Every state should use the death penalty

Thanks to my opponent for his extensive response, and now I'll get into some rebuttal. 1. Rehabilitation I have two main responses to your points about rehabilitation being unnecessary for this group. For one, you do realize that there's a difference between a conviction that leads to life imprisonment and "life without parole," right? Many people who are given the maximum sentence get what's called an "indeterminate life sentence," which means they can go on parole after a decade or more.[1] I'd say this isn't made clear by Pro's distinction, and that at least some of these cases are likely to receive the death penalty. Those people can still enter back into the world. Second, rehabilitation doesn't just involve them. A system that focuses mainly on doling out the death penalty to these offenders affect others as well. Look at my [1] in the previous round, as I think it explains well how this measure of "justice" increases the problems of criminality and mental illness. These aren't just among those who get life sentences. Pro admits that these people need help, but would arbitrarily decide what makes one eligible based on how bad he feels the crime was. Someone who is mentally deranged often has no control over their actions, and we don't usually hold the mentally deranged directly responsible for their actions. I did provide some info on California and the cost of the death penalty in my last post. For more detailed analysis on a state-by-state level, there's many good websites.[2] My opponent talks about tens of thousands, ignoring the millions spent per inmate in Texas.[3] Costs of the death penalty are far higher, and if Pro would like to dispute that, he has to respond to these links directly. Pro says that "the death penalty is the ultimate punishment reserved for the worst society has to deal with such as serial killers, rapists, and crimes similar to that degree." That's interesting (and wrong, rapists aren't usually sentenced to life imprisonment). I mentioned the three-strikes law in California, where no such crime is committed.[4] I also mentioned treason, which also is not always equitable to killers and rapists. He provides no response to these points. And since Pro states later that "the majority of prisoners put to death were convicted of murder," the majority of people doing the maximum harms that he states don't require Pro's plan to be removed from society by death, though I'd argue that life imprisonment is just as effective. These arguments about not being trusted to have freedoms are all vengeful. Pro provides no reason benefit to society for denying them access. 2. The innocent I love how this works. So it's fine to sentence a bunch of innocent people to death because, at some point in the future, innocent people will be less likely to be sentenced to death? Every single one of these deaths count, and to a very large extent. The fact that my opponent is essentially dismissing their loss is nothing short of cruel. Pro says that we function under a system of "guilty until proven innocent." He doesn't support this " I see no citations, and no warrants. I've given several. But even if that is the case, it doesn't prove that that's the system we should be functioning under. Again, look back at my links, I gave plenty of analysis as to why "innocent until proven guilty" is extremely important. 3. Cruel and unusual punishment Pro practically concedes this argument by saying he's not going to argue whether any method of imposing the death penalty is humane. So long as he doesn't, this is engaging in torture, plain and simple. He provides no analysis as to why ending their lives is more effective than life imprisonment. 4. Unfair, unjust system Great, so we should address this problem, but in the meantime, let's throw more people into the system to ensure that many more innocent people die without a fair trial. I agree that we should fix the system, but that's not part of your plan, and even if it was (I have no idea how this would be implemented), that will take years if not decades. After they're done with their appeals, these people won't get another chance, and their lives will be forfeit. These lives shouldn't be riding on a system that's not well-enforced. Yes, we have contempt of court, but it's obviously not enough to prevent such a widespread problem. Remember, one in four condemned inmates have been represented by a court-appointed attorney who has been disciplined for professional misconduct. All that this system has done is point out the troublemakers, not remove them. You can call it "unfeasible," but my links prove that it happens all the time. But Pro practically spends this entire time conceding the point. "Those with enough money can become nearly untouchable in regards of the law." He's admitting that the death penalty is inherently classist. So long as that is true, it is the antithesis of justice. 5. Justice vs. vengeance Pro is essentially non-responsive to my points here. So long as my third contention has bearing, it is vengeance on that basis alone. Killing them for engaging in something we as a society loathe is also vengeance. Institutionalized torture and murder are vengeful, as it is aimed solely at causing harm to a person who harmed others. He provides no justification for the utilization of "an eye for an eye," and no reason why it should be applied here, but not elsewhere, as with the chopping off of thieves hands. As long as the expense of the death penalty remains far higher than the cost of life imprisonment, the reverse of Pro's statement is much more applicable: "my opponent has provided no justification to press these criminals into our capitol punishment system at our expense." The expense exists no matter the choice, it's just much higher in Pro's world. "If someone takes the life of another they are well aware that they could face the death penalty but choose to commit the crime anyway." I thought we might actually have an argument over this, but I'm glad to see that my opponent agrees with me: the threat of punishment doesn't prevent the crime. Now, Pro has absolutely no benefit to the death penalty. 6. Court clog and cost Pro doesn't address court clog at all, completely ignoring the fact that justices, policemen (as witnesses), and other staff will be extremely limited in their time to address other cases. That means fewer police on the streets and more delays on court cases (where people are forced to sit in jail for longer periods of time at higher cost without any establishment of guilt). His responses to cost are just restatements of his previous arguments with him doing some interesting calculations. Remember, my links showcase how any given person on death row can cost the state over $2 million. Now imagine if 50,000 people average even one-tenth that amount. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars. Take his larger number of 159,000, and it becomes astronomical. The last point Pro makes in response to my point about mental trauma is absolutely confounding. To state that a person getting life imprisonment is getting off "scot free" is beyond absurd. I don't think being forced to live out the rest of your life beyond bars is a ticket to freedom, and I don't see how this causes families mental distress. The reality is that families will have to sit through trial after trial, waiting with uncertainty at each step to see justice done. That's the problem. And it gets worse. It diverts millions away from critical services to homicide survivors. It splits families apart, and ruins relationships when they're most necessary.[6] With that, I kick it back to Pro. 1. http://online.ceb.com... 2. http://www.fnsa.org... 3. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 4. http://www.courts.ca.gov... 5. http://www.heritage.org... 6. http://ejusa.org...