The Death Penalty

A good rebuttal from my opponent, but not quite good enough to prove his side correct. Argument 1: Costs I apologize for the link. I have a new link up, that I will talk about momentarily. First of all, my opponents first source was taken out context by the con speaker. It did say that charge bargains were decreased, but not sentence bargains, the type of bargains I was talking about. The kind that determine what sentence a criminal gets. So this source does not apply. Regarding his second source, I have two responses. First of all, this source is extremely biased, considering the fact that the entire organization's purpose is to convince others the death penalty is wrong. Secondly, this study was extremely vague. We do not know enough about how the study was carried out, who was studied, what the differences are between their justice systems, etc. I, however, have a study that shows exactly whether deterrence was found in the justice system, or not, and it shows that 90% percent of time, deterrence is found[1]. My opponents third source, is also flawed, as there is no author listed, no evidence brought up (simply logic), and is posted on a blog. The one piece of evidence that is brought up is, no joke, my opponents first source. As I have already responded to that card, there is nothing else to say about this source. Now when I read his fourth card, I was struck funny by the lack of logic in the argument. An innocent would obviously argue innocence. I understand my opponents argument, I understand the evidence, but that doesn't mean either make much sense. This argument also contradicts previous arguments made by the Con. This argument does not stand.Argument 2:DeterrenceIn regards to mental illness, I misunderstood his argument. I'll bring up an argument later conflicting this point, but for now, let's move on. My opponent talked about my evidence I brought up, and (specifically talking about the moratoriums) asked how these murders could have been prevented. A follow up study about the moratorium on Texas explains my point perfectly[2]. “Using portfolio analysis in a type of controlled group experiment, this study develops an empirical model of homicide changes in Texas over a period of a ‘normal’ number of executions. The empirically derived model then estimates the changes in the number of homicides in Texas (1) over a period of near zero executions and; (2) over an immediate subsequent period of double the `normal’ number of executions. The actual changes in Texas homicides over the first period is less than estimated by the model and greater (or no different) than estimated by the model in the second period. Because changes in the number of homicides in Texas and throughout the United States were negative over both periods, these empirical results are consistent with the deterrence hypothesis. That is, there were a greater than predicted number of homicides in the first period and fewer than predicted number in the second period.” I hope that answers your question. In regards to the Iowa-Minnesota example, I now have no idea what he's arguing. As I see it, he thinks the reasons for the difference between the states crime rates is because of the death penalty, and I think it's because of the population. My opponent needs to make clear his position, so I can argue effectively.Arguments 3:InnocenceUnder my "Time" argument[3] my opponent responded by saying humans are fallible, and, therefore, can make mistakes.I agree, yes, it is possible, but there are no examples of it happening in modern times. My opponent tried to respond to this by using weak cards, already brought up in this debate round, but there are numerous studies which say the opposite[4][5][6].Let's move on to the Disadvantages.Disadvantage 1: Prison Chaos."As opposed to someone on death row?"Yes.[7] Let's read some highlights. “Of course, the death penalty conclusively deters an executed murderer from ever killing again. But so would life without parole, according to death penalty opponents. In fact, such incarceration does provide a measure of protection to the public. Considering the realities of prison life and resources, however, this alternative to the death penalty is, at times, a less attractive option. As one court notes, "[W]e recognize that assaults and murders will occur in prisons despite the most vigilant of official conduct."” Or this. “Or perhaps it is those inmates confined in prison that still conspire to kill those on the outside. Take Clarence Allen, who after being sentenced to life without parole for burglary and murder, orchestrated a triple-murder and a conspiracy to murder seven people, all in an effort to silence the witnesses who testified in his original trial. Or consider Julius Robinson, who while in jail awaiting a capital-murder trial for the depraved and senseless murders of three individuals, ordered three of his accomplices to kill a potential government witness.” You get the basic idea. By the way, my opponents fifth source was inept, because 1: It didn't have anything to do my argument. Prison escapes are down; So what? That has nothing to do with prison escapes being predominately in life without parole convicts. And 2: It was a humor article, based mostly on harmless tidbits. No credibilityDisadvantage 2: Plea BargainingResponded.Vote Pro in today's debate round. [1]http://www.cjlf.org...[2]JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECON 01 Dale O. Clonninger and Roberto Marchesini [both of the School of Business and Public Administration, University of Houston], “Execution and Deterrence: A Quasi-Controlled Group Experiment,” Applied Economics, 2001 (33, Applied Economics, 569-576) [Ethos][3]DON FEDER 01 Don Feder [writes editorials for the Boston Herald and is a nationally syndicated columnist], “McVeigh Makes the Case for Capital Punishment”, Insight on the News [American conservative print and online news magazine], May 21, 2001 http://findarticles.com...[4]SCOTUS 06 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Kan. v. Marsh, 2006 (126 S. Ct. 2516, 2539) [Ethos] [5]TTU LAW REVIEW 08 Richard B. Roper [United States Attorney, Northern District of Texas; J.D., Texas Tech University School of Law, 1982; B.A., University of TexasArlington, 1979], “The Death Penalty at the Intersection of Reality and Justice”, Texas Tech Law Review [Texas Tech University School of Law], Fall 2008 (41 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 15) [Ethos][6]THOMAS EDDLEM 02 Thomas R. Eddlem [editor of the Hanson Express in Hanson, MA, and is a regular contributor to The New American and Point South magazines], “Ten anti-death penalty fallacies: the case against capital punishment relies on myth, misinformation, and misplaced emotionalism”, The New American [biweekly magazine published by American Opinion Publishing, a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society], June 3, 2002 http://findarticles.com... [Ethos] [brackets in original][7]TTU LAW REVIEW 08 Richard B. Roper [United States Attorney, Northern District of Texas; J.D., Texas Tech University School of Law, 1982; B.A., University of TexasArlington, 1979], “The Death Penalty at the Intersection of Reality and Justice”, Texas Tech Law Review [Texas Tech University School of Law], Fall 2008 (41 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 15) [brackets in original][Ethos][8] TTU LAW REVIEW 08 Richard B. Roper [United States Attorney, Northern District of Texas; J.D., Texas Tech University School of Law, 1982; B.A., University of TexasArlington, 1979], “The Death Penalty at the Intersection of Reality and Justice”, Texas Tech Law Review [Texas Tech University School of Law], Fall 2008 (41 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 15) [Ethos][9]