Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Removed

I'll go down the debate and explain why I've won. Opponents case1. My opponent, instead of attacking the logic behind Mills point, uses another ad-hom attack against Mills. This is a concession, so his argument that an execution is the same morally as a murder falls apart. Moreover, he criticizes Mills for being a political philosopher, when Locke and Rousseau, the people he's cited, were also political philosophers[1][2]. TURN: Rousseau's quote indicates support of capital punishment in cases with a man to dangeorus to be kept alive. He asks, why should we allow prisoners to volunteer to be executed? That's a cop-out, because he knows his point about prison having no benefit has been proven wrong. A prisoner volunteering is saving taxpayer dollars and taking responsibility for their actions, and even if it shouldn't be allowed you don't judge a policy based on a >5% probability scenario that can be easily mended. He argued that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", and failed to prove it. His source is about how a man beat to death a pedophile who was violating his daughter. Good riddance. This however has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. 2. He accuses me of using semantics. Evidently he does not know what semantics means[3], as I have not questioned his definitions at all. He totally drops my turn about how lw/op kills innocents too, just over a longer period of time. This concession blows his entire impact out of the water, because the alternative is worse. He just says it's a fallacy because people in prison live longer than thos executed. That's missing the point. Death sentences are matters of urgency and are comparitvely rare. Life sentences are abundantly common and less urgent, so obviously less attention will be paid to them and lwop does not have the appeals process the DP does. The turn stands. Moreover, he drops that this is not an argument against the DP, but an argument for higher standards of evidence. He doesn't understand what the CSI effect is. It means that the rise of forensic and DNA evidence has led to jurors needing more evidence to convict. He's right that conviction rates have increased, but this is irrelevant because that kind of evidence is much more common today than ever before, and will become more common as time goes on. Hitch criticizes me for not citing an objective moral theory. What? I showed how punishment is inherently retributive and how the victims need to be compensated (both dropped). He's conceded to moral principles.3. He drops that the debate is not about statism. He says we all have the absolute rights to life, liberty, and property. Ok. In that case, imprisonment, taxation, and fines can't be allowed. He doesn't show why the right to life is unique in that it can't be taken away. His argument is really incoherent. So the state doesnt force couples to procreate, therefore it isn't responsible for people? Then why call it a state? Again, his alternative (lwop) can only be enforced under statism, so his kritik is a non starter. 4. My opponent says that I contradict myself by brushing aside his argument that shame will deter murder. I dont think that shame will deter murder, but I do believe that fear will(not to mention that being on death row has a factor of shame as well). Fear =/= shame. No contradiction. In fact, if my opponent thinks shame will deter crime then TURN: Murderers should be publically violated in the most final of ways: death.My caseDeterrence Hitch drops a lot here. He dropped all of my studies, statistics, and logic in the beginning (except the ad hom against westley lowe) and continues to drop them. For most of this argument, I honestly don't understand what he's trying to say. He says that Canadas population has increased so crime should have gone up, but we all know that rates measure crime relative to the population (like 6 in 100000), so this doesn't make sense at all. He ignores my turn that US crime rate dropped more during the same time frame. He ignores completely the COUNTY SPECIFIC data I cited in round 1, instead trying to compare stats country to country. He ignores all the other factors leading to a decreased crime rate in Canada that I cited. He says that I didn't talk about assault rates, but people are only executed for murder or treason, so why would I? Moreover, I still don't understand what he's trying to say. He says that the flaws with the Lowe card are "quite obvious", then goes on to talk about his own source. So he's conceded completely to the statistics at this point.He violates ceteris paribus again, comparing different states. That's dumb, not least because He says that I haven't proven any difference. What? The states are different by nature of being different states. They have different police forces, different laws, different cultures, different demographics, different climates, different histories, different schools, different geography, ect. ect. Even neighboring states are radically different, would anyone here honestly believe that the cultures of Texas and New Mexico or Lousiana are the same? Moreover, his analysis is flawed because it compares rates statically rather than over time. That is, it's most probable that the murder rates in DP states have declined faster than those without it, and even if they didn't since each state is different from the next, you have to look to individual analysis. Remember, he's already cnceded to county level data strongly indicating deterrence. He complains about how some of my links were broken. This is true, but they were all fixed before I posted my round 2, so there's no excuse for dropping them now. Recidivism First, recall that my opponent totally dropped this point, so my impacts are all extended cleanly to the end of the debate.He tries to argue innocence, but he completely dropped the fact that this doesn't link with capital punishment. He dropped the logic behind the turn regarding lwop. He drops that current death row inmates will be paroled. Life w/o parole didnt exist in texas (for example) until 2005. When a sentence is overturned, it goes back to the next highest sentence at the time of conviction[4]. Last time the DP was abolished, dozens of innocents were killed by released murderers. Historical precedent is on my side, especially given that prisons are more crowded today and budgets more stretched than ever before.He says Tafero was not guilty of the shooting. Whatever, I don't have the characters to argue each individual case. So this bumps up the failure rate of capital punishment to around .18%, with both failures over 20 years ago. Remember that this doesn't link with the DP, and the failure rate of imprisonment is significantly higher (1.2-5%). Justice Again he makes no response. He untruthfully says that he answered this point with moral theories and that I dropped them. I'm sorry to be rude, but this is aflat out lie. His only response was about legality. He responds now that most war criminals will fight to the death. Maybe, but if even one doesnt than he needs to die. He's pulling a cop out here, because the evidence is in my favor. His argument about legality is wrong. The highest court authority has upheld the DP as constitutional. The opinions of lower courts and judges are below SCOTUS in legal weighing. He doesnt even try to show it to be cruel and unusual. My opponent brings up 3 new arguments for me to respond to in my last round. Ignore these. That's unfair, but Ill still try.With morals he says the ends dont justify the means, yet he totally drops my cards on recidivism and deter. The judges need to weigh this. With legality, he's just wrong. He says we need to rehabilitate and somehow this meets the need of victims. No. Rehab is crim. benefit over victims. Economics: status quo arg., can be changed and justice > money. Its incredibly cheap for him to advance new arguments at this point, he should lose the debate for trying to cheat here. http://tinyurl.com...