Death penalty

Thank you for replying. I was afraid you had permanently terminated your account. C1: Cost I believe that cost is an important factor in determining whether or not the death penalty should remain a part of the judicial system in the United States. Under the current system, the costs for life imprisonment is far less expensive than it is to institute the death penalty. This is because many defendants do not want the death penalty and will fight state governments for a long as 10 years, costing money in criminal trials, like you said, up to a total of $3 million dollars. But the fact is, the death penalty doesn't have to be mandatory. If the option between life in prison or the death penalty is given to the defendant, a large amount of money can be avoided from defendants fighting off the death penalty in courts. If the defendant opts for life in prison, the state will save 8 times the amount of money per case by avoiding a death penalty trial, since most of the money spent in a death penalty case is spent on the trial alone, not on the actual execution [1]. You may be wondering why criminals would even want the option to the death penalty, like I have mentioned. Sometimes "[criminals] feel it is an act of kindness to them. The argument here is - Is life imprisonment a crueler fate?" [2] And often times criminals see death as a way to escape their guilt. If you look at statistics for murder suicides in the United States, 1,000 to 1,500 murder-suicides occur every year [3]. If the murderers were caught before they took their own life, I would be certain that they would want to seek the death penalty, rather than life in prison. This is based on the fact that if they didn't want to die, they didn't have to kill themselves. But because they killed themselves, they were seeking death. C2: The death penalty does not deter crime. The death penalty does deter crime because offenders will not be able to repeat their offense once they are dead. In your solution for deterring crime, you suggest that murder rates can be "curbed by addressing the environmental and social factors that contribute to violent crime" and then cited a quote that "The murder rate is most closely associated with the socioeconomic health of the country. The murder rate in the U.S. was highest during the Depression." I ask you this one question: Does the fact that the economy is bad gives criminals the right to commit murders? Your proposed alternative to the death penalty is to address the environmental and social factors that contribute to violent crime. If the government can't fix the economy, and a bad economy (like you have mentioned) is responsible for higher murder rates, it would be impossible to address the issues that contribute to crime, and crime would flourish if the environmental and social factors can't be addressed. Therefore, your solution to preventing crime is much less effective at doing so than a voluntary death penalty or even the current one under effect in the US. C3: The DP infringes international law. You mentioned in the comments section of this debate that this was about a death penalty in the United States. Regarding a death penalty, it is perfectly legal in the United States under the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Why should international law matter when you said this debate was in regard to the United States? C4: Risk of executing innocents Under a voluntary death penalty, this would no longer become an issue. C5: Death sentences are racist and unfair Under a voluntary death penalty, death sentences would not be given out by the state government, but would be given by the defendant. It would be up to the defendant to choose life in prison or the death penalty. ------------------------------ My opponent finished his 1st round of the debate by arguing that the death penalty is "unfair, kills innocents, and doesn't even serve it's deterrence purpose, and on top of that is is expensive". But what my opponent ignores is that the death penalty can still exist without causing all of those things to happen. A voluntary death penalty, one which the defendant can choose over life imprisonment, will negate the issue of what is fair or isn't fair because grand juries will no longer be sentencing defendants to the exact form of punishment, but will hand over the option of death to the defendant. A voluntary death penalty will negate the issue of killing innocents. It will be up to the defendant to decide whether his death is right for him or not. And while my opponent argues that the death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crimes, he does not provide a viable solution that does deter criminals from committing crimes. And when my opponent says that the death penalty is expensive, he ignores how expensive it would be to improve environmental and social factors in the United States, a solution he offers as a way to deter crime in America. A voluntary death penalty would be much more cheaper because the defendant would not be resisting death if he opts for the death penalty over life in prison, thus avoiding a lengthy, expensive chain of criminal trials for 1 single defendant. Sources: 1. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... 2. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... 3. http://www.vpc.org... (page 2)