Can you be pro life but for the death penalty

I'll go through each of the points individuallyReaffirming value of lifeHere I brought up the idea that Capital Punishment sends society a moral message that murder is wrong and that disrespect for life will not be tolerated. My opponent doesn't offer any substantive rebuttal to this point whatsoever. For the purposes of this debate, I will consider a drop to be a concession.I suppose that the one response my opponent does give is, "I think it was interesting to quote Alan Keyes..... Mr Keyes hasn't been relevant in years and was to extreme for even the GOP." However, this doesn't really address my argument, and is more of an ad-homenim attack on Alan Keyes himself. Character assassination is fallacious, and does not invalidate my point.Innocence My opponent cites a list of people that have been exonerated from death row. Ironically, he does not mention a single person that has ever been wrongly executed in this country. Thus, his argument has insufficient support to be considered valid.Moreover, recent advances in DNA technology have virtually eliminated the potential for executing innocents. As former US Senator Orrin G. Hatch writes, "Advanced DNA testing guarantees the just and fair implementation of the death penalty. While reasonable people can differ about capital punishment, it is indisputable that advanced DNA testing ensures support and credibility to the accuracy and integrity of capital verdicts. In short, we are in a better position than ever before to ensure that only the guilty are executed. These recent technological advances, along with advances that will likely come in the future, render false convictions in capital cases virtually impossible, and we ought to be thankful for that." [1]And even if some innocent people are executed, which clearly does not happen, the death penalty is still the pro-life position. This is because, in the long run, wrongful convictions are rare and offset by innocent lives that are saved. This brings me to the final point.DeterrenceMake no mistake, Capital Punishment does deter crime. My opponent cited an article which noted a few circumstances in which this was not the case. However, there still exist a plethora of studies contradicting this, and there still exists a very strong negative correlation between executions and murders in this country, no matter the region or time period that is being evaluated. But regardless, the fundamental logic behind the deterrence argument has not been refuted. Thus, we can reasonably assume that some murders will be prevented.I would also contend that Capital Punishment is the only true way to ensure that the most heinous of criminals do not murder again. History has shown us that, on hundreds of occasions, inmates serving life without parole in states without the death penalty have actually ended up murdering other inmates. The murder rate for those serving life without parole is 4.5 per 100,000 inmates. This means that there are likely to be about 3 prison murders per year commuted those serving LWOP, and approximately 150 murders in the last 5 decades. These murders would simply not happen if the most egregious inmates had been executed in the first place. [2]Through deterring murders of innocent civilians, in combination with preventing murders of other inmates, Capital Punishment saves a significant number of lives each year - far more than the number of lives lost through any purported "false convictions." I affirm, Capital Punishment is the pro-life position.[1]http://deathpenalty.procon.org...[2]http://www.businessinsider.com...