Capital punishment to criminals should be banned.

Rebuttals:DeterrenceThough I have thoroughly addressed this in my case, it is the only substantial point brought up by my opponent. He claims that there will be a deterrence effect. This has proved false time and again. An overwhelming majority (90%) of criminologists agree the death penalty will not have a deterrent effect. [1] In a more recent study, 88% of the nation's top criminologists disagree with the notion of deterrence in regards to the death penalty. [2] Criminologists are the experts in the field of crime. This point of deterrence is illogical, as these studies have the same conclusion.CostMy opponent incorrectly claims the death penalty will save prison costs. However, while true, that doesn't outweigh the extra costs that accompany the death penalty. In reality, it costs less to leave prisoners in prison for life rather than execute them via the death penalty, as each individual trial can cost between $2.5 million and $5 million. [3] Moreover, "Capital cases are more expensive because they involve - on average - five times more pretrial motions, five times more investigation by the defense team, 66 times longer to select and exclude jury members, 30 days more in court, twice as many lawyers (by statute)" and longer and more complicated appeals.[4] (pg. 544) The cost argument is nullified because the cost of the death penalty is actually more than it would be to keep them in prison for life.Defense:Morality Argument:My opponent's interpretation of this argument is severely flawed. The death penalty operates under the assumption that if person A kills person B, person C has the obligation to kill person A by means of redistributive justice. This is flawed, because you can't continue cyclical killing because it's illogical and immoral to continue killing people. And, if carried to the extreme, it would exterminate the human population. The teacher analogy is also flawed. Killing is unjust, punishment for not doing homework is expected. Punishment can be achieved in a variety of ways, including areas where the punishment is not unjust or immoral. The same, the death penalty is neither just nor moral, so we should pursue more just options such as life in prison.Inhumanity Argument:Just societies do what is best for their citizens, and provide justice to the families. This is done by sending criminals to prison (which is a better deterrent of crime, costs less, and is moral) rather than killing them and thus extending injustice to the killer's family. Hangings and headshots are NOT humane. Moreover, most death penalty cases have been executed through lethal injection, so my arguments are very applicable. The point is, as you mention, they either wanto to be set free or killed. So by killing them, you actually grant their wishes, and no real punishment is given. The "easy way out" would be to just end it. Rather, punishment dictates they pay for their crimes in prison where they exercise community service and other benefits to society."Worthy" Crime Argument:I understand stealing candy doesn't necessitate the death penalty. However, as I have pointed out, there has been abuse to the system and the death penalty has been used when it should not have been. Skeptical conjectures should not be punishable by death. This is what has happened, as well as children who can't rationally consider their decisions being punished by death. This gives no chance of rehabilitation, for crimes that may or may not be worthy of the death penalty.Innocence Argument:This is actually not necessarily true. There have been numerous cases (mentioned last round) where people have been found innocent after the execution has taken place. This allows no room for initial human error. So essentially, by assuming the intital investigation is correct, you do neglect the pursuit for justice for the killer/criminal. If they were actually innocent, there is no opportunity to free them later. Essentially, the DP takes away any possibility of justice later.Deterrence Argument:I've already addressed this in the rebuttal. Abolishing the death penalty will allow better deterrence (life in prison) becuase, as my opponent conceded, many criminals actually want to die rather than live in prison. The restriction of freedom in prison is a better deterrent than death.Cost Argument:My opponent misinterprets the actual cost argument. The cost of death penalty is considered primarily from judiciary costs. As mentioned in source 4, there is a lot of cost in the trials. [4] Moreover, it costs less to actually enhance crime prevention before rather than use the death penalty afterwards. In fact, studies estimate that each additional hired police officer by a city prevents an average of 24 more serious crimes annually. [5] This is important becuase the certainty of punishment is more important and has a larger deterrent effect than the severity of said punishment (i.e. death penalty). [6] Essentially, the certainty of prison time and capture (i.e. more officers to ensure capture) is more effective than a blatant execution.Conclusion:The death penalty (capital punishment) has a host of flaws, and should be abolished. Specifically, it isn't a crime deterrent, it has moral issues as well as problems with the success of punishing guilty/innocent people. Thus, it should be abolished.Sources:[1] http://news.ufl.edu...[2] http://www.colorado.edu...[3] https://www.law.columbia.edu...[4] Sherod Thaxton, “Leveraging Death,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 103, No. 2, 2013[5] https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com...[6] http://www.sentencingproject.org...