The death penalty should be abolished.

I affirm the following: The death penalty should be abolished.Wow! Fantastic arguments! I will start off with my rebuttals and then continue with a few more contentions.Rc1: Saves LivesA. DeterrenceMy opponent states that the death penalty deters crime. However, this is a dangerous topic for either side to go on. Many studies have shown different results. However, we do not need a study to suggest that the death penalty is not a deterrent. There is irrefutable data that states with no death penalty have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty. Not only does this suggest that the death penalty doesn't do a good job of deterring crimes, but also that LWOP does a better job of deterring crime."For 2012, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.7 [1]" - DPIC (Death Penalty Information Center.)Studies on the deterrence of the death penalty have been rocky and inconclusive, with data suggesting it both does an outstanding job of deterring crime and other data suggesting it does not. Even Rothbard states "it is impossible to prove degree of deterrence." The ACLU has found evidence that suggest LWOP is in fact a MORE deterring punishment than the death penalty [2]. Now, we look at the opponent's study. Apparently the study was questionable for the state of New Jersey to mark it off as "inconclusive," and have "little public impact." Furthermore, we see the same source that delivered his date, Washington, report that studies show that the death penalty is not a deterrent on murder rates [3]. A study by the National Research Council was the same as a 1978 study that showed the death penalty did not favor the side of either not deterring or deterring crime.My opponent states that there is no harm done if the death penalty does not deter murders. What about the money we could've saved? What about the dead body in the chair that had been promised by the Constitution to have a right to life? What about the doctors who executed the man but SWORE to preserve life? There would quite obviously be some harm done. If the death penalty does deter and we don't use it, LWOP will deter too and we can keep innocent people safe. Therefore, this argument is weak and relies on data that can, and has been, refuted by multiple sources. This argument stands neutralized.***B. RecidivismFUN FACT: Both Ray Allen and Billy Hamilton are sports stars. Ray Allen is a player for the Miami Heat who is considered to be the best three-point shooter of all time. Billy Hamilton is the fastest player in baseball, on the Cincinnati Reds.My opponent states that a murderer who has been executed can never again cause a death. This is irrefutable. However, it is not often in modern day (if even apparent) that a LWOP would escape from prison. Clarence Ray Allen murdered last in 1980, which was about 34 years ago [4]. The opposition's second murderer was in 1989, about 25 years ago. The point is, times have changed. I ask my opponent to name a more recent person who murdered another person due to not being put down.Now, if the death penalty was abolished, money could be (and/or could've been) put into making sure inmates do not escape. Primarily, California could significantly up their security on LWOP prisons, leaving no chance for escape. In conclusion, we could take steps to make no chance of any LWOP escaping with the funding of the death penalty no more. This argument stands refuted.***Rc2: The death penalty is justIn this argument, my opponent states that there is no good argument against the death penalty, and that it is just.First off, if there were no good arguments against the death penalty, why is there still a debate on this? The cost is a good argument (I'll refute your rebuttal on that later, don't worry.) Second, the death penalty is not very just. There is speculation that article 8 of the Constitution does not approve of the death penalty [5]:"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."The U.S Constitution forbids cruel punishment, such as the death penalty. Taking away a life is cruel and inhumane, even if the person took away a life. We must still recognize the prisoners right to life. The U.N also says in article 3 that "everyone has the right to live" [6]. Therefore, the death penalty is not just. I have already refuted that LWOP is fit for the title "ultimate punishment for ultimate crime." This argument is false.***Rc1. CostI will split this rebuttal up into three parts to correspond to my opponent's three paragraphs. First, he states that this shouldn't be considered because you can't put a price tag on justice or human life. However, the person you are submitting to death penalty is a human life, is it not? If there was truly "no way to put a cost on human life," we wouldn't be spending millions on the death penalty to prevent a killer from striking again, which is very, very rare on its own. Second, we put costs on human life literally on a daily basis. Military sends out millions of people to protect their country at the price of dying. The underlying flaw in this argument is that if you spend money on one thing, you can't spend it on another thing. Spending money on the death penalty ensures that the same money won't be spent on crime control, which could save MORE lives than the death penalty (crimes outside of murders would be affected, also.) Second, my opponent argues my source 5 data. He states that the death penalty is well worth the extra $500k to save 3-18 murders. On balance, this would be true. However, my opponent fails to notice that LWOP deters murder also. His study is also based on just 12 executions in 2004-2006, which makes the data loose and unreliable. The methodology of it could also be flawed, as could any study. If an execution saved 5 lives, it is probably correct that the LWOP would've saved just as many. If we had to "upgrade" the LWOP to make it seem scarier, we could still save an adequate amount of money. Say that you save $100,000 on a LWOP case. You can now buy 439 college algebra textbooks.Secondly, my opponent argues that my source is not true. He states that the average non-death penalty was in no way $3,000. However, he overlooks my source states a city called Lubbock County. Then, he says there were no citations. However, the source cites an L. Carver article in MLA format at the bottom of the page [7], THEN gives you an alternative link to show you where they got the cost information from. Did you overlook this?Then, he proceeds to say that if one murder was stopped per 34 executions, we come out on top at a $17 million loss, while the average murder costs $17.2 million dollars. The subtotal is listed as 5 million dollars per murder, with 12 million dollars for the WTP. Once again, he assumes that LWOP deters NO murders at all (even though it obviously does.) If LWOP deters one murder in every 34 cases, it is just as effective and costs $500,000 less.Last, plea bargaining. I would like my opponent to show just how often a person facing the death penalty plea bargains, so I can add up the cost and effectively refute it. ***Rc2: DeterrenceA. I have already refuted and dealt with most of this. My opponent states that LWOP deters less murders because of European countries. However, this is false. Countries (all around the world) have much higher homicide rates [8]:“The five countries in the world with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty have nearly half the number of murders per 100 000 people than the five countries with the highest homicides rates which do impose the death penalty (United Nations Development program)”The top 10 countries that have the highest murder rate per 100,000 more commonly have the death penalty (6 out of the ten highest-rated countries in murder have the death penalty.)Last, my opponent states that my survey is unreliable due to the lack of reasoning by the experts. However, my opponent probably did not read the full 20-page report [9] to find out the reasoning and data behind it. There is also a statement that pops out of the page:"Since only four of the 251 inmates executed between 2004 and 2008 chose to be electrocuted, Zimmerman’s work suggests that whatever deterrent effect the death penalty may have had is now history. [10]"Zimmerman's works show that lethal injections may have taken some, if not most, of the fear out of the death penalty. This draws us to the conclusion that if the death penalty did deter murders, it is very likely a decreased amount today. Also, if the death penalty deters 1-2 murders per year, it is common sense LWOP would, too.Rc3: InnocenceThis will only refute part of thett3's rebuttal because of the limited characters I have. My opponent states that 144 innocents released from death row shows that the system is working. It is working because it is realized as the "highest" form of punishment, and thus officers try to do everything in their power to prove a man is guilty. If LWOP was the highest form of punishment, there would be multiple releases also because it would be considered the highest form of punishment.Thanks, thett3![1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] https://www.aclunc.org...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...[5] http://www.americasfreedom.com...[6] https://www.un.org...[7] http://lubbockonline.com...[8] https://fullfact.org...[9] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[10] "DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?: THE VIEWS OF LEADING CRIMINOLOGISTS." Vol. 99, p. 498.