Death penalty

R1: costBefore the judge announces the sentence, a defendant is entitled to allocution. Allocution is the right of the defendant to directly address the judge without the help of counsel. During this direct address, the defendant may offer a personal explanation of any unknown facts, may ask for mercy, or may offer an apology for the criminal behavior. This opportunity for defendants to show remorse or to offer the motivations behind their criminal acts may influence whether the judge grants some leniency. [1]SO your "the defendant chooses" is false. The judge in the end chooses, defendant just gets to plea to try to weaken the sentence. But if you where found guilty of murder in texas the judge probably would sentence death. So your argument is false, the judge chooses. The defendant gets to have a small backstage plea. The cost argument still applies as it is the trial not the injection that costs a lot: Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine commuted the executions of 10 men to life imprisonment without parole. Legal costs were too great and produced no result, lawmakers said. After spending an estimated $4.2 million for each death sentence, the state had executed no one since 1963. [2]So it is the trial itself under the DP that is expensive. Because the prosecutor says my person want's the DP then the cost rises. But whether LWOP or the DP is used is chosen at the end. Either way the cost has mostly been dealt with by then. Plus the appeals if the DP chosen. SO even under a voluntary system (which it is) appeals will occur further raising costs. Also you concede that the DP costs more. And still the defendant DOES get to help choose. And the states with the DP have higher costs, therefore letting them choose the DP would still be used often, raising the debt. SO basically you are advocating what we already have... and it is expensive.Also you say that LWOP is a harsher punishment, therefore they would ask for it, raising cost if their voice is taken into account, further more it proves the DP is not a deterrent, as LWOP is harsher dismaying more people. Also for someone who has done the worst crime, murder, then a harsh punishment hakes sense.R2: The DP does not deter crimeYou proved above LWOP is harsher.Also since the rest of that has no facts it is just a knee jerk reaction I will extend my case from here:Case for deterrence is "it prevents crime" False:The establishment of punishments for committing crimes is just that: a punishment for behaving in a manner that society has deemed unacceptable. The act of deterring crime is not the primary purpose of creating and enforcing rules for punishing lawbreakers. At most, the idea of people avoiding breaking the law so as to not face punishment (deterrence) is a minor benefit, but is still only effective if people know that the laws will be enforced, and the punishment will be carried out. [3]Point is you have 8 years on death row and can easily appeal your way out and get LWOP, but the sad thing is it is still costly as you appealed 9 times and still your first trial.Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime any more than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of U.S. executions, and has the highest regional murder rate. [4]Now is LWOP a good alternative? According to the California Governor's Office, only seven people sentenced to life without parole have been released since the state provided for this option in 1977, and this occurred because they were able to prove their innocence. [5]SO the myth of they will let them out is fairly false. Also it is a low percentage.People are also disturbed by reports of prisoners who actually are released after a relatively short time, some of whom commit additional crimes. In Texas, for example, there is much confusion about sentencing. Prisoners, on the whole, are only serving 20% of their sentences and recidivism is a serious problem. [6]They rarely commit crimes in jail.R3: international lawYes this is about america but intern anal law still applies. If you break a law the US SIGNED then the US has broken a law. Argument applies.R4: InnocentsYes it would always be an issue. Even if voluntary.R5: unfair/racist Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate. =conclusion=My opponent has failed to prove the DP is necessary, vote con!sources:http://www.law.cornell.edu... [1]http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [2]http://www.thepriceofliberty.org... [3]http://www.ncadp.org... [4]https://death.rdsecure.org... [5]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [6]