Should we abolish death penalty

I will jump straight to the debate.C1) A single death sentence is very expensive"The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.)"[1]You really have to think about this one; three million per death sentence? That is a huge waste in tax dollars. Now, tax dollars may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is.This is something for everyone to take in mind, including kids; Everyone will grow up to a point where money will be a big concern. The huge waste in tax dollars can result in the raise of taxes. Of course the U.S. government wants to become a top-rating country. All countries' governments do, and if that is something you are against, maybe because of taxes, you can not do anything about it. So, they will raise taxes if they need to. Now, you may be asking, "Why do they even need taxes in the first place?" Taxes are what pay for street projects, building projects, etc. Basically, taxes pay to improve the U.S. And these improvements are what is going to get the U.S. going. C2) Inmates can be executed by mistake, and execution can not be reversed."Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made"[2]This is a pretty big one. This is stated my many, including me, that are in opposition to the concept of the death penalty. Inmates can be executed by mistake. In fact, very many innocent people that were not capable of proving it were sentenced to death[3].C3) The detterent value of the death penalty has not yet been proven.Some of death penalty's advocates claim that it is a detterent to all crime. However, as recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, "there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty."[4]There not only is no conclusive evidence to its detterent value, but you would think that criminals know that their lives are over, thus they make the last of it by commiting more crimes while they can. The execution goes by in a snap.This contention is agreed upon by my opponent, so there is no need in responding to this one.Now, my opponent defines death penalty as the penalty of death given to those who have commited serious crimes, such as killing, but with no doubt of their guilt. We normally do not go by it as that; we typically think that people are sentenced to death even with a bit of doubt of their guilt. My opponent should know this, so it should have been defined in the first round.Someone who is against death penalty may agree with the concept IF it is only given when there is no doubt of the criminal's guilt. Therefore, in this debate, you must go by the typical definition, and if reinstated, you must define death penalty.Now, I will refute my opponent's argument.C1) It ensures that that person can not come back at us.My opponent knows that with the death penalty at hand, those criminals whom have commited serious crimes can not escape prison and get back at us. However, as I said, we must go by the typical definition of death penalty. So, thinking about the contentions I have presented against the death penalty, we must say that the cons outnumber the benefits.Also, prisoners do not escape often. The percentage of prisoners whom escape in a year ranges from 1% to less than 5%, which is ridiculous[5]. The further proves my point about the cons of death penalty outnumbering the pros.I now return the floor to con. I would like to see if he will be able to refute my arguments. Good luck to him![1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://www.icomdp.org...[5] http://www.slate.com...