The Death Penalty should be Abolished

1) Deterrence I concede to my opponent’s point that there have indeed been more studies over the death penalty. After a little more research I actually found two more. Since cannot actually know I've found all studies over since 1996 I will drop the point. However, this does not mean I have lost any points whatsoever in this debate in the convincing arguments section. If I cannot show that deterrence exists then I officially lose the points. The studies were only there to help me prove deterrence, but I have not dropped he deterrence point all. Now then, on to my contentions. My opponent talks about how the National Research Council of National Academies shows that over 3 decades of research over the deterrence effect in studies is flawed. Sadly, I cannot simply trust those words. I would like to ask my opponent to clarify how those studies are flawed. I opponent then states that 87% of U.S. Criminologists agree that that the death penalty has no deterrence effect. I don't see how this is relevant. In fact, this doesn't disprove a deterrence effect at all. Opinions mean nothing. Facts are what we are looking for in this debate and I've already shown that: 1, Criminals fear death, therefore they will not (in the assumption that the particular criminal is not mentally unstable) commit a crime that will give them the punishment of death. 2. 3 lives are saved per execution. 3. In my historical example crime rates went down a full 38% when they were reinstituted into the states at had them illegal before. "Finally, common sense suggests that capital punishment does not make a significant impact on homicide rates. First off, of the safest, most crime - free countries in the world, next to none have the Death Penalty. Countries like Canada, Australia, Sweden and Finland all have lower crime rates than the US, suggesting that the issue is more likely caused by the culture of the country and it’s people rather than it’s policies on capital punishment. Second of all, most murders are either committed on impulse, impairment or mental imbalances or carefully planned out fully aware that they face the threat of life imprisonment. Either way it is unlikely that the Death Penalty will have any sort of deterrence effect on these minds." I disagree that capital punishment does not make a significant impact on homicide rates, and I think this should actually help my argument. If what you say about the very culture of a country effecting the death penalty to be true, then even if places like Canada Australia ect. Don’t need it to lower crime rates, the Unites States does. I have already given a historical example of just how much the United States needs the death penalty to help lower the excessive violence that exists within America. Look History and Murder Rates in my opening argument to see just how beneficial the death penalty was during the time. You must at least refute my historical example of how much the death penalty helped America in order to truly prove deterrence does not exist. In addition to this, I think we can all agree that it would be unjust to give someone who is legitimately mentally unstable to begin with the death penalty. However those who act on impulse should still be subject to it seeing that they can be in full bearings of just what they are doing. 2) Cost Yeah, I agree that it costs more to ve the death penalty. However I believe that it is far more important that we keep this country safe before we worry about money. However, if you can indeed prove that deterrence does not exist, then will concede that the death penalty is both pointless and expensive. For now I believe that the lives of many innocent people are far more important than some money. In addition to this, that's only about 1,100,000 a year. That's actually relatively inexpensive for the whole roughly 38% less crimes you get from it. It also doesn't matter that they only executed 13 criminals. What matters is that crime rates are being lowered. The death penalty exists not only to punish those who have committed especially heinous crimes, but to keep people safer and to lower crime rates. My opponent states that we should invest the 1,100,000 dollars we use on the death penalty per year into actual things that are proven to prevent crime. That is an interesting proposition. he question is though, which will deter more crime? I would like to ask my opponent just how much crime rates would decrease if the death penalty was made illegal (roughly 38% more crimes) and if they spent that money on other things. In order for it to be more effective than the death penalty my opponent must show that by taking out the death penalty and replacing it, there would be at least a 38% drop in crimes. "As an added plus, we’d be addressing the root of the problem by changing criminals to good citizens with social programs, rather just making them hesitate before committing a crime." Please clarify. If we can make a social program that helps criminals turn into good citizens effectively then I am all for it. However we also need to let them know that no matter what, crossing the line is crossing the line and you will be punished by death for certain acts. The death penalty works too well for society for it not to be implemented. I await my opponents response.