Resolved: The United States Should Abolish the Death Penalty

To be honest it's also irrelevant. This is a debate about something in practice, meaning the status quo is already in place. Unless my adversary is the one handing out the sentences, the status quo would remain in effect and proceed in the same way. He is affirming a policy that is already in place, meaning he is affirming the status quo. Granted most are for murders, but he can't simply change and note there are only *certain* ways in which the DP is applied when that is largely relevant to the rulings and how they are issued. So to summarize(1) He did not define "heinous"(2) He is not the one to determine how the DP is handed out. Ironically the bit he copied from Roy actually stats that it is handed out "after a conviction. .. for a criminal offense", so that actually affirms that it's subjective to rulings. Without him defining heinous as "only murders", anything he typed out for this part is largely irrelevant. R1) DeterrenceThere are studies going both ways that shows deterrence either does or does not work. In a largely majority consensus, most experts agree that the DP has not deterrent effect. Nearly 90% of them actually[16]. This is impacted by a few reasons. You have to look at the target area for how these studies are used. Meaning the time they are conducted, the background data that plays into it, and the context as well. I'm actually in a fundamental disagreement with my adversary on his main point, which is criminals tend to act with reason and logic. That is applicable to certain types of crimes, but not the types that earn one the death penalty. Again ironically he is stating that the DP is strictly for those that commit murder, so even if he were to get that point he then has another issue. People that are ready to commit murder do not act rationally or with logic. It's basic biology. There are quite a few things that cause people to act more aggressively. Damage to the pre frontal cortex of the brain[17], decreased serotonin levels[18], and adrenaline. The amygdala processes emotion and when adrenaline levels are spiked, emotions go crazy causing people to act with less reason if any reason at all. What causes emotion and adrenaline to spike is what is referred to as a trigger event, and it takes less than a second. If you walk in and see your wife with another guy, anger is triggered in the amygdala and adrenaline spikes causing you to think without reason. At that point logic and reason are gone, because you are running on emotion. If someone where to see that and want to kill, the last thought in their mind is the DP. They are thinking with emotion, and deterrence is not a factor. It does not matter how many studies are conducted, you can't account for emotion and events that trigger people to do heinous crimes. Also to note a majority of the studies that are used for deterrence occurred during the moratorium . It's what pro DP activist cite as a way to prove that crime increases when the DP is removed, but it fails to account for the population. When most of the studies where done, there was a giant influx in world population, meaning crime is naturally going to increase just off numbers alone. Correlation does not entail causation. A correlation is intrinsically impossible to prove because of the above reasons. The context in which people kill change, and you can't conduct proper studies on deterrence because it is based on trigger events. Also just to notate as I said in my last round. The amount that is saved from abolishing the death penalty can be used to invest in more police forces which in turns actually acts as a better deterrent than the DP itself. Becker who is Cons own source actually affirms this in his paper crime and punishment [20] which is based on criminals acting rational. So if we are looking at a deterrence effect and even if you buy cons case (which you should not), his own source states that Police Officers are the best way to do it. The costs you can mitigate by abolishing the DP in turn is used for police forces which is de facto the best deterrent by his own source. R2) JusticeThis is literally based on the Code of Hammurabi, meaning an eye for an eye[19]. Justice is not served by killing someone that kills someone. Justice can be served in different ways. Meaning as long as we catch the person and stop them from committing more crimes, justice is served. That does not mean we have to kill them. Under his own logic he is basically saying we should rape rapist. This entire argument is tied in with the fact that retribution of some type necessitates justice which is by no means true. The entire code is what our legal system was based off of, and has evolved from in most cases. Revenge is intrinsically found within humans, so the concept that revenge has to be used in order to get justice is normative in old practices and by their standards. The issue is that is not true. What is moral and what is right, is not based on retribution. That type of mindset is actually inherently harmful because it proposes that every action has an equal consequence without the chance to rehabilitate or an option for improvement. The major point of this is that justice can be served without retribution, the two do not necessitate each other. C1) CostsIronically Con argues that plea bargaining reduces the cost of the DP. I was going to spend quite a bit of time on this, but there is no need. He actually concedes that abolishing the DP is the most cost efficient method in his last round, but then tries to go to a mitigation method. By his own admission the DP is 30 percent more costly (this is with plea bargaining). There are two logical inconsistent points that I want to point out right at the start1) Cons entire case on justice derives on retribution and killing in order to achieve that2) By offsetting costs with plea bargaining you are undermining this point. So to put this in perspective. Con's entire case of justice can be dropped because his counter offer to costs is to offer plea bargaining out of the DP, meaning justice is not served. Also to note that by stating this, con has also stating that the best case scenario cost wise is the DP being *only* (lol), 30 percent more expensive. I will dive into numbers if I need to later but he just gave me both points without me having to dive into detail. He concedes that the DP is more costly by nearly 30 percent, and has shot himself in the foot with his justice argument as he loses death by retribution in order to offset costs with plea bargaining. I'm just going to use cons numbers on this, but assume hes right and it is 30 percent more costly( best case ). That money that is saved by abolishing it could be used in increasing police forces which cons own source states is the best method for deterrence. For con to even get close to winning this he now has to show that 30 percent is such a marginal amount that abolishing it is not worth it. C2) Innocent lives lostI was kind of shocked by his response to this. It basically was *eh we fuk up alot, but not that much*He tries to get around the fact that the FBI framed people by saying it was not *guaranteed* those people were not innocent. Run that back. The counter argument is basically*Oh it's cool we planted evidence. He may be guilty*He literally states verbatim" So flawed evidence was used in 20 cases which resulted in execution, but that does *not* necessarily mean that they were innocent "By no means is that logical or a counter argument to the case. Any argument for justice can be discounted as justice has to be delivered properly. He is basically saying it's fine if the FBI frames people because the people they are framing *may* not be innocent. I mean what else is there to say. That was cons words verbatim. Let's allow the FBI to plant fake evidence and hope they keep the right target. Let's just skip due process and infringe on someones right to a fair trial because the people they are framing *may* be innocentC3) SuppliesAgain the response to this is just not valid. He asserts *that he sees* no reason why it's not humane. Whether he sees these new methods as humane is a non factor, as he is not the one setting the criteria for what is cruel and unusual. What is a fact is that the Supreme Court has intervened and ruled most of these methods out, and are setting a criteria for what is humane which is drastically restricted. Con's personal thoughts on the matter do no weigh into the decision of the court. In fact the APHA is discouraging nearly all of its 62,000 members from participating in executions [21]. Not to mention the fact that Texas and Illinois are literally running out of drugs entirely . With the supreme court discouraging most new methods as inhumane, this is a significant impact. C5) Customary International LawCon just drops the balls on this argument all together. This is a debate about establishing why the DP should be abolished. Singapore as I said is executing countless people on charges of drug crimes. As long as the DP is legal in the US and ruled as humane we have no ground to challenge these executions. Con also straw mans my statement. I saw the US was the only *western* country to carry out executions. Also whether people support the DP and whether executions are carried out are two different things. By abolishing the DP we set a framework for humane methods of punishment, and it allows us to challenge other countries when they try to put our citizens to death. Sources[16] . http://tinyurl.com...[17] . http://tinyurl.com...[18] . http://tinyurl.com...[19] . http://tinyurl.com...[20] . http://tinyurl.com...[21] . http://tinyurl.com...[22] . http://tinyurl.com...