The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

==Refutations==C1: Deterrence-Capital Punishment won’t be a deter many murderers. [1]Many violent people resort to violence towards others and, in many cases, kill themselves anyway after killing their victims. Capital punishment wouldn’t be a deterrent to them. If these might be viewed as exceptional circumstances, then a way of covering all circumstances would be to compare the statistics between states with and without the death penalty. However, the majority of the justices at Gregg, after reviewing the evidence, concluded, “Statistical attempts to evaluate the death penalty as a deterrent to crimes by potential offenders have caused a great deal of debate. The results have been inconclusive”. Furthermore, states without the death penalty don’t have the highest murder rate, thus disproving the death penalty. [2]The most striking recent evidence recent evidence to emerge on this comes from a September 2000 article by Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden in the New York Times. This piece of evidence showed that the twelve states that have not adopted the death penalty since it became legal in 1976 have not had higher rates of murder than those with the death penalty. The study also found that “homicide rates had risen and fallen along roughly similar path with the states with and without the death penalty. C2: Bargaining Chip Using “Zina logic doesn’t fit all cases”, which is from your own source, and shows the flaws of using “the death penalty as a bargaining chip” tactic, which I will now briefly touch on. Firstly, a remote threat of execution is powerful enough that it could concoct false confessions from suspects, which would mislead the investigation. Secondly, whether the death penalty is imposed should be based on the facts of a crime, including aggravating and mitigating factors, not on the defendant’s cooperation or plea afterwards. [3]C3: Accuracy DNA testing has numerous flaws. A police expert admitted that DNA analysis could be unreliable. Police also have been shown to have no confidence in the reliability of DNA testing. [4] There is also many factors that can corrupt the reliability of DNA testing. . [5] C4: Popularity Popularity is not a valid reason for the death penalty to remain. Originally slavery was quite popular, yet that was not a valid reason for its existence. [6]Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment of murder, that it lowers the murder rate, or not? In 2011 32% say it does, while a 64% say it doesn’t. How often do you think an innocent person, who was innocent, has been killed by the death penalty in the last five yearsIn 2009 59% of people agree to this, while 31% disagree. ==Arguments==C1: Life in prison is the best alternative and provides adequate response. Life in prison is a far better alternative to the death penalty. Life in prison without parole is moral, practical, and much less expensive than the complex process that leads to the death chamber. With life imprisonment, the murderer is removed from society and enables attention to the victim and their specific needs and support. [7]“Wrongdoers deserve to be punished”. This is a general, and quite well known, principle. But by itself, this principle provides no defense for the death penalty. It can easily be sastified by a lesser punishment, such as life imprisonment. The proposition the “murderers deserve to die” obviously is in favor of the death penalty, but it does so by begging the question. Why do murderers deserve to die when rapists do not deserve to be raped. Why do murderers deserve to die when we do not have the any idea what punishment traitors or kidnappers or embezzlers deserve. We know that the guilty ought to be punished, but we aren’t told what their punishment ought to be. [8]C2: Capital Punishment risks execution of the innocent-Legal appeal process isn’t enough to stop the killing of innocent people using capital punishment. [9]In many law cases, nothing in the legal appeals process helped uncover the evidence of innocence of these wrongly convicted individuals. Instead, it was investigations conducted by journalists or college students, or the confessions of the true perpetrators of these crimes that helped to exonerate the innocent. In fact, the justice system has at times worked to wrongfully criminalize the innocent. Reckless prosecutors and police lab chemist teams have been critized for playing with the rules to convict people in murder trials. This makes an absolute mockery of the system when professional enforcers of the law mangle the spirit of the law to get convictions, forcing outsiders to rescue the hapless victims of the criminal justice system. ==Sources==[1] Robert; Attorney and retired judge; “Capital Punishment and Violence;” Humanist; January/February 2004; Gale Group[2] Jeff; Columnist; “When Murderers Die, Innocents Live;” Boston Globe; 28 September 2003; Gale Group[3] . http://www.thenewstribune.com... [4] . http://www.theage.com.au... [5] . http://madamenoire.com... [6] . http://www.gallup.com... [7] Senil; Sergeant of the LAPD; “Humans Playing God: Capital Punishment and its Follies;” Tikkun; July/August 2002; Gale Group[8] Hugo; Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, at Tufts University; Debating the death penalty: Should America have Capital Punishment? The experts on both sides make their case; 2004; Kindle Edition[9] Senil; Sergeant of the LAPD; “Humans Playing God: Capital Punishment and its Follies;” Tikkun; July/August 2002; Gale Group