The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder.

I have to say my opponent is very specific and comprehensive in his arguments. So, I will respond in kind. I have two main sections: 1)Rebuttal & 2)Defense of my original arguments from my opponent's rebuttals.(I) REBUTTALC1. Capital Punishment saves innocent lives.SPA: Capital Punishment keeps a killer from striking again. As per Pro's own source 98.8% of those convicted of homicide were not rearrested. Only 1.2% were. And this was in 1994. Since Pro chose this year to make his argument, I am sure that even less were reaarested in years other than 1994. Of those rearrested, how many were actually convicted? Pro's source does not give the answer but this [1] source shows that the conviction rate for homicide cases is less than 10%. This means that about 0.12% of people released after committing a homicide were convicted again and 99.88% were not convicted of another homicide. The risk to the innocent public is extremely minimal at 0.12%. That is 1 in a thousand. The people on death row committed those crimes because they had nothing to lose. Once someone is sentenced to death, they have absolutely no reason to not try their best to escape and if necessary kill the police during the escape. They are already sentenced to death even if they behave. Where is the motivation.As for racial tensions between inmates and fatal fights in jail, they are common and not restricted to people who committed homicides.You mention that Clarence Ray Allen was sentenced to life without parole, he was released. How is that possible. What I am saying is that all people sentenced to the death penalty must be sentenced to life without parole. That means no release. To conclude SPA (what does SPA mean anyway? and C1?), life without parole also keeps a prisoner from killing if it is implemeted correctly. This should not be played around with and inmates sentenced to life without parole should not be released. So DP is not required to stop an offender from reoffending. Even if they are released, the chances of reoffending are miniscule.SPB: Capital Punishment has a deterrent effect.No, it does not! [2], [3], [4], [5]. You seem to be mixing coincidence with corelation. If you were right, then I could argue that it does not deter homicide because states with death penalty have a much higher homicide rate [3] and that executions make people want to kill. So, capital punishment does not save innocent lives because people who reoffend should have been locked up for life anyways and it doesn't deter other criminals from committing homicide.C2. The DP is a better punishment than Life without Parole.SPA: Life without parole does not always mean life.There may have been one case where one criminal sentenced to life without parole was eligible for parole. Whether he was actually paroled, pro's source doesn't say. In any case, taking the life of a person to safeguard against a possible future change in laws is an inhumane preemptive strike against life.SPB: Prisoners view the Death Penalty as harsh Firstly, the death penalty is not a punishment, it is a state sanctioned homicide. Secondly, of course the prisoners view dying as harsh. So, are you saying we should kill people so that others become scared? It is a reckless disregard of human life to kill in order to set an example for someone else. Besides this point seems too similar to the point about deterrence which I have already refuted in a more precise fashion.(II) DEFENSE OF MY ORIGINAL ARGUMENTS1) Human rights violation: Amnesty International is the supreme authority on what constitutes a human rights violation so pro can't just dismiss it as an "opinion." Also the United States cannot a police state which routinely abuses human rights for to save innocent lives or "for the greater good" as some other states like Zimbabwe and Nazi Germany might. Human rights are supreme and are not to be violated under any circumstances. 2) Barbaric and Medieval: The impact is that my opponent is saying "The vast majority (65%) of Americans disagree with my Opponent and believe that the Death Penalty is a moral action." and I am saying that support is actually declining. Secondly, medieval people are less civilized than modern people, hence modern people's abolition of the DP shows that it is a cruel medieval "punishment" just like drowning, iron maiden etc which will be abolished when people become civilized enough to do so. Thirdly, it is true that it is declining as my source shows. There is no reason to believe that Pro's source (Gallup polls) is any more credible or impartial than Amnesty International which is a sexy, top notch international organization. Galloping is something that horses do, so it is medieval. (okay, just kidding!)I agree that Con did not make those arguments. I made those arguments when it was my turn to provide opening arguments. 3) Costs more: My opponent's own source [6] says that the death penalty costs more. I'll take this point as a freebie and not waste time arguing further. Thank You thett3. :-)4) Leads to the death of innocent peopleHow dare Pro says that no examples are given since no examples exist?? <mock outrage> Again, Pro's own source says "Since 1973, 122 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Its imposition is irreversible which deprives an individual the right to benefit from new evidence that might lead to the reversal of a conviction." [6] There have been 273 post-concivtion exonerations in the United States. 17 of the 273 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.[7]And overall the U.S. has exonerated 138 death row inmates to dateI can't believe that my opponent would just let 138 innocent people die because of a miniscule possiblity that a future law change may cause someone who was sentenced to life without parole to be released and then commit a crime of which there is a 1 in a 1000 chance of hapenning. That is a blatant violation of human rights. Correction, this is genocide. 5) There are other optionsIf people escaped from prison, it only means that prisons should be more secure. That is the fault of the prison guards, not a reason to impose DP. 6) Doesn't help the victim or the victim's familyPro does not understand the point I am trying to make. I am saying that taking a life is wrong by any standards and even if we take a life in response to a criminal act, it is not worth it because the victim's life will not be restored and we will have two dead people. The prisoner's life is not taken when he/she is sentenced to life without parole. I think it was a miscommunication since my opponent and I seem to arguing two completely different things. Hope this clears it up.I saw the victim's families responses but the question remains: What do the victim's family get when the killer becomes the killed? 7) Cruel and Unusual punishmentThere is a difference between awaiting impending death in the near future than dying after living a natural life.Just because the supreme court says it doesn't mean that that's the way it should be. We are not debating what is, but what should be. Using the same logic, the vast majority 60% of Western Europeans are against the DP[7] so it proves that they don't consider it moral.ConclusionI have refuted all of my opponents points and defended my own against my opponent's refutation. Vote Con. Sources[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...;[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://www.enotes.com...[5] http://www.dartmouth.edu...;[6] http://www.globalpolitician.com...;[7] http://www.innocenceproject.org...;[8] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...;