The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Even though my opponent has forfeited the last round of rebuttal, I will summarize both my arguments and his, and give my final say on the matter of the the abolishment of capital punishment.My Arguments1) The death penalty is unjust, since it is based on the immoral principle of revenge. My opponent has failed to adequately respond to this argument or address any of the four premises I put forth in R2, so I assume he has conceded this argument. Furthermore, our government should not stand for any unjust principle, and should strive for a fair, moral judicial system to uphold the laws of a fair, moral society.2) It costs more to carry out a capital trial, keep a prisoner on death row, and execute the prisoner, rather than life in prison without parole. My opponent also recognizes the evidence I have put forth, and has conceded this argument without adequate response. Therefore, it is unjust to taxpayers to funnel their money into an institution that is both immoral and more expensive than the more appropriate alternative.3) It has been proven in countless studies that the death penalty does not add any effectiveness to the deterrence effect of life in prison, therefore, the death penalty is a fruitless exercise in terms of deterrence from crime (one of the key goals of our criminal justice system). The prospect of the death penalty will not hold any weight in a criminal's mind over the weight of the possibility of life in prison without parole.-------------------------------------My Opponent's Arguments1) "I say that because as I stated in earlier, how would you feel if you knew the person who killed your loved one got to continue to live life , and your loved one life was taken from them?"Response: My opponent argues in favor of the eye-for-an-eye principle. In ANY case, revenge is irresponsible, inappropriate and immature. A truly prestigious, just government cannot stand for such a principle, which is the grounds for the death penalty. I have also clearly shown through examples that the death penalty does not bring closure to the family of the victim in a capital case, in fact, it often has a negative effect on them after capital punishment has been carried out. These examples include the story of Aundre Herron, and warden Jeanne Woodford. 2) "So your argument that "The death penalty is sought by the victim's family often for the purpose of closure" is invalid. Do you think the family wanted the man who shot their loved one to continue living?"Response: Of course the death penalty is sought by the families of victims for the purpose of closure; this is shown through the stories of Mark Klaas and Jeanne Woodford. However, as Woodford notes, this closure is non-existent. Capital punishment does not change the situation at hand, except by adding one to the death toll.3) "As I said earlier the decision is often made by a jury or judge!"Response: My opponent claims that the victim's family is not responsible for the institution of capital punishment because a judge/jury makes the decision. This argument is flawed; the experiences and testimony given by the victim's families is often to show that the death penalty should be instituted, and as Mark Klaas believes, capital punishment will give closure. Families of victims testify in court against the murderer in hope of this indictment, so that closure can be achieved, but as Woodford explains, after the trial is complete, the families realize that the closure they expected is not granted, and instead, regret and remorse for participation in the trial consumes the members of the family.-------------------------------------ConclusionI wholeheartedly enjoyed this debate, and although my opponent forfeited the last round of rebuttal, I thank him for his time.I believe that my arguments are not sufficiently refuted, nor are my opponent's arguments sufficiently valid, therefore, I find it is resolved that the death penalty should be abolished.Thank you.