The United States should abolish the death penalty

I will now disprove my Opponents objections, and continue the destruction of his case. =Pro Case=Natural rights Pro states that I have misconstrued Jefferson's idea of natural rights. This is a puzzling statement, because all I did was provide a definition of the other rights provided in Jeffersons statement and show how both imprisonment and liability violate them. Pro states that the purpose of the Justice System is to "arbitrate liabilities to restore to the victim what the agressor has destroyed". The 1969 President's Commission defines the purpose of the Justice System as the means of a society to "enforce the standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community. "[1] You can see that the two statements are not the same, and as such we must take mine over Pro's because mine comes from an actual authority on the matter. Therefore Pro's statements about natural rights are invalid. C1. LiabilityPro contends that if liability is proven in this round to be a better system, than that means we should abolish the DP. False, even if liability was better Pro must prove it likely to be implemented. Pro says that if a better system exists, than that proves we should abolish the DP. Not so, because the resolution applies to reality. Even if liability is better, the United States should not abolish the DP until it begins to implement such a system, which it has not started. Pro even states during cross examination that historical precedent for this system lies in civic law! The United States is a common law society, so for this reason alone his system is unlikely to be implemented. So whatever benefits may or may not be brought from the liability system are completely invalid in this round because they will not happen. Pro even states "The death penalty should not be abolished without a superior alternative" This statement supports my side, because as of right now we do NOT have a superior alternative. Even if one exists, if it does not exist in the U. S. than we cannot abolish the DP yet. If for whatever reason it seems that Pro's C1. still stands, I will now go over the harms of his system. Pro contends that his system is not slavery. While a special exception does exist for penal labour, his system is still slavery because he has defined the murderer to belong to the family of the victim. Ownership of a person by another person, is, by definition, slavery. Pro also has not responded to my comparison of his system and the prison furlough system, which was a complete failure so I extend this comparison. Pro argues that since slavery was cost effective in the 1800's, it is likely to be today. Absurd. Pro is comparing the amount of security on a cotton plantation, to what would have to be (for safety matters) the equivalent of a mobile maximum security prison. Pro's system is either A) Dangerous due to giving criminals an avenue for escape, B) Not cost effective due to the masssive amounts of security needed to allow criminals to do menial jobs or (most likely) C) both. Pro states that my Objection about jobs is a fallacy. Either he misunderstands it, or I didn't make myself clear so I will now clarify. I was not attempting to imply that there is a fixed number of jobs, in fact I was implying that there currently is a decreasing number of jobs. I understand that the number of jobs constantly changes, however since we have a massive number of un-employed men, all work done by the prisoners should be done by our innocent citizens instead to give them a source of income. C2. The only argument brought up by my Opponent is his rebuttal is innocence. He links me to the case of Mr. Garrett. While I do not have the time to research the case and argue in support of the conviction, I would like to point out that the state does not recognize his innocence. Furthermore, here's a quote from Texas Department of Criminal Justice: "Garrett's fingerprints were found at the covnent located across the street from his home. In a statement to Police, Garrett admitted to breaking into the covnent and said he raped and strangled the nun. . "[2]Even if we were to accept the Garrett case as true innocence, that represents a less than 1/10th of one percent failure rate. (1/1261). Recidivism for murderers is much higher than this, even those in prison so this is outweighed. =My Case=C1. In Pro's attack on my C1. he states that all of my examples are of murderers who were released. First off, this is false, look at the examples of Lee Taylor and Clarence Allen. However, I will expand this. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2009 8.6% of those on death row had a prior homicide conviction. Over 5% of those on death row committed their capital crime while in custody or during an escape. [3]His attack on my SPB essentially states "correlation =/= causation". While this is true, an extraordinary amount of evidence suggests correlation between executions and reduced murder rates. What's interesting is that Pro attempts to completely discredit the idea of the Death Penalty as a deterrent stating: "Proving that the death penalty deters murder would require an impossible and illegal controlled experiment involving people weighing decisions concerning homocide" Yet the very source he links, shows reasons for reduced crime rates, which by my Opponents statements cannot be valid. So either A) This evidence falls, or B) It supports my side. I will now explain how it supports my side. In the study, both the tables 2 and 3 mention that one reason for the reduced rate of violent crime is "Increase in, higher probability of, and longer duration of incarceration. "[4] This shows that the harsher a penalty is for a crime, the less likely it is for that crime to be committed. Since the DP is, based on prisoners resistance to it, the harshest penalty, my Opponents evidence supports my side. C2. Pro first states that this point is irrelevant, because he is not advocating life imprisonment. However, since life imprisonment is by far more likely to be implemented after abolition than liability, it is highly relevant. Pro attacks my first subpoint as a slippery slope argument, stating that I cannot prove that life imprisonment will be abolished. I agree that I cannot prove it, however considering that there are already people against it in the U. S. the chances of its abolition are much higher than if there were not. Pro tries to discredit this subpoint by stating that I was trying to put a check on democracy. This is unfounded, because what the death penalty is is a check on mistakes that can occur with life imprisonment. Pro responds to my second subpoint by stating "but he provides no comparison of his statistics with that of the life sentence, so his argument here lacks valid evidence. " Not so, because when criminals appeal their death sentence, they appeal to get it moved down to the next lowest sentence, which is life w/o parole. Therefore, this point still stands. Pro also states that the purpose of a punishment is not to be harsh, but just. Agreed, however the DP is just. The DP saves lives, and criminals fear it. This is significant, because a criminals reaction to a punishment is a good indicator of how just it is. In conclusion, I have shown the death penalty to save lives, and to be a better punishment than life imprisonment. My Opponent has not shown any viable alternative to the death penalty, and thus I strongly urge you to negate this resolution. Hats off to my Opponent for an excellent case, and a very fun round. Sources:1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us...3. . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...4. . http://ag.ca.gov...