October beginner's tournament: The USA should get rid of the death penalty

Not only have you proved to be a remarkable opponent, but you have forced me to increase my knowledge on aspects of our world that I would normally not go and search on my own, and I thank you for that. I can see this debate going to either one of us, judging on how this round turns out. 1. How expensive is the death penalty compared to the alternative? My opponent, in this contention, brings up the fact that while it may be significantly more expensive in some states to execute inmates than incarcerating them for life, it is not true for others (1) (In texas, it costs three times as much to execute an inmate instead of holding them in a maximum security cell for 40 years, and three times as much in Florida to execute an inmate instead of jailing them for life). Different states are bound to have different costs, varying on the state budget and method of execution. What my opponent does not consider is that millions would be saved if we held violent offenders instead of executing them. Next, my opponent continues to downplay the money saved by eliminating capital punishment. Avoiding the facts, my opponent ignores the accumulative cost that the death penalty incurs (yes, more or less so in some states than others). Ignoring the facts and trying to mitigate the cost argument by comparing states to others is ineffective and irrelevant, because regardless of the cost difference, there is still money to be saved in eliminating the death penalty, and money to be wasted while it is still in effect. 2. Why are death penalty cases more expensive? The focus of my opponent’s contention is to try and prove, misguidedly, that death penalty cases are more expensive because the people behind the scenes are trying to ensure that sentencing is free from error, and providing more room for vindication; this is irrelevant. His quote also perpetuates the idea that capital punishment cases are more expensive because of procedural safeguards to ensure that there is no error in the sentencing. My opponent does not consider the fact that regardless of how hard he tries, the death penalty, in all aspects, incurs more cost and wastes more money than incarcerating offenders. Also, on a side note, I have argued previously that there is a larger window for vindication without capital punishment sentences, where, on average, a prisoner has 15 years before they are executed. Why is ensuring the death of violent offenders so important, when we could have less costly trials, and less costly cases, and jail the offenders at a lower accumulative cost? Without any substantiated evidence and little value to back up his assertions, I do not see how my argument has been challenged. If there is no room for error, and all capital punishment cases are so just and accurate, then how come there are so many appeals for resentencing (see next argument)? If there wasn’t any error in these cases, then falsely convicted offenders would not fear the death penalty. Life without parole sentences offer the opportunity to prove their innocence and vindicate themselves. 3. If we get rid of the death penalty, what’s the alternative? This rebuttal contention is focused on the insignificant alternatives to the death penalty, which my opponent did not name nor back up with evidence. Yes, innocent and presumed innocent people have been executed, and with the abolition of the death penalty, we will no longer execute these people. If we are able to jail accused offenders instead of putting them on death row, there is still time for the reconsideration of their cases and the redistribution of justice. I do not see how giving falsely accused prisoners a greater chance to clear their name is in any way of lesser value than being put on death row and possibly executed. There is, in fact, evidence that points to the faulty sentencing of death row cases. In a quote from PNAS (2), “Table 1 displays the status of the 7,482 death-sentenced defendants we studied as of December 31, 2004, the final day of our study period. On that date, 12.6% of these defendants had been executed, 1.6% were exonerated, 4% died of suicide or natural causes while on death row, 46.1% remained on death row, and 35.8% were removed from death row but remained in prison after their capital sentences or the underlying convictions were reversed or modified. ” (“Table 1” can be found on page two of provided source) Judging by the statistics provided by PNAS, it looks like there is a lot of room for error, considering the fact that of 7,482 death row inmates, 35.8% had been lifted from death row. Capital Punishment is not a sentencing to be thrown around lightly, and abolishing it would remove the room for error that could result in the executions of innocent men and women. Instead of executing inmates, we should imprison them for prolonged sentences, so that they are able to be cut off from the outside world; incapable of doing any more harm. This way, if there are any offenders that were accused of egregious crimes but are in fact innocent, they are not put on death row under the threat of possible execution, and they are able to clear their names. I would like to note that in the previous round, my opponent has agreed that sentencing offenders for life would have an equal impact when compared to executing them, since it isolates them completely. My opponent provides NO evidence to support his claim that banning the death penalty would persecute more innocent people. Honestly, I have no idea where he got this, and I would like to shine some light on the complete and total lack of reasoning and evidence to back up this claim. In fact, banning the death penalty would in fact prevent the imprisonment and possible execution of innocent people for one logical reason; prison sentencing instead of possible execution provides innocent people to appeal their sentencing and possibly clear their name of the applied accusations. 1. ) The death penalty prevents murders In this contention, my opponent focuses on making bland assertions and defenses that are of little or no resolutional value. I did in fact provide substantial evidence to show the lack of deterrence, but my opponent refuses to acknowledge it. Secondly, criminologists are not an unreliable source, they are the best in the field in their area of expertise, and would know the exacts of the inner workings of justice. Saying that criminologists are irreputable is irrelevant, because “authority” are the people who deal with these kinds of crimes and sentencing day by day. Deterrence will be unable to accumulate and effectively take hold, due to the space between sentencing and execution. The death penalty is too expensive to execute and jail prisoners for an average of 15 years, and the preventative efforts will not take hold. Lastly, my opponent makes the startlingly intelligent remark that since the time between execution and sentencing is not mentioned in “news reports mainly”, therefore it does not affect deterrence. This is a fallacy in logic, for your faulty reasoning is clearly evident, and I have provided evidence to support my claims, whereas you make these unsubstantiated claims that attempt but fail to circumvent common sense. 2) The death penalty is a tool for police investigations The purpose of the debate was to focus on the capital punishment policies in the U. S. , and I felt that I needed to clarify that “many countries” does not specifically pertain to the debate topic. Secondly, my opponent continues to label the death penalty as a time saving bargaining chip. Ethics are complicated, and yes many people will not agree. However, threatening death to coerce suspects into cooperating in specifying the specifics of the crimes committed is morally unjustifiable. My version of morality is in fact more important because it focuses on the moral standards of modern societies, not the subjugated opinions of individuals. Sweeping aside the fact that police are using capital punishment as bargaining chips is ignorant and completely ignoring the ethics that surround the issue. This is why my view of morality in regards to capital punishment is superior. 3) The death penalty provides relief for victims Criticising my use of the word vengeance is irrelevant, considering the fact that vengeance is exactly the kind of relief the victims are feeling when the criminal who harmed their loved one is executed by death penalty. Therefore, this claim against my statements is irrelevant. If we want to delve into the morality of the death penalty, which you have failed to do previously, then let’s do it. Vengeance is something someone feels after revenge has been exacted. Execution from capital punishment, which is the wording I used, is not something to move forward. In a just society, people should not await the execution of offenders to relieve themselves of grief. It isn’t the past part that is conflicting with morality, it is the fact that enacting vengeance is the way to end grief. How can we label ourselves a just moral society when this is the norm? Imprisoning offenders for life is in fact a challenge to the death penalty, because it is the alternative. Also, according to what one person says, we are supposed to believe that enacting vengeance is the best way of relief? If this is true, we have no right to call ourselves just or moral. Finally, in federal courts, the jury decides the indictment of offenders, not the judge. Overview: Throughout the duration of his arguments, my opponent makes claims falsely asserted, with little or no evidence to back them up. He significantly downplays common statistics with faulty reasoning, and his rebuttals did not effectively challenge my arguments. His ignorance of morality and logic must be accounted for. These reasons, combined with what is self evident and what I have pointed out, is why you should vote Pro! Pro R2