eath row for decades? All of these punishments are exceptionally cruel and barbaric and have no place in modern society. Morally and legally, we are on the wrong side of this issue."
             B. The death penalty should be replaced with a more effective alternative in punishing criminals so that it does not contradict what is in the U.S. Constitution.
             Mark Costanzo, Ph.D, Just Revenge, Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty, 1997, pgs. 163 and 164.
             "According to Amnesty International, "The alternative to the death penalty, like the alternative to torture, is abolition." But what would happen to convicted murderers if there were no more executions? There is already a realistic alternative to killing them: Life imprisonment without parole plus restitution (LWOP + R). If we tore down the execution chambers, people convicted of what are now capital crimes would receive an automatic sentence of LWOP + R. They would be forced to live out their lives within prison walls and would never be eligible for parole. In prison, they would be required to work to defray the cost of their own confinement, and a portion of their earnings would go to a victim's relief fund. Americans seem ready to embrace this alternative. As we have seen, detailed surveys of attitudes toward the death penalty show that Americans favor LWOP + R because it reduces the cost of incarceration, provides some form of restitution to victims, and is more likely to teach murderers to accept responsibility for their crimes."
             C: Decision Rule: If the Affirmative Plan results in a more effective punishment for murderers and increases America's representation as a true democracy, an affirmative ballot is in order. The negative must disprove the affirmative.
             Contention I: The U.S. should sign and ratify the treaty which abolishes the death penalty.
             ...