The United States should Abolish the Death Penalty

"A. Okay, but this is a bare assertion right now."Is it really just bare assertions? Is that not how philosophy works? Look up Descartes philosophy on the Evil Demon. This is how philosophers think and come up with conclusions. If you want to just go shooting everything down for being bare assertion, it's up to the voters to see if it makes sense."A. Okay, however arrests on violent crime are different from the death penalty. Having the death penalty or not does not mean violent criminals are arrested more."Okay, now I know that I'll have to explain every single thing to you because you just take stuff out of context without reading. I'm showing the effect of deterrence. If just jail time deters people, what more would Death Penalty? "A. Problem with this, con doesn't have a source that we can examine so we can ignore this until next round when they present a source.The problem with this is Pro just ignores my quotes. I literally wrote the writer's name, and the data she sourced it from. If you want exact quotations, I'll do so from now on. I didn't give the exact link to save words, as I assumed Pro would be reasonable. Apparently not. Well here's the link, considering that you wouldn't even give it a look, and you're just doing this to find something to rebut: http://deathpenalty.procon.org...Also, since Pro did not rebut anything regarding the "Precautions of Cops" example, I'll take it that he agrees that Gary Becker's "The rational choice theory" affects the cop, and in turn would also affect possible criminals. " Murder rates did decrease, but it is not because of the death penalty. Murder rates have been decreasing in both states with and without the death penalty since the 1980's. "Do you have evidence of so? If you are allowed to ask for evidence, then I should be allowed to, too. Also, if such evidences are available, I'd liek to refute your second part, which is : "What we can conclude from this is that the we can not give the decrease in murder rates to the death penalty."False. If evidences are available, then we're can't give ALL the credits to death penalty, but we can still give partial credits to death penalty. The fact is Murder rates did decrease coincidentally after death penalty was introduced. "A graph on the website for the death penalty shows that at least since 1990, states with no death penalty have had lower murder rates"But from the graph, you can see that Death Penalty did drop! It had lower rates because it always had lower rates. I'm not trying to prove that death penalties are the best deterrant; I'm saying that it is an effective method of deterrant."A. 1 deterrent doesn't work. retribution does not justify the lives of innocent people.""Deterrent does work. Obviously you did not read anything I typed, even when I had a huge Header which says "I. Deterrent." It deters others from carrying out crimes. As for retribution not justifying the lives of innocent people, I'd like to use your own words against you: "A. Okay, but this is a bare assertion right now.""A. But if innocent people are dying, that goes out the window, and as I showed, sometimes they do. Giving them a life sentence isn't to correct them, but to contain them, because if they are proven innocent which has happened multiple times before, you can't justify killing them."Don't worry, I'll create a special Header later, a whole section on this topic, so please do read it. In fact, every argument you have regarding "Accidentally executing innocent people" will be rebutted in a whole different header. "Listen, for some one guilty I don't feel a moral obligation to keep them alive, however when there is a chance they are innocent, and the death penalty costs up to 5 times more, is it really worth it?"How does it cost more? Where does the cost go to? Why does it cost more? I said to elaborate more on why it cost more at the beginning of my Round: "I will refrain from rebutting the points you have stated in Round 1 to allow you to elaborate on it." Without any evidence, all I can say is saying that death penalty costs u to 5 times more is, to once again quote from you, "...his is a bare assertion right now."Furthermore, Pro has failed to rebut my point on how the state has the right to take away lives, it would mean that he doesn't oppose this idea. Let me now officially start my new point! (Was supposed to be points as in plural, but Pro didn't elaborate on costs :( )As I've promised...I. Innocent PeopleThis is always the argument used by anti-DP (Death penalty. I'll shorten it from now on). They seem to always want to put people in jail for life, without the possibility of parole. Since Leave Without Pay cases get a lot less scrutiny, the alternative means many will die in prison... so much for protecting innocent people. Assume that 20 people were actually executed. It is nothing compared to the 180 - 800 lives saved each year (at least) from deterrence (Oh don't you go asking for citations. I already did). A basic life-life tradeoff actually shows that the DP is just. Even assuming all of these people are innocent, if the DP deters crime, “a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. Also, a simpler evidence is that we may examine and judge a death sentence trial with much more scrutiny, as I've already mentioned in the previous round.I'll once again end with this statement to reinforce my points. DP is not a evil. It is, in fact, deterring others from commiting such acts. Thank you.