very much. I am going to be face to face with Jesus now. Warden Baggett, thank all of you so much. You have been so good to me. I love all of you very much. I will see you all when you get there. I will wait for you. ” R4th point: It's not a contradiction at all. That man was happy with his life. He felt guilt of course, but he was not guilt torn like murders can become. Defense. Not a punishment R1st point: Not opinion, logic. R2nd point: See two responses previous. R3d point. Evidence? Also it's natural to run away from death, but that doesn't mean they don't suffer more in prison. R4th point: Life imprisonment is just as safe. R5th point: Unnecessary suffering. With life imprisonment the family can at least now he's alive, can visit him, and if they think he's innocent no that, one there's a possibility it will be proved and two he at least won't have been killed wrongly. Defense. Religion.I found this one to be the only one I had enough space to respond too.More than 60% of people are religious, thus I have given a reason for more than 60% of the people in America to not support it. [3]Note about source. I don't know how accurate that figure is that is why I lowered it to 60%.I will try to defend C.4, C.5, C.6, and C.8 in future rounds. http://www.antideathpenalty.org... [1]http://www.clarkprosecutor.org... [2]http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org... [3]