The Death Penalty Should be Abolished!

Thanks to Pro for his opening argument. As outlined in Round 1, the burden of proof is shared. In order to negate the resolution, I simply have to show that there is adequate reason for the government to keep the death penalty as a criminal sentencing option. Argument 1: Justice First and foremost, the death penalty is necessary to uphold justice. It intuitively obvious to us that the most serious crimes deserve the most serious punishments, and the death penalty is *the* most serious punishment available, stripping a person of the very source of their existence as human beings. In many cases, anything less simply doesn't serve adequate justice. When one maliciously violates someone else's rights, he automatically forfeits those rights for himself, as he has failed to fulfill the most basic obligation that comes with possessing equal human rights: to respect others' rights just as he respects his own. Consider the following example: "Christian and Newsom were abducted from an apartment complex parking lot. Over the course of the next several hours, the pair was beaten, raped, tortured and murdered. According to later court testimony by Knox County Acting Medical Examiner Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan, Newsom had been repeatedly sodomized with an object. His limbs were bound, he was gagged and blindfolded. At some point in the early morning hours of Jan. 7, 2007, Newsom was dragged outside to a set of nearby railroad tracks, where he was shot execution-style, in the back of his head, neck and back. His body was then set ablaze, Mileusnic-Polchan testified. The medical examiner said Christian's last few hours on earth were also horrific and unthinkable. The young woman, he said, was tortured for several hours and sustained injuries...She had been beaten about the head with an unknown object and raped. Afterward, bleach was poured over Christian's body and down her throat, in an apparent attempt to destroy DNA evidence. She was, an autopsy indicated, alive while the torture and degradations occurred. Christian was then hog-tied and covered with several bags before she was placed in a disposal bin, where she slowly suffocated to death, Mileusnic-Polchan testified." [1] Can anyone honestly claim that the men who committed such atrocities deserve anything less than the most serious possible punishment that the government can feasibly administer? The death penalty must remain available as a sentencing option, or else the justice system risks being unable to fulfill its duties in the case of extreme crimes such as the one detailed above. This contention alone should be enough to negate the resolution. No monetary value can be placed on justice and human dignity. Argument 2: Deterrence Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to establish a firm connection between the enforcement of the death penalty and deterrence of crime, as there are many, many factors that play into an area's crime rate such as poverty rates, interracial relations, other demographic factors, state gun control laws, and the organization of the local police force. However, we *can* still establish two useful points, even given the limited available information. a. At the very least, the effect of the death penalty on deterrence is neutral. To assert that the death penalty increases crime rates is logically absurd, as it is not feasible that the threat of death would motivate someone to commit a crime. At most, one could argue that the majority of criminals don't take legal ramifications into consideration when committing crimes and dismiss the deterrence effect on that basis. But even given that defense, we must realize that "most" does not equate to "all"... b. There *have* been clear-cut cases in which the absence of the death penalty was taken into consideration by murderers and allowed them to commit crimes with much less apprehension: "Consider the tragic death of Rosa Velez, who happened to be home when a man named Luis Vera burglarized her apartment in Brooklyn. 'Yeah, I shot her,' Vera admitted. '...and I knew I wouldn't go to the chair,'" [2]. So ultimately, given those two observations, it is safe to assume that the DP does probably result in increased deterrence of crime, even if that increase is minimal. Argument 3: Recidivism This is probably the most substantial utilitarian benefit of the death penalty-- one who has been sentenced to the death penalty will never be able to commit any crimes ever again (duh). On the other hand, those who are imprisoned often go back to committing crimes, with 76.6% of aall prisoners released from US state prisons from 2005-2010 being arrested again within 5 years [3]. In Great Britain, twelve murderers who were released from prison after exceptionally long sentences all committed murders again within the next decade [4]. Clearly, the rehabilitative "benefits" that come from imprisonment aren't very significant, and the complete lack of such repeated offenses that comes with the death penalty renders the DP to be the preferable form of punishment. My opponent may argue that life-long imprisonment also offers similar benefits regarding recidivism. However, this is false because what doesn't end up manifesting itself in the outside world ends up manifesting itself inside the prisons themselves, as evidenced by the fact that murder rates in prisons are roughly as high as murder rates in the average American town [5]. The fact is, that the death penalty's absolute prevention against recidivism is certainly a plus point for it in terms of practical value, and it even further demonstrates the DP's importance to the justice system, since anti-recidivism contributes to the justice system's secondary role of preventing future crime. ============= CONCLUSION ============= I have given several arguments showing that there is more than enough reason for the government to continue utilizing the death penalty as a criminal sentencing option. Not only is it a necessity in terms of upholding justice, but it also has great practical benefits such as its complete prevention of recidivism and limited deterrence of crime. The death penalty should most certainly *not* be abolished. The resolution is negated. __________________________________________________________________________ [1] http://m.huffpost.com... [2] http://www.localaccess.com... [3] http://www.bjs.gov... [4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [5] http://www.slate.com...