The death penalty should be abolished

I would also like to make a correction: in my first contention, my source from the National Research Council corresponded to the wrong link. It was meant to be cited as source number 4, not source number 3. Contention 1: The death penalty is ineffective in deterring murder. Rebuttal A: The argument from authority is not in itself a logical fallacy; however, it can be used in a fallacious manner. [1] The argument is fallacious if the authority in question is not an expert on the subject. If the experts have sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question, are speaking about something within their area(s) of expertise, agree with other experts adequately, are not significantly biased, are experts within a legitimate discipline, and are identified properly, then the argument is not fallacious. [2] As the experts in question are Fellows in the American Society of Criminology (ASC), had won the ASC’s Sutherland Award (the highest aware by that organization to criminological theory), or were presidents of the ASC from 1997 to 2009[3], they have significant expertise, are speaking about something within their expertise, are experts within a legitimate discipline, are not significantly biased, and are identified properly. As over 88 percent of these experts agree with each other about the topic in question – the deterrence of the death penalty – they also agree with other experts adequately. As my argument meets all criteria for a proper argument from authority – that is, an argument from authority that is not fallacious, and is instead a strong inductive argument – it is not fallacious, and my contention still stands. Rebuttal B: While Con has charged me with committing the argument from authority fallacy in my first contention – a claim that I prove to be categorically false – I would assert here that he actually commits that fallacy. My opponent’s reasoning is as follows: A is an expert in subject S. A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore C is true. However, John Lott is an economist and political commentator, not a criminologist[6]. His field is economics, not criminology. As such, I would argue that John Lott does not have sufficient expertise in the field he is speaking to; does not agree with other experts adequately (as shown by the agreement of 88 percent of experts from the ASC that the death penalty does not deter crime); is not speaking in the correct field; and is significantly biased. Lott’s bias is shown in a defamation suit filed against him – which was found to have merit in its claim that Lott’s research was not peer-reviewed – a survey taken by Lott that could not be reproduced, and a general consensus by his colleagues that his use of econometrics as proof of causation was fundamentally flawed. [7]My opponent’s second “expert,” Wesley Lowe, is an assembly operator and fantasy author. [8] His field has nothing to do with the topic at hand. By contrast, I cite noted criminologists, statisticians, and peer-reviewed studies. Rebuttal C: I would note that the entire point of the National Research Council’s study was to show that studies that claim to show that the death penalty deters crime are fundamentally flawed. My opponent also attacks the American Society of Criminology’s reputation as biased without merit (its journal, Criminology, is regarded as the leading journal in the field[9]), and cites yet another economist – Naci Mocan – in a clear appeal to authority. Contention 2: The death penalty is unequally applied. I would like to note that my opponent deliberately changed the wording of my contentions. In my original argument, I did not claim that the death penalty was racist- merely that it was unequally applied. Rebuttal A: As such, Con has misrepresented my argument. My source stated that, in crimes where there was a white victim, the death penalty was applied much higher in crimes where there was not a white victim. I did not claim that blacks were executed more often than whites. Despite this, however, Con accepted that “it is indeed true that most people sentenced to death row are black. ” My opponent’s statistics here are, as such, irrelevant: he has failed to address my argument. My contention still stands, and I would argue that my opponent has conceded the point here by accepting that the death penalty is unequally applied. Rebuttal B: Here, my opponent has perhaps made an honest mistake: he did not understand the meaning of my source. I will clarify: my source claimed that those charged with murder who had at least one appointed to their legal counsel – that is, a public defender – receive the death penalty at a higher rate than those with legal counsel on retainer- that is, those who can afford to buy their own lawyer, and not have one appointed to them by the state. Con has also failed to source his claim that “in modern times,” public defenders are generally as good as private lawyers. Again, my opponent has failed to address my argument: that the death penalty is unequally applied to those who cannot afford to have their own layer, and are forced to accept a public defender. My contention still stands. Contention 3: The death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. My opponent does not address my argument that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment without parole. He claims that my sources only look into individual cases, and not the “overall picture,” but fails to provide the overall picture or refute my sources. Con’s statistic, then, is irrelevant: the cost of the death penalty is lower in cases that resulted in plea bargains, because the death penalty did not occur. When the death penalty was not appealed – that is, when the case was actually about the death penalty and not an avoidance of said penalty – in many cases its cost was higher than life imprisonment without parole (as per my sources). I will address my opponent’s argument that “the DP could cost almost nothing! ” later on (space issues). C1: Deterrence I would argue that my opponent’s first two sources are out of date. Of the four he cited, two studies were conducted in a period when the death penalty was not even in effect: 1968 and 1974, respectively. Of the other two, I would argue that my source from the National Research Council renders them moot: both were published nearly nine years before the recent NRC study (published this year) which stated that studies claiming the death penalty to be a deterrent are fundamentally flawed. C2: Recidivism Murderers sentenced to life without parole, by definition, do not get out of jail- which is the entire point of life without parole. My opponent’s source stated that prisoners who were not sentenced to life without parole – as life without parole had not been established in Texas at the time – left prison and committed more murders. This is irrelevant, as they were not sentenced to life without parole. Running out of space. Conclusion:I have shown that my original contentions still stand, that my opponent has fallaciously appealed to authority, and that my opponent has misrepresented my arguments. My opponent's citations are unreliable and superceded by recent research. Con has even ceded one of my points. If a human life is the most valuable thing on Earth, as he says, and we can't change the past, then the death penalty promotes further bloodshed. I urge a vote for Pro. Sources: [1] . http://www.nizkor.org... [2] . http://www.nizkor.org... [3] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[1] [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] . http://deathpenalty.procon.org... [9] . http://www.asc41.com...