Capital Punishment Should Not Be Practiced as a Form of Legal Discipline

Criminal Justice Theories: Restraint: My opponent again is claiming that in order to prevent prison violence, capital offenders should be executed; however, if preventing prison violence is just cause for killing inmates, then many non-capital offenders would need to be put to death. As I've already demonstrated through an authoritative study (which can be seen in my previous round), capital-offenders tend to be no more violent among prison populations than their non-capital-offender counterparts; as such, life in prison without parole effectively fulfills this theory without the need for capital punishment. Education: I must ask my opponent's forgiveness on this matter, as I previously was unaware of the "education" theory, and asserted that he must have been confusing it with the "rehabilitation" theory; however, my opponent has supplied me with information demonstrating the legitimacy of his assertion that education is in fact a separate theory from rehabilitation. My opponent claims that capital punishment effectively educates the general public on society's view of capital crimes; however, I see no reason to assume that other alternative methods of education would be less efficient in informing the public of society's stance on such issues. As I've demonstrated previously, capital punishment comes at great a great risk and cost, and I therefore assert that other alternative methods of education would be safer and more suitable for society. Retribution: Here my opponent again attempts to use prison violence as an excuse for capital punishment; however, as I believe I've clearly demonstrated, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that capital-offenders are any more violent than there non-capital offender counterparts (in fact, evidence tends to point directly to the contrary); as such, I assert that capital punishment is not necessary to fulfill the retribution theory. Deterrence: Here my opponent states that claiming decreases in crime are due to the abolishment of capital punishment is overly presumptuous, and I agree. The case I am making is simply that there exists contradictory evidence, with both sides possessing authoritative and compelling evidence for their respective views; therefore, considering the information I've been provided with by my opponent, I certainly wouldn't say it's been absolutely proven that capital punishment fails as a deterrent; however, I likewise wouldn't say that it's been conclusively proven that it succeeds as a deterrent, either. Therefore, I submit that until further evidence can be produced by reputable researchers, it can in no wise be claimed that capital punishment fulfills the deterrence theory; there simply exists too much conflicting evidence at the time to accurately evaluate capital punishment's ability to operate efficiently as a deterrent. Sustaining: Capital Punishment Presents Unwarranted Risks: Here my opponent attempts to use my own words against me to establish his point. As he rightly points out, I made the statement in an earlier round that both capital punishment and life in prison without parole are just punishments for capital offenders; however, unlike my opponent suggests, I never meant to say that life in prison without parole and capital punishment are completely equal. Obviously death is a more extreme punishment than life in prison without parole. My argument is simply that life in prison without parole fulfills justice just as efficiently as the death penalty, and is therefore a safer and more desirable alternative than capital punishment. My opponent also states that abolishing the death penalty won't stop racism -- that true, of course it won't, nor did I ever suggest that it would; all I am saying is that due to racism, capital punishment should not be a legal form of discipline, seeing as how human prejudice and fallibility can and have lead to the death of innocent individuals. I'm afraid I don't understand my opponent's multicultural argument. Is my opponent trying to argue that innocent people aren't being sentenced to death for their race, but rather for their culture? I doubt he is. As I've demonstrated in my previous rounds, the simple fact of the matter is that authoritative studies have consistently demonstrated that race and socioeconomic factors play a notable role in whether or not an individual will be sentenced to death row. I believe such information in and of itself should be enough for us to abandon the death penalty. My opponent also tries to assure us that prosecutors must try very hard to get someone sentenced to death row, and therefore states that it's a safe process; however, this assertion completely ignores the fact that literally hundreds of individuals have been found innocent after being sentenced to death row (as I've shown in earlier posts). Because of this, it's obvious that no matter how bullet-proof people try to make the legal process for capital punishment, there will always be flaws that result in the death of innocent people. Sustaining: Capital Punishment Fails as a Deterrent: 1) My opponent states that deterrence is only one of several criminal justice theories; I agree, and I believe I've effectively demonstrated why capital punishment is not necessary to fulfill any of them. 2) Here my opponent states that my statistics are flawed; however, he primarily only focuses on the "brutalization effect" of my argument. I will concede with my opponent that there is insufficient evidence to establish the brutalization effect of capital punishment; however, I likewise state that (given the equally authoritative yet contradictory evidence) there is insufficient evidence to sustain the view that capital punishment effectively serves as a deterrent. Ultimately, the voters will need to decide on this matter. 3) My opponent states that what the experts think on the matter is irrelevant. Perhaps I am wrong, but when it concerns capital punishment, I believe the importance and significance of credentialed, expert opinions. These people work everyday on the subject of criminal justice, and I therefore submit that their views deserve consideration. Sustaining: Capital Punishment is Overly Expensive: My opponent again argues that the expenses for capital punishment are justified due to the fact that it fulfills one or more of the criminal justice theories; however, I believe I have in fact demonstrated that the death penalty is not at all necessary to fulfill any of the said theories. My opponent also states that the high expenses of capital punishment help to counteract sentencing an innocent person to death row, and that's true; however, I believe I've made a strong and compelling case that even with such safeguards, unjustified and unwarranted mistakes still happen; as such, I submit that abolishing the death penalty altogether is the most beneficial solution. Conclusion: Within this debate, I believe I have effectively established the following: 1) Demonstrated that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that capital punishment succeeds as a deterrent 2) Demonstrated that socioeconomic factors play a notable role in sentencing an individual to death row 3) Demonstrated that human bias, prejudice, and fallibility make capital punishment too dangerous to practice 4) Demonstrated that capital punishment is not necessary to fulfill any of the criminal justice theories 5) Demonstrated that capital punishment is overly expensive Given the above information, I submit that I have sustained the resolution of this debate, and therefore encourage the voters to vote Pro.