Capital Punishment Should Not Be Practiced as a Form of Legal Discipline

Criminal Justice Theories: Once again, should you even be persuaded by even one of my criminal justice theory arguments, my affirmative case holds. Restraint: PRO claims that if preventing prison violence is just cause for killing inmates, then many non-capital offenders would need to be put to death. This isn’t true. As I pointed out, capital offenders don’t just commit prison violence, but have also already been charged with committing the most grievous crime within society. The prison violence is simply supplied with their capital offenses. To demonstrate, imagine that each offense is classified like below: Capital Crimes = 10 Non-Capital Crimes = 5 Prison Violence = 5 Capital-Crimes + Prison Violence = 15. Non-Capital Crimes + Prison Violence = 10. Looking at things from the amount of damage already caused, capital offenders will always have a leg up against non-capital offenders, hence making Pro’s study irrelevant. Capital Punishment lowers the overall amount of damage to society, pursuant to the Restraint Theory. Education: Pro says he sees no reason to assume that alternative methods of educating the public would be less efficient in informing the public of societies ‘stance on issues. On the contrary, there is ample reason. The phrase “actions speaker louder than words” comes to mind. Keep in mind what the education theory sets out to accomplish. Tis not enough simply to explain to society that we do not tolerate murder. The education theory provides that this lesson should be demonstrated to society. The publicity of a criminal trial, conviction and punishment accomplishes just that. Here, the lesson society learns is that the crimes most detrimental to society warrant the worst kind of punishment. In abolishing the death penalty and issuing everyone a life sentence, this isn’t accomplished. Rather, a wide variety of lesser crimes sufficient for life sentences are equated to the crimes reserved for capital punishment. Retribution: Pro does little to address capital punishment pursuant to this theory. He says that there is no evidence to suggest that capital offenders are more violent than non-capital offenders. First, I’ve already proven that capital offenders are more violent than non-capital offenders (see Restrain analysis in R3 and R4). Second, the comparison of violence between capital offenders and non-capital offenders has no bearing on this contention. My point is that capital offenders are awarded in being placed in an environment that promotes their distaste for the law. That in light of such circumstances, mere life sentences aren’t even remotely sufficient retribution for their crimes. Deterrence: PRO says that in light of the conflicting evidence we’ve provided, there is therefore insufficient evidence that capital punishment works as a deterrent. First, please note the 1/3 of PRO’s affirmative argument has relied on the notion that capital punishment fails as a deterrent. In now claiming that there is simply insufficient evidence, he has effectively dismissed 1/3 of his case. Second, although there is conflicting statistical evidence, the evidence I submitted holds (see my R2 and R3 analysis). A simple gander at the chart I posted in R3 confirms this. Homicide rates sharply increased on a nationwide scale immediately upon capital punishment having been declared unconstitutional and sharply decreased immediately upon it being declared constitutional once more. Clearly, capital punishment has worked as a deterrent. Sustaining: Capital Punishment Presents Unwarranted Risks: PRO insists that he is simply arguing that that life in prison without parole fulfills justice just as efficiently as the death penalty, and is therefore a safer and more desirable alternative than capital punishment. As I’ve noted throughout this debate, due to the dangers inherent within the prison system, sentencing innocent men/women to a life term is simply sentencing them to being raped, assaulted or even killed. Sentencing citizens to prison has can and has resulted in much injustice to innocents. Prison violence is rampant throughout American prisons, thus PRO’s concern for ‘safety’ is unpersuasive. PRO acknowledges that abolishing capital punishment won’t stop racism. This concession is detrimental to his argument. If Capital punishment won’t stop racism, why then are we discussing racism? PRO’s argument is a critique on the entire system. We could just as easily say that because the system is racist, no one should be sentenced to a life sentence, much less serve ten years. Ultimately, it leads to the conclusion that the entire legal system is in need of abolishment. The problem with PRO’s contention is that he has simply opted to arbitrarily draw a line at capital punishment and allow racism to thrive in every other area of the legal system. PRO is confused about my multicultural argument. What I’m saying is that pursuant to the culture conflict theory, those of different cultures are inclined to violate the rules of a culture they don’t completely subscribe to (see article cited in R2). For example, many illegal immigrants come into this country automatically violating our laws. The law isn’t as much as a concern for them because their own cultural values. Many young black males are raised in chaotic urban environments where problems are resolved with brute force and otherwise reckless behavior. One raised in this environment, therefore, is likely to have less of an appreciation of our assault laws. I could go on and on. The point is that PRO’s charges of racism are much too conclusory. PRO once again points out the despite the protections built into the judicial system to lower the chance of error, the fact remains that literally hundreds of individuals have been found innocent. As I’ve demonstrated, however, the number of innocents in comparison to the overall number is quite vast. Pursuant to PRO’s own source, a mere 140 individuals have been found innocent since 1973. On the other hand, as I’ve pointed out, nearly 10,000 have been issued the death penalty since the 1970s. In other words, the rate of error is below 2%. At the end of the day, pursuant to PRO’s own reasoning, there are going to be imperfections in the system no matter what we do. Innocents are going to be found guilty. The best we can do is reduce odds of this happening to as low a number as possible. Sustaining: Capital Punishment Fails as a Deterrent: 1) PRO has failed to demonstrate how all four the theories of criminal justice do not justify capital punishment. 2) PRO concedes to there being insufficient evidence to support the “brutalization effect”, but holds that there is insufficient evidence to believe that capital punishment serves a deterrent. As I’ve shown, this is false. There is plenty of evidence. 3) I again state that the consensus of experts is irrelevant. It’d be one thing if PRO provided reasoning behind their beliefs and requested I refute it. However, all he has done is tell us what the experts believe. What these so-called experts think is irrelevant. First, PRO is appealing to what a majority of the so-called experts thinks. Ad populam. Second, I submit that in light of the arguments I’ve provided, the experts are dead wrong. Sustaining: Capital Punishment is Overly Expensive: As I’ve made the case that the expenses of capital punishment are well worth the benefits, pursuant to any one of the four theories I’ve provided and that said expenses help prevent innocents from getting sentenced to the death penalty, there is nothing else to be discussed here. Conclusion: For the reasons provided, PRO's case fails. I therefore strongly urge a vote towards CON. However, note that I've waived conduct points (see R3). Thus, I request you award PRO conduct. . . . cheers to Bodhivaka for this exciting debate and cheers to DDO for reading!