The Death Sentence Should be Used

== Retribution == The government doesn"t exist to "grant peace" to people. It exists to maximize benefit, and minimize harm. The death penalty causes significant harm to executioners and innocent humans, and costs too much. It isn"t worth the sense of small emotional satisfaction it will give to a few people. == Deterrence == NOTE: Pro brings up new evidence in the final round, which means I am allowed to bring new evidence to refute it in the final round. Pro drops my argument against rational choice theory. So let"s look to the article Pro links now. All data that concludes that the death penalty deters crime relies on a model called "rational action theory. " Rational action theory is indefensible for exactly that reason: people don't consider *long term* consequences, only short term ones. It's for the same reason that people often eat food considered unhealthy. The immediate pleasure, in the minds of most people, outweighs any long-term harm from eating the food. Apply that to murder rates, where the heat of passion causes no consideration of long-term consequences. Let's look to the studies cited by the article: the 2003 study from the Emory University (Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd), the study by FCC economist Paul Zimmerman, and the study by Kenneth Land. All three studies are unreliable. The National Research Council's report on the deterrent effect of the death penalty criticizes all three of them for relying on instrumental variables, and for assuming rational action theory. The report summarizes, "The idea behind an instrument is to separate out the part of any observed relationship between the death penalty and homicide that is spurious (i. e. , resulting from the relationship of both to other factors) from the part of the relationship between the death penalty and homicide that is causal. " [. https://www.law.upenn.edu...] But those two studies rely on the assumption that the instrument itself doesn't influence the homicide rate, without proof for that. [Ibid. ] Finding a variable that allows for the measure of the death penalty's effect on homicide rates without influencing homicide rates itself is very tough, and neither of those studies succeeded in doing that. All these studies also run into a few other problems. First, they fail to take into account the deterrent effect of other forms of punishment. Second, they all rely on the notion that potential murderers fear the death penalty more than other forms of punishment, and that they are actually deterred by it. In other words, the studies don't even establish a causal link, only a correlation. But rational action theory is indefensible and I've explained why above. Even under rational action theory, studies need to find a correct measure of potential risk. For instance, only 15% of those sentenced to death have been executed so far. Third, the assumptions of these statistical models (e. g. instrumental variables) are often not justified or credible. [. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...] So the statistical models are poor, they don't take into account the deterrent effect of other forms of punishment (e. g. life imprisonment), and they don't establish causation (relying on rational action theory, which I've already refuted by showing that murderers only consider short-term consequences). There's also enough statistical uncertainty on deterrence to dismiss this argument altogether. Murder rates in non-death penalty states are lesser than those in states with the death penalty. [. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...] California's crime rate, for instance, was high when there were executions, and then decreased later upon abolishing the death penalty, and then increased again upon the death penalty's reintroduction. [. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...] So, statistically as well, the death penalty does not have significant effect on homicide rates. == Recidivism == I said those that don't change won't be let out at all. Conveniently, Pro misses this point, and continues to argue this with no evidence whatsoever. Pro also fails to address my response that the harms from the death penalty (i. e. costs, innocent executions, and harm to executioners) outweigh this. == Conclusion == The death penalty doesn't come close to deterring crime and there's no quantifiable impact from retributive justice. In contrast, it causes the executions of innocents, psychological harm to executioners, and it costs too much to justify such blind retribution.