Resolved: The United States should retain Capital Punishment for murder.

I will hit what my opponent has said and then write a conclusion. My case: Cost: I did not concede to your notion, I responded to it quite clearly but since my opponent has missed it I shall copy-paste it again here. I said: "The only attempt he makes to refute my evidence is to say that they did not actually undergo the death penalty since they were not killed but this is just false. It is true that not everyone on death row has been killed yet even the cases before being killed cost more than life w/o parole! Let me say that again, even before we include the cost of the injections/electricity, the cost of the DP cases are vastly greater than life w/o parole. It does not matter if not all the people have been executed yet, they will be and the ones that have are also factored into the total cost thus my opponent's claims are false. But also let me show something again: "Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution". That is a quote from my Kansas source thus my opponent's claims that they do not count the actual execution is provably false. Cross apply to Maryland." thus we can see I did respond to my opponent and thus my cost stands. My opponent also never refuted my Kansas evidence which was "counted through to execution" thus I win on that alone. As to the Maryland evidence: the above can be cross applied to Maryland. With Maryland, even if we ignore the costs of the electricity/chemicals, the cases alone cost more than life w/o parole! To restate, my California evidence was never refuted, it was only said to be not relevant due to the 13 executions but he has conceded that the evidence itself is good thus it stands. My Kansas evidence was ignored and Maryland still stands. I win cost. Cost v. Justice: I did not concede that life w/o parole is more just. I will respond to this when I get to his case though but let me add one thing, cost outweighs in this case because America is spending way more money then it has on a form of punishment that is not needed. Just looking at my evidence from round 1 we can see that changing the DP to life w/o parole would save over $100 million dollars! $100 million from abolishing just one outdated form of punishment is amazing. Also, my opponent has not shown how the DP is more just, all he showed was the prisoners fear it (which I will respond to soon). That is not proving it is more just. This point has not been proven. Innocence: I have given tons of examples of people who came near execution but were saved. Yes, it proves our pardoning system works but this is what I said with my original list, "While it is true that they were not yet killed this just goes to show you that if 21 people (from one source alone) were all sentenced to death and found innocent there are most likely many more who have been killed and who are innocent.". But since my opponent keeps ignoring this I will provide some name of posthumous pardons. Joe Arridy[1] Here is a report regarding posthumous pardons: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... I have shown time and time again that the risk of killing innocent people vastly outweighs my opponent's "impacts" and thus, if only on this point, I urge you to vote con! Look at the evidence I have provided and make a fair judgment. His case: C1SPA: So what if we execute all the murderers? Do you honestly think that murders in prison will not happen? I am showing that the cases you have pointed to could be done by any criminal. Just executing murderers would NOT stop them from happening. As to your examples, my opponent concedes that he does not know what their sentences were thus they could be in there for a major robbery but not murder thus this is irrelevant. Unless he proves that the 7 were originally sentenced for murder, which he did not, then this is moot. For this to have any relevance he must advocate the killing of all criminals. Martsay: My opponent's evidence does not show that he was convicted of murder the first time thus my point about the Texas 7 can be cross applied here. Donald: This evidence is good but the risk of innocence outweighs. Martsay again: See above xD James: Same as Donald. The final thing that can be said here is the sheer number of innocents sentenced to death grossly outweighs anything my opponent can throw. I have given over 40 cases from 2 sources alone were innocents have been sentenced to death but were, luckily, saved at the last minute. I have also shown innocents that were killed and a man who was posthumously pardoned. My point massively outweighs SPA. But just for fun here are some quotes regarding this: "I've been in this system for over 40 years. I've been held hostage and been through multiple prison riots. If someone told me that the death penalty would protect me as a corrections officer, I would be offended...The death penalty does not safeguard anybody."[3] "Prisoners serving life without parole are often much less likely than the average inmate to break prison rules. Virtually all studies and accounts of lifers by correctional workers confirm this"[3] I suggest voters to look at the evidence and you will see who wins. SPB: //The ACLU evidence my Opponent has shown does not give enough data to assess if the DP deters// You are "hardy qualified to make such an analysis". You have dropped all my evidence and thus I extend it. I extend my ACLU evidence, my Deathpenaltyinfo.org evidenece, and my graph. But since my dropped evidence seems to not be enough let me show you more, "A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty. FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate."[2] Please look at the graph in [2] and you will see that I win this point. C2SPA: My opponent has given two links where people talk about abolishing it and that is fine but until my opponent gives a qualified report, not some news paper report written by a random reporter I suggest that no one take heed to this argument. My opponent is just citing people who want to take away LWOP. That is it. SPB: This was originally lumped into my "not a punishment" contention but I will respond here again. So what? This proves nothing and my innocence contention outweighs. But again I will give evidence to the contrary. "Life without parole is much worse than the death penalty." These are the words of Thomas J. Grasso who was put to death in '95.[4] Conclusion: I have proven that the DP is much more costly than LWOP and this has gone unrefuted. The reason I did not provide evidence on every state is because I do not have enough characters to do so but I have given a broad selection of evidence and it still stands. I have also shown that there are very real cases of innocents sentenced to death and I have given a posthumous pardon case. This too has gone unrefuted. I have disproven my opponent's contentions and thus I strongly urge you to vote con! A note to my opponent: Thank you so much for giving me the chance to debate this and I'm sorry if I wasn't at my "A game". 1: http://www.aolnews.com... 2: http://www.amnestyusa.org... 3: http://ejusa.org... 4: http://www.nytimes.com...