Abolishing the Death Penalty

Deterrence Fesser didn't mention the rationality of human nature, he only argued for proportionality... So any rationality argument I will put under deterrence, since rational choice theory is what this argument rests upon. If you look at criminal behavior, it is wholly rational. Criminals target the weak. In cases where you arm civilians, there is reduced crime. Even assuming in 1/10 cases the victim wins, in the other 9 the bad guy wins, there is still a strong deterrent effect. Even assuming 1/100 muggers are shot, and 99 are fine, the risk is still extremely high. Most of these victims do not carry enough money to be worth a 1% chance of death. Most murder victims, on balance, are generally not worth dying for--even if the chance of death is fairly small (there are a few cases where people wont act rationally; terrorism for example). But the fact is, based on criminal behavior, it is very easy to see that most criminals act rationally. If the costs of an action are too high, they will opt to commit different crimes or wait until the cost of the crime decreases (they wait until the laws change, for example). As economist David Friedman points out, "[t]he decision to commit a crime, like any other economic decision, can be analyzed as a choice among alternative combinations of costs and benefits." [1. http://tinyurl.com...]. In a similar line of logic, Murray Rothbard further elaborates, "it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty. Sometimes the liberal argument comes perilously close to maintaining that no punishment deters any crime — a manifestly absurd view that could easily be tested by removing all legal penalties for nonpayment of income tax and seeing if there is anyreduction in the taxes paid. (Wanna bet?) Furthermore, the murderer himself is certainly "deterred" from any repetition of his crime — and quite permanently." [2. http://tinyurl.com...]. Arguing that murders still happen when the death penalty exists is a terrible argument. This view assumes the death penalty is the only factor when it comes to crime. The death penalty may reduce murder, but it wont eliminate it--the fact is, murder will likely always exist. However, what is interesting to note is that when murder began to decrease, is the same time death penalty usage also began to increase--and eventually peak. The vast majority of recent research obtains their deterence conclusion from researching the period before, during, and after death penalty was banned and then relegalized. They generally find that crime was falling, increased, then fell again. This is in direct support of what deterrence theory supports. My opponent compares states, however this is a poor argument as well. This assumes the death penalty is the largest factor in crime, when the fact is other factors (arrest rates, conviction rates, poverty, etc.) influence crime much more. Further, it ignores a simple explanation: high crime means more death penalty. States with high crime have a death penalty in order to reduce the crime. The death penalty did, in fact, reduce the crime--but the overall rate still remained above that of other states due to other factors. Economist John Lott has found that generally states without the death penalty had crime lower than those with the death penalty BEFORE they abolished the death penalty--meaning other factors than the death penalty explain the difference [3. http://tinyurl.com...]. In fact, when these variables are accounted for, states with the death penalty have much lower murder rates. Merely having a death penalty may or may not deter crime. States that have a death penalty and do not use it often will not produce a deterrent effect--and can actually find a slight increase in crime. Only in states that use it quickly or often will see strong deterrent effects. Research has confirmed this: this means more death, not less, should be enacted in order to reduce crime [4. http://tinyurl.com...]. 1) This argument makes no sense. The death penalty does not apply to all murders, therefore, it is impossible to make the murder rate 0. It ignores any other factors related to crime. 2) Says the person who uses cross sectional evidence -_- Regardless, 18 pannel data studies since 1999 all controlling for different factors, different methods, and all having strong support from crime research that criminals are rational, and Becker's 1967 work on crime, there is a pretty strong hint of causation. 3) Oversimplification, lol. You are the one who said the DP alone would make murder 0, and state comparisons are a valid argument... And I am accused of oversimplification. The fact is, there is strong empirical work on the issue which controls for more variables then we could think of. Is that oversimplification, no, it really isn't. It is science [5. http://tinyurl.com...]. a) This has been accounted for. Parenting, urbanization, race, etc. The fact is these factors alone DO count for most of the crime--NO ONE denies this. But it is accepted amongst people who work in this area that the death penalty does, in fact, deter some crime. To argue that punishments do not deter crime is illogical--and this has been discussed already. b) That proves my point. Murder fell fastest in the 1990s, at the same time death penalty usage skyrocketed... And wasn't it my opponent who said the death penalty would make the murder rate 0, so this contradicts here former points...There are many states that have similar cultures and demographics to other states. These have already been accounted for and used in the research. No surprise, they all show the death penalty reduces crime (though this is weak evidence as it is cross sectional. It is much better to see what happens in a given state as the factors are easier to control for... See the following graphs) (see page 396 for more. All states show the same trend: legal DP less murder, abolishing DP = more murder)http://tinyurl.com...;CostKansas uses the death penalty very rarely, has not executed an inmade since 1965, etc. The death penalty in Kansas, therefore, seems to be rare and inefficient, leading to its high costs [6. http://tinyurl.com...]. The fact is, in states where death penalty opponents exonerate (often not for innocence reasons) death row inmates, or death row inmates are rarely executed, we can expect to see higher costs. In states, such as Virginia, where a death sentence is fast and likely (65% sentenced get executed), costs are much cheaper. In other words, death penalty opponents artificially make executions cost more by making the system as inefficient as possible. An efficient death penalty system would cost much less than life in prison--sadly, the anti death penalty lobby make this impossible. Further, the Kansas study essentially conceded that the study was flawed, “Actual cost figures for death penalty and non death penalty cases in Kansas don’t exist. (page 10 of the study)” [7. http://tinyurl.com...]. Yep, the study didn't even use cost data. Sadly, this is the case for most cost studies. Again, the most accurate studies find that the death penalty costs about the same as LWOP, and an efficient DP system would cost far less [8. http://tinyurl.com...]. InnocenceOne innocent person executed is too much? So, as proven the DP is an extremely strong deterrent. Would you ban the DP to prevent another one person from being executed, but sacrifice 10 to murder? If I have the option, I save the 10 innocent people. I end up with 9 innocent people alive, in your situation we have 9 innocents die. And as technology improves, the risk of killing an innocent continues to decrease. (My example right here was bad. With all the executions and the current success rate, it would have been better to say 1 innocent person dying and 1000 saved from murder).