The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Although my opponent has failed to answer to all of my arguments made in R3, I will attempt to rebut all of his most recent points.RebuttalR1: New Argument(s)May it be recognized that the argument of repeated offence once released is an illegal contention to make, as it has not been put forth in R2. This argument is void.R2: Killing the Killer"Pro argues that capitol punishment is revenge because it gives back an equal or great level of pain to the killer. First of all, this isn't true. If a murder stabs someone 32 times, does the state stab him 32 times in return? If he burns someone to death does the government light him on fire?"I have clarified this many times throughout the debate: capital punishment is revenge because it is killing someone because he/she killed other people. It is simple, and it fits the definition I have given.R3: Equation of IntentThis argument for the ethics of retribution is also a relatively undeveloped argument in R2, however, I will respond.Retribution and revenge, regardless of content, has the same intent. The intent of a retributive response is to make up for the original wrongdoing (such as murder). Capital punishment is therefore a retributive response in a murder case. Revenge also has the same intent: to make up for the wrongdoing.I equate the two due to intent, not content, as my opponent tries to bring up to debunk this equation."So, if a bully at school kicked a school boy onto the floor, kicks him all about his body, spits on him, urinates on him, calls him names, tears up his books, and rips his school clothes, then the boy stumbles up, and give him one hard slap in the face, are you saying that slap cannot be revenge just because it didn't equal what the bully did to him?"Again, the issue of content vs. intent comes up. Of course it is revenge, because its intent is to compensate for the pain originally administered to the victim. It is the same with capital punishment, which is exactly why I am advocating its annulment.R4: Repeated Conflation "So, isn't prison and fines also a harmful action against a person in response to their crime? Seems to me that even Pro's alternatives to the death penalty can be classified as revenge, so his point here is mute! Just think of all the times people you know have gotten revenge. It wasn't always exactly and eye for an eye, was it?"Again, my opponent conflates the idea of balanced punishment versus a retributive one. A retributive punishment, like killing the killer, is in relation to the original crime itself; however, fines or a prison sentence in response to an illegal action independent of these responses is balanced, yet not, in this sense, retributive.I have reiterated this point throughout this debate, and my opponent seems incapable to directly respond to this disparity between balance and retribution.R5: False Statement on My Arguments"he uses the fact that the death penalty is painful"I reject this claim, as I have not claimed that the death penalty is painful. I have based my claims solely on fundamental ideology and research into the costs and deterrence effects. R6: On the Rejection of Bestiality Example"Now Pro says that a fitting punishment is not always a retributive one, and cites a mentally unstable person engaging in bestiality. But this is a bad example because such a person should not be punished at all. The psychiatric hospital is not used as a punishment for this person, but a means of helping them to hopefully return to their sound mind. This person is clearly sick, and certainly no court should give someone life in prison or a death sentence for committing a crime while not in their right mind. Mental illness is a sickness just like the cold is a sickness. We don't get punished for being sick."It is not a bad example- criminals who engage in illegal behaviors in part due to their mental illnesses are seen as fit candidates for mental health institutions. "When people are diagnosed as mentally ill and commit crimes, [those who are] declared not criminally responsible [are] sent to psychiatric institutions."R7: Misrepresentation of Costs"Pro argues, the death penalty is expense, so abolish it. The guillotine isn't expensive, neither is long drop hanging, and surely we can gas them to death while they sleep. So the same way Pro claimed the problem of women being raped in prison can be fixed, the price of the death penalty can also be fixed. Executions do not have to cost that much. We could hang them and re-use the rope. No cost! Or we could use firing squads and ask for volunteer firing squad members who would provide their own guns and ammunition. Again, no cost. There are many imaginative ways the cost of killing someone can come down. Criminals themselves don't seem to spend too many millions to get their victims killed, do they?"It is not the actual carrying out of the execution that costs all of this extra money, it is the imprisonment on death row, preceded my extensive capital trials, which cost millions."A Seattle University study examining the costs of the death penalty in Washington found that each death penalty case cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought ($3.07 million, versus $2.01 million). Defense costs were about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution costs were as much as four times higher than for non-death penalty cases...The Department of Corrections said housing prisoners on death row cost more than twice as much per year ($49,380) as for prisoners in the general population ($24,690)."The costs of capital trial are virtually unavoidable, and are a large portion of the total costs of a single institution of capital punishment. Containment on death row also costs significantly more than containment outside of death row, and although the time spent on death row awaiting execution could potentially be reduced, the costs of capital punishment would still greatly outnumber the costs of a life-without-parole sentence.R8: On the Argument of Added Deterrence Effect"Pro finally argues "My argument is that it is pointless to have capital punishment when studies show that it adds no deterrence effect to the punishment of life in prison." And life in prison adds no deterrence effect to the punishment of capitol punishment. For that matter, imposing a fine adds no deterrence effect to a few months in prison, and vice versa. So this argument is senseless. No punishment, it seems, is the major factor in reducing crime in a country."No, the analysis of deterrence effect is not senseless, as my opponent argues. The point is that it is no more effective to have the death penalty than to have life in prison in terms of deterrence. Coupled with my argument about the extra costs for the institution of capital punishment, I would argue that it is senseless to keep the death penalty despite these gaping problems.----------------It is evident that my opponent has failed to sufficiently refute my points on the fundamental and logistical issues of the death penalty, so I am inclined to claim that it is resolved that the death penalty should be abolished.I await my opponent's response.