The United States should abolish the death penalty

Many thanks to my opponent for a quick response.I will begin by refuting my opponent's case and then I will address the concerns my opponent has brought up concerning mine.RefutationMy opponent's first sub-point is essentially that lives are saved by the death penalty because it is impossible to parole or release a dead man. It is clear that neither side supports releasing or granting parole to convicted murderers, so my opponent's first sub-point is outside of the resolution. Rather than executing every murderer because approximately 1% of murderers who are released [1] murder again, these convicts could instead be put to effective use, and perhaps some of them could be exonerated prehumously.The negative's second sub-point abuses statistics. Because studies on the deterrent effect of the death penalty can only be retrospective, they can never prove causation; instead, they can only commit cum hoc ergo propter hoc [2] and post hoc ergo propter hoc [3] fallacies. Proving that the death penalty deters murder would require an impossible and illegal controlled experiment involving people weighing decisions concerning homocide. Trying to draw statistical conclusions from retrospective studies also tends to ignore a number of confounding factors, which here include, but are not limited to, the jural hesitation to convict a potential innocent to death [4], changes in gun laws [5], and changes in the drug arena [6][7]. Further, crime in general has decreased recently [7]. The Stanford Law Review, which analyzed and discredited several of the studies my opponent has sourced [8] concludes that "it is entirely unclear even whether the preponderance of evidence suggests that the death penalty causes more or less murder" [9].In the end, one part of my opponent's first contention is irrelevant and the other is unsound, both logically and statistically.My opponent's second contention should be dropped on account of the fact that I am not specifically defending life without parole, but on the possibility a voter may believe I lost my first contention, I will answer this contention regardless.My opponent's first sub-point is built first on a slippery-slope argument [10], that if the death penalty is abolished, punishment will get softer indefinitely. His evidence for this lies in a proposition in California that will let teenagers convicted to life without parole participate in rehabilitation programs and possibly appeal for resentencing [11]. This is weak evidence that punishment will soften further after the death penalty is abolished, and certainly doesn't imply a movement to abolish life without parole.In his first sub-point, my opponent also tries to argue that because a sentence of life without parole might be altered by democracy, that every person who would be convicted of such a crime be killed now, to avoid the horrible possibility that voters allow them parole. Essentially, he wants to keep the death penalty as a check on the power of the people. This reasoning is invalid within the context of this debate because neither side supports parole for murderers.The negative's second sub-point argues that because crimimals often appeal their death sentence, that death sentence is worse than life, but he provides no comparison of his statistics with that of the life sentence, so his argument here lacks valid evidence. Second, the purpose of law is not to be harsh, but just, and, as I have shown with both my contentions.Having shown my opponent's second contention to be irrelevant and fallacious, he has no substantive reason to favor the death penalty over life without parole.Lastly, the constitutionality of the death penalty is irrelevant, because this debate concerns what the United States should do, not what it can do. Because the Constitution can be amended, it is outside of the resolution.AffirmationMy opponent begins by misconstruing Jefferson's natural rights. Following the quote, the purpose of government is to protect natural rights, and so when natural rights are infringed, it must arbitrate liabilities to restore to the victim what the agressor has destroyed, that the criminal, rather than the victim, suffer the consequences of his actions. With the death penalty, both parties suffer, so the government has failed in its duty.Observation: In order for the resolution to be affirmed, only one of my contentions must stand, for both show the death penalty to be an obstruction to justice and therefore an abomination to be abolished.The negative's first objection to my contention is that it is unlikely to be implemented. This is irrelevant to the debate, because the resolution specifies what the United States should do. The death penalty should not be abolished without a superior alternative, whether it be liability or life in prison, and affirming such an alternative produces a moral imperative to change.To save characters, I will address the remainder of my opponent's objections together. The system subjects convicts to a limited slavery, which is already constitutional:"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States" [12].Slavery was cost-effective in the early 1800s, and it surely would still be today. A private company hiring convicts in mass would be able and willing to afford and implement security to a degree better than public prisons, which only have incentive to reduce costs, rather than to keep prisoners secure. I am no expert on motivating coerced labor, but a company worth its salt should be able to keep a productive atmosphere. Additionally, the list of potential work the convicts could do is immense, but specifically I can list package inspection and manufacturing. My opponent also references Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany's labor camps for an emotional appeal [13], but in exposure, the United States is forcing murderers to work, which my opponent would like to confuse with forcing Jews and political dissenters to work.My opponent also commits a famous economic fallacy in stating that prisoners would take jobs from innocent Americans: the fixed-pie fallacy. There is no limited number of work opportunities in the economy; otherwise, the economy would not grow [14]. Instead, adding prison labor will increase efficiency, lower taxes, and decrease labor costs, providing a boost to the economy.For character reasons, I will drop my concerns of corruption in the legal system.My opponent objects to my second contention by denying posthumous exoneration. With new DNA evidence, exoneration becomes more common, but I will name one as my opponent has asked. Johnny Garrett [15], who was the subject of the documentary called The Last Word, was executed in 1992 for rape and murder he did not commit. He was exonerated in 2004 by DNA evidence [15].The death penalty is unjust and has promising alternatives. Thank you.Sources[1] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...[2] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [4] http://communities.washingtontimes.com... [5] http://usgovinfo.about.com... [6] http://www.umsl.edu... See recent anti-drug policies (1977 to present).[7] http://ag.ca.gov... [8] http://www.heritage.org... [9] http://www.stanfordlawreview.org... [10] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [11] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[12] http://www.usconstitution.net... [13] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... and http://www.fallacyfiles.org...[14] Economic Facts and Fallacies, Thomas Sowell[15] http://en.wikipedia.org...