The death penalty is morally reprehensible and irrational in several ways.

A. No backsies His argument is that my method only saves 99 out of 100 people. --> However, he misses the point of the evidence which states DNA testing is 99% effective in and of itself, disregarding other evidence brought to trial. His point would be true if DNA was the only evidence being used in court, but this is not true. Eye witness accounts, testimony, etc are all still used in light of DNA testing. --> He gives no warrant as to why the effects on the family are relevant. B. Eye for an Eye He argues rehab as an alternative to retributive form of justice --> He doesnt provide justification or a warrant that gives us reason to believe that rehab is actually an effective alternative --> On the contrary: (1) rehab doesnt give an incentive to get better, rather it most likely exacerbates recidivism because its basally saying: "you do something criminal, we try and help you (no severe punishment). (2) Rehab empirically fails in treating criminals. Christine Chamberline, Boston Law Review: "Criminal rehab has been seen to fail again and again. We estimate its failure rate exceeds 50% and results in more crime and recidivism." He argues life imprisonment is worse --> First, cross apply the analysis that courts have an obligation to enact justice by making the most proportionate punishment in comparison to the rights violations to the vicitm. --> Now, my opponent is in a double bind: either (A) his punishment is worse than the crime done to the victim, meaning the courts are exceeding appropriate punishment or (B) the punishment isnt severe enough, thus undermining the principle of proportionality. C. Deterrence He says his point can be taken to be true --> He misses the point of "no offense." The point he made was a preemption, meaning he was trying to refute a possible claim that I could make. But, I m not arguing that the death penalty deters. Therefore, there is no reason to vote on this argument because doesn't provide the Aff any positive ground. D. Irrationality He argues that legality =/= morality --> This is true, but my claim is that the death penalty and the concept of murder are two separate things. Moreover, he concedes the point that killing an innocent is an important distinction. But he cross applies his argument about killing innocents. Thus, cross-apply my analysis that with today's technology in combination with the regular judicial process, plus the appeals and death row, we need not fear killing innocents and we need not abolish the death penalty. ==NC== C1: Scale Argument He argues what if someone steals for his family --> The courts take into account "motive," as an important deliberating factor in the judicial process --> This doesnt respond to the warrants of the argument --> Extend the Kant analysis that X evil action is condoned by the actor as ok. Therefore, the killer is consenting to the death penalty when he himself kills another person. This went un-refuted. ==Topical Analysis== He concedes the topical analysis I made. At this point you can negate because as my two rounds have shown he isnt winning offense from his points B,C, or D. Since he conceded he needs to have won more than one argument by the end ofthe round, he has not met his topical burden. He might be winning his point A if you buy that any mistake by the justice system means we should abolish the death penalty totally. But remember this is in light of : (1) The DNA analysis and (2) the analysis that flaws can always be circumvented with the right implementation or design. So he probably isn't even wining offense on this point either.