The death penalty should be abolished.

"Neither do opinions and the only things you have provided so far are opinions. Facts are the only evidence accepted in law." A. What about those facts I stated about innocent people getting killed, and the death penalty being a lot more expensive than prison sentences, and you not stating anything except families get warm fuzzy feelings from retribution. I guess mine don't count, I guess? "Because they are not." A. Yes they are, I showed you a study, do you have any counter studies? 'Give evidence that innocent people many have been killed recently." A. As of now, this is impossible, the study I presented was the only modern one done, and it was sprinkled over a long period of time. Distributed. B. You also have to keep in mind, since over this period many people were falsely executed, there is an almost guarantee to be more that have not been found out yet. "It proves that it is not mostly innocent people being executed, that more often it is people like that same cocky guy who is incapable of remorse." A. I have to say, to my awareness you have no actual grounds to say he was incapable of remorse. B. So what if it is usually not innocent people, it still is sometimes, that still counts.... completely. "It kills guilty people." A. Sometimes the people were not guilty. B. How exactly is them being killed an advantage? "carries out punishment for crimes." A. Life in a cell is fairly punishing. B. How exactly is this super important? Cost is important for obvious reasons, and innocent people being killed undermines the entire purpose. "...it shows the world that dangerous criminals will not be privileges. A. Ah the old death penalty is a deterrent to crime argument, I'll cover why this is wrong soon. "...give the families peace of mind." A. Do you have any solid evidence for making this claim? B. How does this undermine innocent people's lives and tax revenue. "... removes dangerous criminals from threatening more lives." A. Ever heard of life sentences? I have, all the death penalty is is a replacement for some of those. Life sentences exist, and without the death penalty, more of those take its place. But then, after however long, the people that did not commit the crime could be released with their lives. Okay, now the old deterrent to crime argument... the death penalty fails as a deterrent to crime, and I will explain why. A study that surveyed some top criminologists in The American Society of Criminology, Winner's of the ASC Sutherland Award the highest reward for criminology in The American Society of Criminology, and presidents of the ASC since 1997. Ready... 88% said the death penalty was not an effective deterrent to crime, 88%. So the professionals almost unanimously agree... the death penalty does not work for deterring crime. Also, even more, 94% believe that the death penalty has little or no empirical evidence to support it as a deterrent. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... There is more evidence to support it being not an effective deterrent, and I could give it at the request of con in the comments, but as of now, we understand, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. "It must be considered that you kill them once and it is over, giving someone a life sentence makes up that pay amount for years to come." A. No, no, no you are lying. I said, about $1,000,000 for 40 YEARS, the average life sentence. Some life sentences are more and therefore slightly more expensive yes, but some are also less. So an average life sentence costs 50% to as low as only 20% of a death penalty. B. Do not forget, you also have to pay for room and food for the time the person being executed is on death row beforehand, so you will have to pay the price of prison until the finale execution price, combines with trials and appeals, and it is cheaper to put the person being executed in prison for their life every time. This is a fact. "I would like to not that since only approximately 1,000 people have received the death penalty. If they are innocent that can't be proven." A. Okay, nothing can really be 100% proven. That includes some ones guilt, where the burden of proof really lies, this is a logical fallacy. B. We know as well as we can, that at least 4.1% of the people that have received the death penalty since 1976 were wrongly given the death penalty. "May I ask where is the undeniable evidence you speak of? the evidence of many innocent people being killed... There is not any because you can't for sure prove is anyone has been wrongly accused." A. Again the same logical fallacy, nothing can ever be 100% proven, even with a confession, maybe the confession was just a moral obligation, or political tactic, or maybe they were blackmailed, hey you don't know. This doesn't mean that nothing counts just because of this. B. A study of top statisticians from Michigan and Pennsylvania, that is it. I will not explain it to you since I am not in that category, however, you could read their study for yourself too if you want. There is my evidence. C. However, undeniable may be the wrong term, undeniable in the sense that, this is the best evidence we have on this. http://www.pnas.org... Keep in mind always some of the innocent people were exonerated before death, some were found innocent after death, it is split.