Humankind has consistently used punishment to unnerve future offenders from illegal activity. Since humankind has the topmost significance in deterring murder or other heinous crimes, it should practice the most robust punishment possible to avert wrongdoings, and that is death penalty.
Unfortunately, our judicial system shows more empathy to criminals than it does to victims. It is the right time to put priority of our justice system back on safeguarding the victims rather than the offenders.
One of the biggest debates against the death penalty is the chances of error. Of course we can never absolutely wipe out skepticism, but nowadays, DNA testing and other approaches of modern crime scene science can now productively eradicate almost all ambivalence as to a person"s guilt or innocence. DNA testing is over 99% efficient.
In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich utilized a new manner of study that shows that 7 lives are spared from murder for every inmate who was executed. Identical outcomes have been presented by zealots of Ehrlich in follow-up researches.
Capital punishment subsidizes to the dilemma of overpopulation in the prison system. Prisons across many countries are now facing the issue of too many prisoners and not ample slots or capital. Each new prisoner needs an allocation of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time, and so forth.
Penalties which are rapid and assured are the best deterrent because there are some studies where the death penalty is subtly used and that takes some years before death penalty is finally performed.
Death penalty gives prosecutors another dealing chip in the plea bargain proceedings, which is crucial in reduction of costs in an squeezed court system.
According to Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, said: "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks.."
Particularly, this is a style of elimination, related to the idea how a thief put in jail is inhibited from stealing on the streets.
(BBC.co.uk, DeathPenaltyCurriculum.org, BalancedPolitics.org, List)
Thank you for that Coding and I hope we have an excellent debate.
1) My first contention is that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, as shown in the graph of (1)
Sorry it may not be complete as this is on word but through the power of excel I have found that the average murder rate over this time span was 5.14087 in states without the death penalty and that of the ones with it had an average of 6.575652. These statistics are per 100,000 people.
I believe I have sufficiently shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder.
2) It is Hypocritical
How does punishing a murder with the death penalty make us any better than the murderer?
3) The Death penalty is more costly than a life sentence
As you can see the death penalty simply costs more than life in prison (2) as seen in many states such as Kansas where it costs 70% more, in Tennessee where it costs 48% more, Maryland where it costs 3 times more and California where it costs roughly 12 times more.
4) Innocent people get convicted and they can’t be let out once it is found that they are innocent.
4% of people convicted of the death penalty are innocent which contradicts Pro's claim of 99% accuracy, and I'll ask you, is it worth it if anybody wrongly dies. (4)
Now on to the rebuttals
Sources (1) "Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......;.
(2) "Death Penalty Cost." Amnesty International USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.amnestyusa.org......;.
(3) N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://researchnews.osu.edu......;.
In fact, that study is among the other xii researches that show that death penalty absolutely has a preventive factor. The studies focus on executions and foul plays per year and by state (in America) trying to deny the fact that death penalty does reduce crimes. However, among other studies it shows that, given by Emory University professors" 2003 nationwide study, Capital Punishment hinders 18 felonies whereas, other conducted studies show that in every execution, death penalty discourages three, five, and fourteen. According to University of Houston"s 2006 study, the Illinois government"s suspension on Capital Punishment in 2000 has resulted on 150 increased murders followed by four years. Bestowed by an Emory University professor in 2004, one homicide would be deterred for each 2.75 years removed from time wasted on death row, which defines that speeding up the process of death penalty would boost its deterrent factor. 
There is important information given by David B. Muhlhausen that gives more great studies that show that Capital Punishment deters crime"and save lives. Independently, Professor Shepherd"s research in this topic where he recorded monthly data from 1977 to 1999 settled three important points: (1) it lessens 3 murders; (2) it prevents the homicide of one White American, 1.5 African-American and 0.5 in other races, (3) shortening the waiting period of those in death row by 2.75 years would prohibit one crime. Auburn University"s Professor Robert B. Ekelund, with his associates, used a small state-level data from 1995 to 1999 and the outcome of the study is that death penalty lessens single murder rates. From 1960 to 2000, Professors Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd used a state-level panel data to conduct a research about the link between executions and homicides before, during, and after the U.S. Supreme Court granted the suspension of Capital Punishment. The conclusion of the study is that the carrying out of moratoria is related to added killing incidents.
As shown in this image: http://www.heritage.org..., Americans overwhelmingly favored Capital Punishment. Why did I bring this in this argument? It is because they support it for two good reasons: (1) There is scant information that states that proposes that Capital Punishment treats minorities cruelly and that (2) it deterrents crime. 
Abolitionists demanded that it is more costly but the yearly imprisonment costs are $40,000 to $50,000 a year per prisoner. Given by J.F.A (Justice For All), life without parole costs over $1.2 to 3.6 million more expensive than death penalty cases. 
According to Gary D. Beatty, a Florida Assistant State Attorney, wrote that "If the mu[l]tiple layers of appeal are pursued in an ethical, and fiscally responsible manner, execution is less costly than warehousing a murderer for life." (4)
Abolitionists asserted that it is "atrocious and bizarre punishment", but the 5th Amendment says otherwise. Thus, the Constitution grants death penalty.
Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, and Revelation 13:10 shows that God used it first.
(3) http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... (Section D)
1) My graph showed that the death penalty does not in fact, lower homicide rates.
2) In fact the de3aht oenalty does cost more http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
3) Appeal to authority, just because the constitution says so does not seal your argument https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com....
4) Another appeal to authority, the bible is not proven to be true and even if god did it first, does that make it okay?
Since I have already discussed about Death Penalty's crime deterrence, it is time to focus on its capability to retribute and rectitude. I will also disprove its being unconstitutional and other things.
According to Budziszewski, "Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done.”  When a person performs a crime, it unsettles the society's order. Therefore, death penalty simply rebuilds order to society and modestly punishes the criminal for his crime. Retribution also gives justice for the victims and their families, revenge per se, but without malice. For this reason, it proves the simple definition of retribution.
For the abolitionists, they say that the government has no right to take the life of a person. However, according to Immanuel Kant (among other philosophers), "a society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken taken somebody else's life is simply immoral." This has rebutted all other claims about having this as immoral. The criminal isn't killed inhumanely as all of the states that has this use lethal injection because the U.S. Constitution's 8th amendment states that they shouldn't practice cruel and unusual punishment. No one is calling this unconstitutional.
“…No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976…The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal…” Steven D. Stewart, Prosecuting Attorney.
And, the criminal's race or economic class is not relevant. If you're guilty, you should receive the right punishment. It is said that poverty creates criminals and there is more chance that they will receive this. However, Ernest van de Haag says:
“Punishments are imposed on persons, not on…economic groups. Guilt is personal. The only relevant question is: does the person to be executed deserve the punishment? Whether or not others deserved the same punishment, whatever the economic or racial group, have avoided execution is irrelevant.” 
In 2002, there were approximately 1,526 people killed in 31 countries, and 3,248 people that were receiving this in 67 countries. Plus the 81% of executions in China, Iran, and the USA.  That data is just for 2002 and as the population grows, the figure also grows. Therefore, it is helpful to lower down the number of inmates on death row.
"Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.
There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive... than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP." - Dudley Sharp 
(4) http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... (Sec. D)
mc9 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|