The Death Penalty Should be Abolished.

"1. This is such a cliched misconception. There is a defining line between a violent crime and a punishment: the motive and reasoning behind it. Abolitionists such as yourself only see the physical similarities of the death penalty and murders, but fail to see the moral aspect. Would you condemn a father from spanking a child because the child kicked his brother? Of course not, unless the father were to be an abusive or irrational one, we would agree that his treatment was appropriate. There wasn't malignant thoughts of payback in the father's mind, but rather of the wish to morally correct his son. Would you connect charging taxes and fines with extortion? In the same way these pairs are distinguished, so is the death penalty and offenders." 1. My point is, the idea that killing people in order to set the example that killing is wrong, is completely illogical. The state, by implementing capital punishment, lowers its standard to the mentality of the killer. There is a slight difference between spanking a child and murdering someone. Spanking a child, if implemented fairly and rationally, is meant to correct a behavior and prevent later occurrences of a behavior. Capital punishment is the irreversible act of putting someone to death. I think that these are distinguishable. Now, you may argue that by putting prisoner to death, we are showing potential murderers the consequences of their actions, but here is another logical flaw that I would like to point out. For this to be true, you would have to assume that murderers are logical, rational people. 2. It have been proven true that capital punishment costs more than incarceration for life. -At the trial level in Washington, the death penalty cost approximately $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense, more than "the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty" and costs from $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel. -In Washington, on direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense is a significant $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases. -In addition, Personal restraint petitions filed during the course of death penalty cases on averages $137,000 more in public defense costs. -In New Jersey, tax payers paid more than a quarter of a billion dollars on the death penalty in a 23 year span. There had been 197 capital trials in New Jersey and 60 death sentences, 50 of which were overturned. In Tennessee, the death penalty trials cost, on average, 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life incarceration without parole. "- Tennessee District Attorneys General are not consistent in their pursuit of the death penalty. - Surveys and interviews of district attorneys indicate that some prosecutors "use the death penalty as a 'bargaining chip' to secure plea bargains for lesser sentences." - Previous research provides no clear indication whether the death penalty acts as a method of crime prevention. - The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed 29 percent of capital cases on direct appeal. - Although any traumatic trial may cause stress and pain for jurors, the victims' family, and the defendant's family, the pressure may be at its peak during death penalty trials. (July 2004)" In Kansas, the death penalty expenses are a whopping 70% than none death penalty cases. In a study conducted, death penalty case costs counted, from the beginning of the process to execution, and it was found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted from the beginning of the process to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. That $1.26 million includes Appeals = 29% of the total expense the pre-trial and trial level expenses= 40% of total expenses The incarceration and execution = 22% of total expenses Here are some facts: " * The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. * The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case). * The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater. * The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case. * Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days." Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... I could easily continue to elaborate on all of the different studies and information collected. "-The Thuggees were one of the worst gangs in history. They plagued Indian villages and merchants for hundreds of years. When the British empire came into power, they instated fast arrested and executions. Stemming from so many hangings, the Thuggees were eventually suppressed and eliminated with, deterring many new incomers. This is historical evidence for the deterrence power of a DP." Um...moot point. Police eliminated and stifled members of the group by pursuing them and hanging them. The penalty did not prevent the crimes from ever being committed. Social science has already discredited the misconception that the death penalty is a deterrent. Most crimes are committed as an act of blind impulse, with little thought given to the consequences. These crimes are committed in the heat of passion, and/or committed while inebriated or under the influence of drugs. Those that commit premeditated murders don't plan on getting caught and expect to avoid punishment altogether. Besides, life without parole is, at least, as great of a deterrent as capital punishment. http://www.aclu.org... "-There is the deterrence in the fact that the murderer or rapist will never do his crime again. There have been a plethora of cases of escaped or released convicts from LWOP, and whom have continued their killing spree until being caught once again. DP would save many potential innocent lives." Haha, yeah a murderer will never commit a crime again when punished with the death penalty, because he or she is deprived of the life in which crimes can be committed. My opponent appears to be getting back at me for a debate in which I brought up semantics and technicalities and won. A rapist isn't punished with rape. Following that logic, a murderer should not be punished with murder. See how the "eye for an eye" punishment is so profoundly illogical? My opponent has established a claim which the onus is on him to prove. If prisoners escaping from prisons was a major issue, here is what I propose: spend the saved funds on the reinforcement of prisons. Life in prison without possibility of parole is what I'm going at. If such as drastic change was to occur, meaning if the death penalty was to be overturned and superseded by life without parole, this is what should be instated. "Ways to solve this is to increase the court appointed attorney's salary." Like I said, in areas where crime is abundant, this is difficult. 4. My argument about the death penalty singling out the poor is not void. With such a fallible law system, an irreversible punishment such as the death penalty should not be instated.