The Death Penalty

To answer Pro's question in round one, we are talking about the state system. Argument 1: Costs The death penalty often makes cases much more costly than similar non-death penalty cases. For example, a 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the costs for a single death penalty case was 70 percent more than a comparable non-death penalty case in the state; for general statistics, death penalty case costs (median costs $1.26 million) were counted through to execution, while non-death penalty costs were counted to the end of incarceration (median costs $740,000) [1]. At trial level cases in Washington state, death penalty cases generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty, which costs at most $70,000 for court personnel [2]. Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole; based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution; in Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years; the most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of sentencing murderers to life imprisonment [3]. I could continue quoting statistics, but I think my basic point has been made; more examples can be found at sources [3] and [4]. The death penalty should not be considered cost effective. Argument 2: Deterrence of crime The death penalty can be a terrifying punishment, and it would be rational to think it acts as a deterrence to certain criminal activity; this is generally not the case, and one can deduce this through rational thinking and a look into statistics. People with mental illnesses, people absolutely enraged, people panicking, and people under the influence of drugs, such as alcohol, are not likely to take the death penalty in mind when committing a crime that may warrant the death penalty. Almost one in four victims of violent crime report that the perpetrator had been drinking before committing the violent crime [5]. Between 31 percent and 36 percent of prisoners convicted of a violent crime against an intimate reported that they were drinking alcohol at the time of the offense; these figures rise to approximately 50 percent when reports from those who were consuming both alcohol and drugs at the time of the offense are considered [5]. Furthermore, research has shown nearly all death row inmates suffer from brain damage because of trauma or illness, while 5 to 10 percent of death row inmates suffer from serious mental illness [6]. The death penalty, if meant to deter certain extreme crimes, has a very difficult time doing so, since those who commit these extreme crimes are not likely to consider the death penalty when committing their crimes. Furthermore, murder rates in non-death penalty states are consistently lower than the murder rates in death penalty states, suggesting that the death penalty fails to deter murder [7]. This even applies to specific cases where a death penalty state and a non-death penalty state border each other. For example, Iowa, a non-death penalty state that borders Missouri, a death penalty state, has a lower murder rate than Missouri [8]. The source, link below, provides further examples. This means that the trend that death penalty states have a higher murder rate than non-death penalty states remains consistent, regardless of the general location of the states. Now, this does not mean that the death penalty does not deter any crimes. That said, I have already presented statistics of the costs because of the death penalty. My opponent would have to show that the death penalty deters enough crime to justify the amount of money spent on death penalty cases and trials each year, when this money could be used for other crime control measures that could be more effective. If he fails to do so, then the death penalty should not be considered an effective way for the states to use when trying to control or reduce crime. Argument 3: Innocence Out of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976, it is difficult to determine who was truly innocent. That said, humans are fallible; thus, it is possible for human beings to make a mistake in trials involving the death penalty, which means innocent people could be executed. Most courts generally do not entertain the possibility that they executed an innocent person, while defense attorneys focus their attention on clients' who can be saved. If a person is sentenced to a lifetime of prison, and if new evidence for their innocence is revealed while serving their time, then they could be released. With the death penalty, the innocent person cannot be brought back to life; similarly, people cannot be given back their time that was lost serving their sentence, but being dead is much worse. Since the rounds are not particularly structured and Pro shall have an opportunity each round to respond to my arguments, I retain the right to introduce new arguments later on in the debate. For the time being, however, I shall let Pro state his arguments in favor of the death penalty while responding to mine. Nonetheless, I have argued that the death penalty is not cost effective while also arguing that it is not an effective deterrent of crime. Furthermore, I have argued that the possibility of innocents dying in an imperfect system should make the death penalty unacceptable. My job was to argue against the legalization of the death penalty, and I have done so. [1] http://www.amnestyusa.org... [2] http://deathpenalty.procon.org... [3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5] http://www.nllea.org... [6] http://www.deathpenalty.org... [7] http://www.amnestyusa.org... [8] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...