The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

==Defending my own Arguments==I shall first start off supporting my initial contentions. C1: DeterrenceMy opponent has provided the example of people who go on 'killing sprees' in moments of extreme anger. However we see that this argument is insignificant compared to mine - why? Simply because there are not that many rampage killers compared to murderers. In 2010 alone, 14,748 murders were committed [1]. A list of rampage killers in America only reaches the 100's [2], even when looking over years of history. Furthermore, my opponent seems to cite flawed studies. Simply comparing the homicide rates of states with the death penalty and states without the death penalty isn't likely to get you a conclusive study. There are outside factors - such as gun laws. Numerous studies published quite recently, which have used "panel data sets and sophisticated social science techniques", which consist of observations of all of the 50 states, and usually across years and months [3]. Panel data sets also let social scientists to isolate the effect of the death penalty from other factors, both socioeconomic and policy, to verify the contributions capital punishment has on murderers. C2: Bargaining ChipMy opponent completely ignores the fact that the death penalty contributes to plea bargains, which help speed up our criminal justice system. Why is this significant? As I've stated before, around 90% of cases are resolved through plea bargains, preventing backlogging. All defendants deserve a right to a speedy trial. Without plea bargaining, a backlog of cases and trials will quickly accumulate [4], greatly hindering the speed of the criminal justice system. Isn't it the government's job to provide its citizens with the rights it promises? And by the way, my opponent basically copied and pasted from the source. But I shall rebut his point of false confessions anyways. Today, modern forensic science help to eliminate doubt that a person is guilty of a crime. Furthermore, studies suggests that false confessions occur quite infrequently [5]. The same source also states that the innocent are more at risk from 'lost' confessions - or confessions that the police fail to get from the truly guilty parties, rather than 'false' confessions - or confessions that are made up. C3: AccuracyI'd like to point out that in reality, there is a low chance of DNA analysis proving to be unreliable. My opponent's source has only provided extremely few examples or research proving the point that DNA analysis is unreliable - making it questionable at the best. Furthermore, the Death penalty has a 99.6% guilty accuracy rate [6]. C4: PopularityWhat is morally acceptable and wrong is completely subjective, as it changes as the views of society changes. Your examples are flawed - one can not take popular opinion for issues that can be proved through empirical data. However these surveys still support my side and are still valid, due to the fact that when the line is being drawn between right and wrong, and punishments, one must look at society's viewpoints. Simply put, it is completely opinion. ==Refutations==I shall now continue to attempt to refute my opponent's contentions. C1: Life in PrisonWhat my opponent is trying to portray cannot be confirmed, as no jury has the legal authority to prevent government officials or judges in the future from offering clemency, parole, or reasons for a new trial [7]. Furthermore, potential killer know this too, effectively destroying almost any deterrent effect it has. The death penalty also manages to save 18 people per execution. If we were to choose life imprisonment over the death penalty, we are practically ensuring the deaths of a large number of innocent people [8]. How can this be, at all, morally acceptable? Finally, to allow murderers to continue to live, you give them the chance to harm and murder again, in prison, after release, or perhaps even after escape. Living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm/kill again than are executed murderers [6]. C2: Risking InnocentsAs I've stated before - there is a 99.6% guilty accuracy rate. We are sacrificing the lives of countless innocents, when we abolish the death penalty simply for the cause of the very few cases of innocents being executed. Simply because a person is "wrongly convicted" it doesn't mean that they are actually executed. Sources:[1] . http://www.disastercenter.com...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.heritage.org...[4] . http://repository.law.ttu.edu...[5] . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...[6] . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...[7] David Schaefer, PhD, Professor of Political Science at Holy Cross College, in his Dec. 2001 article for The American Enterprise titled "The Death Penalty and Its Alternatives"[8] Cass R. Sunstein, JD, Professor of Law at Harvard University Law School and Adrian Vermeule, JD, Professor of Law at Harvard University Law School, in their May-June, 2005 article for the Stanford Law Review titled "Morally Required? Acts, Omissions and Life-Life Tradeoffs"