The death penalty should be abolished

I thank con for presenting an interesting and challenging case."1. The DP saves lives"The first thing we should note is I've already refuted this, in my last round. I proved that the death penalty ends innocent lives so even if we were to agree with my opponent that the death penalty saves lives in certain ways, the point would still be canceled and diminished from the fact that its use also ends innocent lives in other ways. If the voters end up agreeing with both points, that's fine with me since I believe my other arguments sufficiently prove my burden and the two would cancel eachother out. Con basically argues that 17 studies on deterrence have occurred and of the studies 10 said yes, 5 said no and 2 were inconclusive. Now this assumes that there have only been 17 studies since 1996. His argument could only work if that were the case since its purpose is to show a majority support. I have to contend the numbers though. Just the number seems too small itself. My research confirmed as much. It only includes a limited selection of studies. For example, cons source does not include the study by "the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies based on a review of more than three decades of research concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. " [1] Another study released in 2005 by Robert Weisberg was not included in my opponents source.[2] That brings the tally to 10-7 in favor of deterrence. But I need not go on. I have completely refuted and invalidated cons point. There is no need to take it into further consideration since it claimed most studies support deterrence but only included a limited amount of studies to make the ratio.I do have an issue with my opponents sourcing. Given the fact that he posts a few books as sources, I have no real way to access them. This largely prevents me from being able to properly analyze them. I hope the viewers keep that in mind.I already dealt a little with deterrence last round. An astounding percentage of criminologists (88%) don't even believe in the deterrent affect of capital punishment.[3] The claim is extremely controversial and if we examine my opponents sources, not much is conclusive. Notice my opponent quotes the Ehrlich & Liu study as concluding strict crimes cause deterrence. That is very important for it is saying that non death penalty punishments can still act as a deterrence. It only says strict punishments act as a prevention. Strict punishments could be found with life imprisonment. We don't have to turn to the death penalty. The study proves nothing in support of my opponents case. In the end I just have to ask, if we need a firm punishment to provide deterrence, why the death penalty? Surely life and prison could be made just as firm or firm enough. Solitary confinement, spending the rest of your life with rapists and murderers; whatever method, we could certainly provide an extreme punishment elsewhere than the death penalty. I do not support such hard punishments as my contention one completely refutes it, but hypothetically if we did want one, capital punishment isn't at all necessary. The deterrence argument reasons along the lines that strict punishments prevents crime but capital punishment isn't the only strict punishment.Criminologists like William Bowers maintain that the death penalty does the opposite of deterring in that society is "brutalized" by the use of capital punishment thus increasing the likelihood of murder. In fact, the US has a higher murder rate than all the countries of Europe and Canada which do not use the death penalty. [4]Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox states "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse." [4]Austin Fletcher, professor of philosophy also states, "Most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment. Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended. In such cases, violence is inflicted by persons heedless of the consequences to themselves as well as to others[.....] If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime."[4]The above three quotes all refute the major reasoning taking place in the studies my opponent sites. For example, David Muhlhausen's reasoning only works if murderers are always rational enough to way the costs and benefits of the crimes, view the costs to be too high and wouldn't view them high if the death penalty were not in place. Most of the studies are to quick to connect cause and affect. The Frakes & Harding article itself even asserts that the analysis is limited and there might not be a link.I have no idea why con states parole is a common occurrence. Most prisons in the United States employ life without parole and the average is increasing upwards.[4] So not only is the point small, it is being diminished by the increased rate of life without parole. And come on, my opponent sites stats from 1984. Yes preventing those criminals from leaving prison would have saved lots of lives. But that was almost thirty years ago! Can my opponent say it's the same now? He cannot and has not. His (8) source is ridiculous and clearly bias. It amazingly claims there are no known innocents executed since the 1930's. What blatantly inaccurate assertions. (I already demonstrated innocents being executed last round so viewers can refer to there). What's even more funny is the source it uses to make that claim is from the same site. Also con says evidence posits near 28,000 people have been murdered from recidivism when the source only says it might be. It even puts "might" in all caps suggesting the claim is largely speculative."2. Justice is needed"My rebuttal comes in three points.My main refutation of this can be found in my opening case. If my C.1 is correct, this contention is completely demolished. I've already shown that those who commit horrible acts like the one con mentions are acting because of genetic, causal, environmental and cultural influences which are all external and irrelevant to his will. This huge factor largely alleviates responsibility and overall promotes a more forgiving attitude even towards the most heinous acts. Rehabilitation and segregation are much more important than punishment due to this fact. And if you can't rehabilitate him then so what? Just keep him in prison. He doesn't deserve death.The second point has already been mentioned. Life in prison can be just as bad or worse that the DP. Criminals fight for LWP because of the natural instinct to repel death. That doesn't mean they'll hate life in prison. Even if they didn't hate it as much, we could make them. If my opponent advocates strict punishment why not just advocate stricter punishments incorporated into prison? Lastly, my opponent never really sets any sort of criteria for what does satisfy justice. He argues horrible crimes deserve fitting punishment. But what is fitting? Why death? Why not torture? Why not torture and then death? Why not a life of prison serving the state along side other rapists and murderers? My opponent advocates capital punishment in contention that it satisfies the need for justice but I contend abolishing it only promotes a more civilized and forgiving society. [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] http://www.annualreviews.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...