The US should abolish capital punishment

== Rebuttal ==(1) Deterrent effectFirst, even premeditated murders don't rely on cost-benefit analysis. Con doesn't respond to my argument that long-term consequences of actions are usually not considered at all -- only short-term consequences are even considered by people. Also extend that only 15% of those sentenced to death have been executed, so the potential risk is low; so even under this model, criminals are deterred *more* by life imprisonment. Finally, Con drops that other forms of punishment also have a deterrent effect, which isn't taken into account by Con. I'll also note that the burden is on Con to justify rational action theory. All Con does is address my criticism, without actually justifying this theory, which is *assumed* by all of Con's studies that don't actually establish causation. Second, Con is incorrect that capital punishment only applies to premeditated murders. His source for this is a *blog* that merely asserts so without justifying it. Aggravated murder, robbery murder, murder involving the rape of the victim, murder of an on-duty police officer *and* premeditated murder allows capital punishment in most states. [1] All of these could have been murders of passion. Con also drops that multiple people on death row are mentally ill, so they aren't deterred (Rd. 2, sources 16 and 17). And if Con proposes a counterplan to only make capital punishment apply to premeditated murders, I'll note two things: (a) premeditated murders are often still based on consideration of short-term consequences only, and (b) that reduces the potential risk of execution and allows people to pretend like it was a murder of passion as well; reduced potential risk means lack of deterrence when compared to other forms of punishment. Third, Con's studies are still poor. Con drops my criticism of their earlier studies, as well as my broad criticism of death penalty studies in general -- and fails to actually justify the University of Chicago study short of merely re-affirming the results (which were, in themselves, based on *correlation* not *causation*). Con cites a study by Joanna M. Shepherd (who was also among the researchers that produced Con's Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd study), which is also criticized by the NRC for those same reasons. Similarly, the study only found correlations (without establishing causation), doesn't take into consideration the deterrent effect of other forms of punishment and assumes rational action theory. I'll also note that there are studies that show other forms of correlation, such as a study from researchers John Donohue and Justin Wolfers, that didn't find a deterrent effect. [2] Murder rates in states that have the death penalty don't display much difference to murder rates in states without the death penalty; in fact, in states without the death penalty, the crime rates appear to be lower. [3] I'll also note that Con has destroyed their own credibility when it comes to studies, so don't trust their word on research. Con then cites the Heritage Foundation, which itself sources Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd (one of Con's R2 studies), and Con's own University of Chicago study, which I've refuted. [4] It also presumes rational action theory, if you read the article, which I've thoroughly refuted. It then cites a study by Gittings and Mocan, which was *covered* by my source #3 from Rd. 3, the NRC report that criticized the methodology of studies. Similar to others, Gittings and Mocan merely establish a correlation which is very dubious (per the methodology used) and assumes rational action theory. The Zimmerman study (Con's own Rd. 2 source), also cited by the Heritage Foundation, has been refuted already. In conclusion, studies that favour deterrence have multiple flaws in their methodology, Con fails to defend rational action theory (which is false) and there are also studies that don't find any correlation between the death penalty and crime rates. Due to the lack of studies that establish causation on either side, there is sufficient uncertainty to negate deterrence on the basis of rational action theory being false. (2) RecidivismFirst, Con entirely *drops* that average death row wait is 16 years, and that prison breaks can easily happen within those 16 years, along with recidivism. There's no solvency from capital punishment as a result. Also, Con offers no evidence of people who killed again after *breaking* out of prison - Con's source only establishes people who killed again after being *released* from prison, which is completely different from breaking out. [5] Second, Con offers no specific warrants of how those symptoms entirely prevent rehabilitation. Those symptoms aren't necessarily indicators of anything. Con drops that rehabilitation has actually *worked* in the past -- and this doesn't necessarily mean treatment of mental illness. Con doesn't explain how the symptoms means they won't work. Also, my source #6 from Rd. 3 dealt with violent crime going down -- which is directly topical.(3) Innocent executionsExtend that spending years on death row is horrible and causes severe psychological harms, to innocent people: Con doesn't contest this. Con's source on more exonerations is not on more *death penalty* exonerations -- it is more *exonerations* in general from any prisons. [6] In fact, the number of exonerations from death row has, indeed, reduced. [7] Con also drops my argument that death-qualified juries are more likely to convict, more likely to trust every word of a cop's or snitch's mouth, and less likely to even remember the evidence presented at trial. [Sidenote: the round structure holds that that there can be no new arguments or new evidence presented in the final round, as I don't have a chance to respond. If such evidence is presented, judges should ignore it.] == Conclusion ==I made three arguments in this debate. (1) I showed that capital punishment causes severe psychological harm to executioners, and to friends/family of the executed. This was dropped by Con entirely. (2) I've shown that the application of the death penalty is very inhumane and causes intense pain. Con drops this as well. (3) Finally, I've shown that innocents are forced to spend years on death row with psychological harms associated, and are executed in those inhumane ways. Con drops this argument as well. Con has two arguments: (1) deterrence, and (2) incapacitation. I refuted deterrence by (1) showing that Con's studies (Zimmerman, Shepherd, and Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd) used poor methodology that has been refuted by panel review before (the NRC), (2) demonstrating that rational action theory is indefensible, and (3) by offering my own sources that offered correlations that contradicted Con's studies, thus offering further uncertainty. I refuted incapacitation by (1) showing that rehabilitation worked much better, and (2) that the harms of the death penalty (e.g. psychological damage to executioners and friends/family of the executed, innocent death) outweighed the impact from this (which isn't quantified). For these reasons, Vote Pro. [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://www.heritage.org...[5] http://www.wesleylowe.com...[6] http://www.law.umich.edu...[7] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...