The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

C1: Deterrence"Killing someone" and "murdering someone" is different. My opponent fails to see the fact that executing guilty criminals is justified when you save up to 74 innocent lives.In fact, if anything, choosing not to use the death penalty is immoral. Why? Due to the fact that you are sacrificing the lives of up to 74 innocent humans.You have the choice of choosing between 1 guilty murderer or 74 innocent civilians. It is imperative that the death penalty is used.Either way, the death penalty is 'politically, legally, morally, and religiously," justified.C2: Bargaining Chip I find it funny how my opponent tries to use a source that claims to know that all data about plea bargaining rates are 'old'. Hmm. It is weird how my sources in the first round are not working. But here are the sources I used to justify the fact that the death penalty is used as a bargaining chip.http://www.thenewstribune.com...This source was published quite recently - in 2007 - by a rather trustworthy source.http://www.thecrimereport.org...;This source was published in March 25, 2011, and claimed that the death penalty served as a valuable tool for prosecutors.C3: AccuracyThis is interesting. My opponent uses "Procon.org" as a source. Hence, I shall use this agaisnt her, and quote credible sources that counter her arguments.Source 1: Orrin G. Hatch, JD, US Senator (R-UT), in his June 13, 2000 speech "Statement of Senator Orrin Hatch Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on 'Post-Conviction DNA Testing: When Is Justice Served?'," stated:"Advanced DNA testing improves the just and fair implementation of the death penalty. While reasonable people can differ about capital punishment, it is indisputable that advanced DNA testing lends support and credibility to the accuracy and integrity of capital verdicts." Source 2: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in its June 26, 2002 article "DNA Testing and the Death Penalty," posted on www.aclu.org, wrote:"The increasing use of DNA testing to help confirm the innocence or guilt in capital cases is one among many reforms that will help ensure that innocent people are not sentenced to death." Source 3: Walter F. Rowe, AM, PhD, Professor in the Department of Forensic Sciences at George Washington University, in the National Institute of Justice's June 1996 research report "Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial," wrote: "The introduction of DNA profiling has revolutionized forensic science and the criminal justice system. DNA technology has given police and the courts a means of identifying the perpetrators of rapes and murders with a very high degree of confidence." Other than that, my opponent apparently concedes to all other arguments within this contention.C4: PopularityFunny how it only decreased by a few percentage poitns.....And it is quite hilarious that my opponent is trying to predict future trends on a one-year trend only. Sadly, I don't see the logic in this - for decade a majority has continued to support the death penalty.My opponent must provide a reason why decades of past data should be ignored, for the fact that in the last year, support has gone down a little bit.My opponent also ignores all of my other popularity points.====C1: Life in Prison Source 1: David Schaefer, PhD, Professor of Political Science at Holy Cross College, in his Dec. 2001 article for The American Enterprise titled "The Death Penalty and Its Alternatives," wrote:"Anti-death-penalty groups know, of course, that there is no guarantee that a sentence of life without parole will actually be followed. Potential killers likely know it too."Once again, future decisions may change the fact about wheter or not a inmate stays in jail for life actually.And my opponent only asserts. There is no specific reason on why "The death penalty 'delivers less'"? Or that spending life in prison is more 'swift', 'severe', or 'certain' than death. And how is Life in prison a good option for 'public safety'? Once again, *everyone* is put at risk, due to the fact that inmates can get out.My opponent also concedes the fact that inmates that are convicted of lesser crimes are put at risk when there are more murderers in jail.