The United States should have a death penalty.

1. The death penalty is just If the U.S. should have a death penalty, there must be cases for which justice is met by applying the death penalty. I gave two examples where the death penalty is justified. Con said I don't get to select the crimes for which the death penalty is applied. I didn't claim to. I only claimed that some crimes justify the death penalty. Con might counter that no crime ever justifies the death penalty, but he didn't do that. He accepted both examples. Granting the death penalty is justified is important, because it reduces the scope of remaining arguments to a cost-benefit analysis. It's a separate argument as to which crimes are so heinous as to deserve a death penalty. Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that because some crimes deserve capital punishment, it is immoral for a state not to have a death penalty. [13. http://tinyurl.com...] A failure to seek justice is immoral. Con argued that allowing plea bargaining undermines justice. It does not, because in some cases there are higher moral imperatives. Providing closure to the friends and family of the 48 victims of the Green River killer is more important than putting the killer to death. In other cases, there may be a probability that a killer may go free if brought to trial, even though he is guilty. Sometimes a plea bargain is justified by getting the names of crime bosses or associates. The interests of justice may dictate that getting certain punishment via a guilty plea is better than bringing the case to trial. The Supreme Court has repeated ruled that plea bargaining can serve justice. 2. Death penalty costs are balanced by plea bargaining and imprisonment savings In this debate, the types of cases to which the death penalty is applied is left open. If obtaining a death penalty conviction is very expensive, then it may be reasonable to restrict the number of cases. For example, offering a plea bargain to the Green River Killer closed 48 cases of homicide, not only saving the cost of continued investigation but providing the benefit of bringing closure to the families of the victims. So if the death penalty were only applied to serial killers, the costs would clearly be justified and society would at the same time move towards being more just. Con argued that localities could not bear the unusual costs of death-penalty trials. I already had argued that states should bear the costs. A locality may not be able to afford even a single capital trial, but every state can afford to pursue justice in at least some cases. In addition, the defendant should receive high quality counsel to ensure a good defense, and good counsel can be reasonably required to file concurrent appeals, saving a good deal of money. I did not say that the study was too small to draw any real conclusions. I properly advised that broad generalities were limited. In large urban counties during the time of the study, plea bargaining savings probably offset the extra trial costs of pursuing a death penalty conviction. Con offered a single source, Thaxton [14. download at http://tinyurl.com...], on the costs associated with the death penalty. Thaxton begins by admitting, “Empirical research addressing the use of the death penalty as leverage in plea negotiations is virtually nonexistent.” Thaxton criticizes Kuziemko, whom I did not cite and whom Thaxton believed to be the only systematic study. Kuziemko concluded that when New York State restored the death penalty, plea bargaining resulted in accepting harsher sentences. A limitation to that study was that the only capital crimes at the time were the murder of police officers. I cited Scheidegger [8. http://www.cjlf.org...] I don't see a reference to Scheidegger by Thaxton. Thaxton considered cases in the state of Georgia between 1993 and 2000. Scheidegger used data from 33 counties selected as representative of the 75 largest urban counties. That's more representative of the country than just considering Georgia. Scheidegger considered about 1800 murder and manslaughter cases, while Thaxton considered about 400 death notice cases. Thaxton “assumed data” to complete his study, a common practice. For example, suppose the age of the defendant were missing for one particular case. Rather than eliminate the case, the average known age of defendants would be used for the statistics. Thaxton acknowledges that Georgia is peculiar in not having the usual system of dividing murder into degrees, so first degree murder cannot be plead down to second degree murder. A plea bargain on the basic charge must go to manslaughter, with a penalty of 15 years in prison. As a consequence, Georgia prosecutors opt for the death penalty when they think they charges only merit LWOP. That allows a plea bargain in the penalty phase of the trial. That means the non-penalty phase of the trial will always be as expensive as if it were a death penalty case, and that plea bargains will be less likely because with the guilt phase completed there is less uncertainty in the ultimate trial outcome. Thaxton does not count the costs of increased time in prison for life without parole (LWOP). In Thaxton's data, the average age of those convicted of capital murder was 27. In serving LWOP, the prisoner will be confined 50 years at an average cost of about $29,000 per year, incurring a total cost of about $1.5 million. [15. http://www.ssa.gov...] The average time spent waiting for a death penalty is about 15 years. [16. http://tinyurl.com...] Consequently, on average about $1.1 million is saved in total costs. The bottom line for Thaxton's Georgia data is that the trial costs are $2 million more, plea bargaining saves $0.4 million on average, and the imprisonment costs are $1.1 million less. So for Georgia, the death penalty costs only about 25% more. The cost of achieving a death penalty conviction and execution varies substantially. California houses death row inmates in special facilities costing three times as much as ordinary facilities, and their ordinary prisons cost twice the $29,000 Federal costs. Texas spend only $17,000 to house an inmate for a year. Virginia averages only six years to execution. Consequently it is reasonable for a Georgia study to show a net extra cost of 25% for death penalty cases while urban counties have net lower costs. The costs of imprisonment are on an upward trend. If that is figured in, “LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.” [17. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...] Con argued that money saved by eliminating the death penalty could be spent on additional policing. I do not agree that there are any savings, however it's quite unlikely that if there were any savings it would go to increased law enforcement. Con cites no data where that happened. C2. The death penalty can be waived for extradition If the US believes it worthwhile to return a prisoner to the US from a country that will not extradite if there is a possibility of death penalty, the death penalty can be removed for that particular case. There is nothing unusual about the procedure. For example, in the U.K. Home Secretary David Blunkett had told American officials he would approve extradition only if the United States waived the right to impose the death penalty.” [18. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...] Having a death penalty and optionally waiving it has no disadvantage. C3. Innocence Con did not respond to my arguments in R2. He did not address the post-2000 era of DNA evidence, did not cite a single recent unjust execution, and did not distinguish death penalty cases from lesser crimes not subject to so much scrutiny. Contrary to Con, I made no claim about deterrence. The statistics are too complicated to argue in the space allotted. Serving justice is sufficient reason to have a death penalty. It's logical that at least some few murders are deterred.