Resolved: Capital punishment should be abolished

As this is my rebuttal, I will first refute your points, then clarify my own to the audience in my conclusion.___________________________________________________________________You said earlier that "One thing about Capital Punishment, is that it helps maintain the law and lowers crime. Not only dose it do these two things, but it also helps grieving families." This statement is actually false, according to the Washington Post, and other leaders in the field. "We're very hard pressed to find really strong evidence of deterrence," said Columbia Law School's Jeffrey Fagan. Dealth Penalty does not help or hurt crime rates, to a siginifigant extent. Often, in area where it was legalized, crime actually grows. Studies publiblished by "The death penalty information center" based on U.S. census shows that since 1900 states with death penalties have actually had more homocides then states that had abolished this law. Altough hard to prove, many families do not want people to be killed. The fact of the Death Penaltyweight, makes juderical systems have to prolong the case, involving the victim's family even more involved, and often they do not want that, or another person dead._________________________________________________________________________Also, you previously said "Is it safe to say, that these convicted felons had acted in a moral way when committing such a crime? Would it be moral to let these felons free, and then have them commit the same crime over."I was not saying that we should set them free, or that we would have too, it is easy to simply give them life inmrisonment. Although prison overcrowding is a problem, it does not mean we can no longer put people in prison, the idea that that may be true, is totally false.NOTE: The goverment is not letting prisoners out, my opponent is mistaken. Currently the Californian government is letting out prisoners with minor charges, like drug abuse, or druken battery, out about 10% earlier. Not prisoners convicted with murder._________________________________________________________________________You also stated that "Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact.This a "straw man" fallacy, abolitionists are not just religious people who are against legal murder, we are simply arguing that you have no right condemm me to death no matter what crimes i have done. And coupled with the moral, economic, and statistical reasons i have stated above, it is much better to simply give life inprisonment._________________________________________________________________________Also you have stated that "Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of harm"The fact that the law is not trying to cause a "cruel and unusaul punishment" does not mean its not happening, i clarified this in my example Clayton Lockett, who's punishment went arwy, does not change the reality that inhumane ways of death are happening. I am not trying to state that this is illegal, but inhumane, and should be discontinued. Also your point that Kentucky, along with 35 other states, have adopted a more humane way of legal murder, is entirely false, considering that only 31 states still use death as a punishment.________________________________________________________________________Since there is nothing left for me to refute, i will conclude my Rebuttal.________________________________________________________________________ - http://www.washingtonpost.com... - http://www.washingtonpost.com... - http://www.oadp.org... - http://www.icomdp.org...