These United States should retain the Death Penalty for murder.

*note, there are some extremely common arguments against the death penalty that my Opponent has not used. This is by no means an accusation, but if, for whatever reason, he posts new arguments in the last round where I cannot refute them I reserve the right to rebut in the comments section. Innocent lives saved by preventionThis is, I feel, the most important argument in this round, and I want to put some extra focus on it so it's going first. The source Con links shows the number of wrongly executed to be 9. First of all, not a single one of these have been pardoned after death. They were all found guilty, and their sentences were upheld by people actually qualified to determine guilt or innocence. I respect my Opponent, I can tell from this debate that he's a very intelligent guy however he is not by any means qualified to determine the guilt and innocence of those executed, nor is the site he has linked. However, for the sake of what I am about to say, let's imagine for a moment that all of these people were innocent. According to Cons source, since 1976 there have been 1260 executions. 9/1260=.0071. That's the rate of actual innocents executed, assuming that these people are innocent. The recidivism rate for murder is .012, or nearly double this. As you can see, the DP saves more lives than it takes. Lets take a specific example. In 1984 (sorry that it's not recent, it was the only statistics I could find. ): "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. "[1]So if we were to execute all murderers, using my Opponents extremely high, unproven, rate of innocence the amount of innocents executed would be 369. (.0071 * 52000= 369.2). The amount of innocents killed by prior murderers is 821. 821-369=452. So the net amount of lives saved if we executed all murderers would be 452 in this example. Of course I am not advocating the DP for all murderers, rather only for the most serious and most evident cases. Thus this would eliminate most of the executed innocents, while retaining most of the second conviction murders. And of course, this does not even take into account the deterrent effect. All moral arguments are outweighed by the governments obligation to protect innocent life. =Rebuttal=DeterrenceCon argues that the brutalization affect counter-acts deterrence. I strongly disagree. The evidence he's linked is dubious at best, and intentionally misleading at worst. He offers no logical explanation as to how this affect works, because he again mistakes the DP for murder. Still, even if we accept this as valid, innocents killed by prior offenders outweighs. Con says that the DP does not deter because murderers do not examine the news to see if any executions have taken place. This is true, however logic shows that people respond to dis-incentives. The possibility of death is the ultimate disincentive, and while it is true that potential murderers do not check the news for executions, hearing about them and knowing that if you get caught, death is a strong possibility will deter. I have shown that a trend of deterrence exists, I have provided studies showing deterrence, and I have shown deterrence through common sense. This point stands. He gives examples from other countries, but since this debate is about the United States I feel absolutely no need to respond. Further, any comparisons between states should not be considered valid because each state is very different from the others. Thus, any comparison of murder rates must be done from a specific state. Life w/o ParoleCon states how Europe has a lower reoffending rate and lower homicide rates than the U. S. This is not a fair comparison, because Europe is not the United States. Europe is culturally different, demographically different, economically different, ect, than the U. S. so this is, to use the common phrase, comparing apples to oranges. Con also states that future movements are irrelevant. They are highly relevant because they show what is likely to become policy in the future. History supports this, take gay rights for an example. Once an obscure belief held by very few, it is now becoming policy. Of course I cannot prove this will happen, but using historical precedents it is quite likely. He also states that real criminals plead guilty, and he has provided no evidence or even reasoning for this claim. People condemned to life w/o parole can still kill guards, other inmates, or escape. Here's some examples:Martsay Bolder, sentenced to life imprisonment and murdered his cellmate. [2]. Donald Dillbeck- sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 1979, escaped in 1990 and murdered a woman while attempting to steal her car. [3]. James Prestridge-sentenced to life w/o parole for murder, escaped from prison and murdered his fellow escapee (serving a sentence for robbery)[4]. These are only a few of the many examples. ConstitutionMy Opponent bafflingly calls the constitution an "ancient document" while using the declaration of independence to support his case. The declaration was signed before the constitution was ratified. The constitution is the framework in which the U. S. works, and takes precedence over foreign treaties like the UN declaration of human rights. State hipocracyAgain, Con misunderstands the difference between murder and the DP. For the state to multiply guilt, it would have to kill an innocent. If the state went out and murdered a killers family, than yes that would be immoral. However executing a guilty person is nowhere near the same morally than murder. His response to my speeding and kidnapping analogy is "it's fair because the crime isn't nearly as serious as murder". This objection is puzzling, because if the physical similarities between an execution and murder equate the two to be morally similar, why does the gravity of the crime affect this? Either it is morally wrong for the government to impose a punishment physically similar to a crime or it is not. He states that killing a murderer is not self defence, however I disagree. I have shown many cases where a murderer has killed again. Restraining them at any means needed, including death, is a form of self defence. He states that I have not explained how executing a murderer is not the same as brutally murdering an innocent. I appologize, I thought this was obvious. Judges, I ask you to re-examine the account of murder that I've shown and compare it to that of the execution. Even if the death penalty is immoral, to claim that there is no moral difference between brutally murdering an innocent and humanely executing a guilty murderer is simply absurd. He argues that we are not infringing on liberty by imprisonment, but his own statement condradicts this. "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life. "PunishmentEven if we accept this point as true, the innocents saved massively outweighs this. Con appears very idealistic in this argument, arguing that these murderers will feel guilt. I believe that anyone who can commit murder that meets the aggravating circumstances for the DP is beyond feeling remorse, and even if this is false, our focus must be on safety. Again, no non emotion based impact argued on this point. InnocenceI have already shown this point to be outweighed above. DiscriminationCon argues that the DP is rife with discrimination. He has provided no evidence, and even admits he has no solution. Advocating a change in the status quo over a problem that wont be fixed with the change is foolish and has no solvency. Vote Pro! Sources:1. Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 1532. . http://missourideathrow.com...3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...4. . http://articles.latimes.com...