The death penalty should be abolished

Deterministic effect Just like my opponent, I wont make a “big” deal out of determinism vs. free will; I will just give a quick rebuttal. It cannot be true for mainly one reason. Our ability to reason, assuming determinism is true, one can't rationally affirm it to be true since you were determined to think that way. We cannot prove determinism. His second point is a fact, however I don’t see how it proves his point. It merely proves some people are predisposed to crime, in other words the option not to commit the crime still exists. For example, those molested as children are more likely to be abusive when they are older. Many of them know its wrong, however they where trained to think that way. Does this mean they should be allowed to go free? This point only applies to those who are psychopaths, and that’s because they literally can’t control themselves. These people always have the option to abstain from this action and, therefore, should be held accountable. Innocents My opponent actually makes a good case for my side. First, if you notice the amount of those executed the majority of them occur before 2000, DNA testing is extremely accurate and likely was put into use around that time. And, anyway, pros case of released before execution helps me, too. This means the system weeds many of those out who are really innocent (or are worthy of a lesser sentence) and I think this is a success of the system, not a failure.Pro actually does make a strong case when he notes 74 have been executed innocently (they where not released). Now, I am not going to say that the DP has never executed an innocent in the modern era (post-Furman). However, the instance it occurs is extremely rare. My opponent’s source was published the same time as mine and relies on a few false assumptions. After review of the published studies, we see large dissent to these numbers. As of 1997, only 11 people are truly innocent [1]. As we see from my opponent’s source, only a few people are named. The reason? In much of the lists of those executed, they fail to distinguish legal and actual guilt. Legal guilt can be overturned by technicalities or not beyond reasonable doubt (even if there is a large bulk of evidence). This does not mean they are actually innocent, as actual guilt does not require legal guilt. Many of those executed may have been actually guilty. So I decided to google the source in my opponent’s source. And I could only find an updated version but there was some old data, which I presume was on the old paper. Most of it cited many studies from the 80’s (in the time of Pro's source, the debate was over the 80’s studies). And when looking at their studies, they fully misinterpret the data! The studies own authors note, “We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had.”[1] They didn’t even find one innocent! They merely went off of legal/actual guilt mix-ups and clemency!A few have been executed, according to source one its eleven, but that means the death penalty has ver a 99% accuracy rate—99.86%—and this is astonishing! Also, what if I said LWOP cases increases the amount of those that die on death row? Dudley Sharp notes, “…1973-2012) about 5,000 inmates per year die while in custody, or about 200,000 total, during that time. We cannot bring back any of those that may have been innocent, either.”[2]We incarnate most murderers, and assuming the 99% number rolls over we see a larger number of innocents lost in a LWOP system. Function Punishment: LWOP may actually be worse (debatable), however we should look at this from a criminal’s perspective. When a defendant is given the choice, 99.9% of them fight for life [1]. So, in their perspective, the best way to give justice is through the DP.Segregation: Studies have found 821 lives would be saved each year if the DP was used against all murderers, in other words many of them escape and re-commit the crimes (or they are pardoned, parole for some reason is given, etc) [1]. Further, there are many cases of LWOP turning into life and parole eligibility being given every two years [3]. Deterrence: as stated, criminals view the DP worse. It makes sense, too, as criminals are about self-preservation and LWOP preserves them in a sense. Further, merely arguing an 88% number is a fallacy. Argument from consensus. Most people believe in X and, therefore, X is true [4]. Further, that study is extremely cherry picked. I don’t know where the 88% number came from, as question twelve (do you think the DP deters some) 100% agreed. 61% said they supported the studies on the issue. 57% said the death penalty was not significant in deterrence. But the question is quite vague, who defines significant? The number was brought by question 7, where 91% said they did not think the DP was more of a deterrent then LWOP [5]. They may have averaged the number, I don’t know I have not seen the actual study or questions (your source=abstract), however my critique lists [some of] them and I think I have the stronger case.Defense:1. Saves lives Their objections are similar to those done by D & W which have all been refuted by their authors [6]. Further, the study never debunks my conclusions; they merely state that it is “not informative”. They also concluded no conclusions can be made. Further, they even admit the evidence exists for deterrence, however they think it is “weak”. So this doesn’t refute my analysis. 88% number refuted above.None of my sources where books, I think some of them are online and the others can be checked via JSTOR. If phantom wishes to see them, he can ask any college student for the data. Pro, I agree LWOP can be a deterrent. I really do, however I proved most criminals fight for life not death meaning based on empirical data the DP is likely a stronger deterrent [1]. This refutes the majority of this above. And remember, my opponent is contradicting himself. He thinks people should be let free due to Eriksons theory, yet supports solitary confinement?I will sum this up. Comparing countries is impossible to do! Europe and Canada have had lower crime rates then us always—and these factors are unrelated to the DP—the reason the US has the DP is in response to higher crime, meaning my opponent falls into the statistical equivalent to a fallacy of endogenity. My opponent cites many people saying Texas has no deterrence! To the contrary, studies have found Texas to have specifically high deterrence to those states that use it less. These studies conclude consistent DP deters, and more DP is needed for it to deter (so, more DP not less is needed) [8]. And if my opponent thinks LWOP is worse, when why would he think it deters and does not brutalize? My opponent contradicts himself.2. Justice Your C1 is false; one merely being predisposed to crime does not mean he should be acquitted. And I have shown the DP to be harsher then the DP in many aspects, mainly because criminals prefer life [1]. These people have ended another ones life and, therefore, have conceded their right to life. To give them a just punishment, we should give them something fairly harsh, something that fits the crime. There is always a case where it is hard to argue the DP is not just (for example Hitler) [9].I would like my opponent to note his response does not mean we should abolish the death penalty. He says lets rehabilitate. All right, but can we rehabilitate men like Ted Bundy? Hitler? Stalin? In other words, my opponent’s rebuttal does not mean we should abolish the death penalty; rather use it less often (for only extreme cases). I really think all of my opponent’s case is more of an argument for reform—not abolition. --> Deterence research is strogner on my side, andlogic behind deterence (99.9%) proves the DP deters. And because I have some characters now, here is this (not an argunment, its irrelevant, just bored): http://www.wesleylowe.com...