On balance, Death Penalty as a punishment has a negative impact on the society

Thanks again to Pro, I'll rebuild my case, refute Pros. I. Saves livesA) RecidivismPro argues that recidivism is lowest among murderers--this is an argument in favor of capital punishment, as the harsh penalties applied to murderers often keep them from killing again (you can cross apply this logic to deterrence--people follow their incentives). She drops all my specific examples, claiming that since they were isolated examples they don't give me any positive ground. Maybe this would be more compelling if Pro's advocacy wasn't based upon even fewer instances. My argument was never that recidivism is widespread, but rather that the only way to ensure it doesn't happen is to apply the death penalty to murderers. Pro argues I gain no ground from this if I don't advocate executing every murderer, but that makes no sense. One of the examples I cited was actually someone who's death sentence was overturned and ended up murdering 9 people. I cited another person who was serving a life sentence and still got three people killed. This is the direct result of imprisonment over death. Pro drops that poorer nations can't afford extensive security (another positive externality from the death penalty) and makes no argument on people escaping in developed nations. All she says is that people on death row will be more likely to try to escape due to fear of death--I'm glad Pro agrees with me that death is a huge negative incentive, proving the logic of deterrence. I actually agree with Pro here, but I doubt seriously the added incentive has enough of an impact to outweigh my argument, and if it does Pro hasn't proven so. What are the numbers?Pro argues that the death penalty isn't always instant and that this lessens the impact of deterring escape. This is true, but it's not an a priori argument against the death penalty but rather a very specific attack on one nations system. Pro doesn't impact this. What percent of death row inmates escape due to the added time? I think it's clear where this point flows. Life imprisonment? Pro accuses me of the slippery slope fallacy but doesn't question the logic behind it. Without the death penalty to lobby against, people against harsh sentences for criminals will direct their resources to life imprisonment. This is empirically shown by comparing nations that use the death penalty to nations that have abolished life without parole--there is no overlap. Pro argues that the culture of the EU is different from the rest of the world without explaining how it is in relation to punishment, but the countries that abolished life imprisonment include several in South America, Asia, and one in Africa, it doesn't just happen in Europe.Pro also misunderstands the argument. I'm not saying that the death penalty should be upheld just to keep life imprisonment, rather I'm providing an internal link to show how societies react to the abolition of the death penalty. Again, this means Pro doesn't even solve for her own case.B) Deterrence Pro drops all of my logic on this point, extend it all. Remember, people follow their incentives and responses Pro has made to my arguments (like death row inmates trying to escape more) prove the logic of this point. I even cited a murderer who said he committed murder because he "knew [he] wouldn't go to the chair". Like Rothbard argued, it's a manifestly absurd view to argue that punishment does not deter crime and as such it is without a doubt that some crimes are deterred. I actually agree with my opponents card regarding the studies trying to prove deterrence--there are too many variables to be sure. That's why her card decided it was inconclusive that capital punishment deterred crime based off the studies. I cited the studies to prove that, for the literature that exists, it's all in my favor. Note also that Pro entirely drops the empirical data I cite that goes down to a county specific level. Really the question comes down to which side should we err in favor of? If the death penalty does deter crime (and all the logic, statistics, and studies prove so--even if the studies are measuring something difficult to quantify) and society doesn't use it, then the criminal justice system is failing in it's primary social goal of deterring future crime (dropped by Pro).Again, we are not necessarily talking about justice but rather the overall effects of capital punishment on society. Saving lives benefits society for obvious reasons, and it's clear who comes out on top here. Opponents case a) Futile Pro argues that the death penalty is unjust because it is "..the only punishment that fuels off the public cry for justice.." which is wholly false. Anyone who's read about or experienced, for example, the United States in the 90's when there was widespread outcry for politicians to get "tough on crime", led to harsher prison sentences, three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentencing, trying juveniles as adults and, yes, increased use of capital punishment knows this is patently false. I honestly am not understanding Pro's argument here, why is the death penalty alone subject to the issues of devaluing life? Like I argued before, there is always going to be some differences in sentencing to be decided at the jurors/judges discretion. Again her impact is not being solved by her alternative of life imprisonment. Pro argues that the death penalty is bad when people are killed to "prove a point" that their crimes were so heinous that they shouldn't be alive and somehow this devalues life but doesn't explain how. I could just as easily argue that increased imprisonment for particularly brutal kidnappings devalues freedom. Again, Pro doesn't solve for this impact if it even exists. b) Innocence I'm really surprised that Pro dropped a lot of my arguments here. You can extend the argument that incorrect sentencing is decreasing due to technological advances. Pro argues absurdly that life without parole would have the same outcome despite a large chunk of my first contention proving the very opposite, and remember that empirics show us we wont HAVE life without parole without the death penalty so her alternative can't solve. Recall also that since Pro didn't give any numbers on how many people have been executed unjustly she cannot outweigh my impacts. She asserts that I'm "okay with" murdering innocents but I could accuse her of the same by opposing the death penalty despite the recidivism and deterrence impact. Pro drops all of my statistics, the very meat of my argument. The only thing she offers in return is that if we abolish the death penalty the focus will shift onto life imprisonment cases. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works. If there were many social workers trying to prove innocence for each prisoner, we wouldn't have a problem but what we actually have are very few people that care enough to do the research and lobbying required to prove someone innocent. This means that while they can focus their efforts on the few death penalty cases and actually review them well and efficiently, compared to the multitude of life imprisonment cases that would overwhelm their efforts. My point here is that an innocent sentenced to death is highly unlikely to actually be executed, while an innocent shipped off to prison will almost certainly stay there forever as the empirical evidence shows.People given life imprisonment also only get one automatic appeal compared to many for death penalty cases--they have fewer chances to get their message out and the cost of the death penalty appeals process will prevent countries from ever giving it to all their prisoners sentenced to life. Want to save some innocents from a horrible death in prison? Then we must maintain the death penalty. Remember also that we aren't talking about the justice aspect of the penal system but the social side. I save more innocents by far than my opponent and as such I benefit society more. That's the resolution we're debating.