The Death Penalty

Argument 1: Costs - Response to Counter The first part of my opponent's argument is that costs are offset by plea bargains. Unfortunately, the source link he provided came up with a "404 - file not found" message for me, so I am unable to respond; if you are a random reader, please comment if the link works for you. Nonetheless, he has no evidence for his claim that there are more plea bargains because of the death penalty. I have arguments that suggest that plea bargaining does not help reduce costs. Source [1] provides an example where the reinstatement of the death penalty did not provide an increase of plea bargains. Three of the top five states with the highest rates of prisoners serving life without parole are non-death penalty states; prosecutors in New Jersey have admitted that the abolition of the death penalty in 2007 has made no difference in their ability to secure guilty pleas; in Alaska, plea bargaining was abolished completely in 1975, and a 1980 study by the National Institute of Justice found that since the end of plea bargaining, "guilty pleas continued to flow in at nearly undiminished rates. Most defendants pled guilty even when the state offered them nothing in exchange for their cooperation." [2] Furthermore, according to Northwestern University Economics Professor Jeff Ely, "The threat of the death penalty makes defendants more willing to accept a given plea bargain offer. But a tough-on-crime DA takes up the slack by making tougher offers. What is the net effect…the threat of the death penalty results in fewer plea bargains and more cases going to trial" [3]. In addition to this, with the death penalty in effect, many defendants may accept plea bargains out of fear of the death penalty, whether they are guilty or not. They might be afraid that they do not have competent legal representation, and since there is enough evidence for them to be accused, they may believe they will be sentenced because of their legal representation is not competent enough to defend them properly. In this way, using death penalty as a threat to secure plea bargains forces many defendants to give up their right to a fair trial [4]. "I can say that if the death penalty has a deterrent effect, it is deterring something valuable enough for the extra cost. That is to say, if the death penalty saves lives, then the cost is justified." Not necessarily. The money could be better used in other areas of law enforcement that could save more lives by using the money more effectively. Argument 2: Deterrence - Response to Counter "I would like everyone to be aware of the insanity plea, in which a defendant can argue insanity to get out of a capitol punishment, so in that effect this argument is invalid." I was not addressing costs when brought up mental illnesses, but rather deterrence; you have provided no evidence that the death penalty deters people with mental illness, which is generally involved in extreme acts of crime, from committing these acts. You have simply provided a way from them of getting out of the death penalty, which would make the death penalty even less of a deterrence. "from the American Law & Econ Review in 2003[2] "Our results show that capitol punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders. Tests show that results not driven by tougher sentencing laws and are robust to other alternative specifications." This quote clearly says 1 execution prevents 18 murders...Now, I said that if the death penalty saves lives, then cost is justified." "The Texas Tech University Law Review did a more conclusive study on moratoriums on the death penalty that occurred in Texas and Illinois in 2008...371 murders that could of, and should of been stopped, but were not." I have provided a plethora of sources that cases involving the death penalty cost more than the cases without the death penalty. You have not refuted the sources' data. Now, the money spent on death penalty cases could go to more effective ways of reducing murder, such as providing the police with more funds. One advantage of proving more funds to the police is that they are more able to stop all sorts of crimes. The Death Penalty may, if the sources that are not linked are correct, prevent more extreme ones, but the police can help stop both murder and driving under the influence, for example. For Pro's source 3, unless Pro can provide better data, I do not see how the 371 murders, that could have been stopped, were not stopped simply because the death penalty was not present. He mentioned how the murders could have been prevented, but by what? "My response is that the population of Iowa is much lower than the population of Minnesota, by about 2 million people, and that this is why murder rate is low -- not because of the death penalty. Plus, my opponent never linked Iowa's low crime rates to an absence of the death penalty, nor did he link Minnesota's high crime rates to the presence of the death penalty. So this argument was vague and incorrect." I was trying to convey that location had little to do with it; the death penalty is more common in the Southern region of the United States, so one may argue that the South simply has higher crime rates. The example I provided, and my source had three more, showed that this was not necessarily true. Two states bordering one another still had different crime rates, with the trend continuing where death penalty states had higher ones. Argument 3: Innocence - Response to Counter "1. Time...the average time between the arrest of a death row inmate and the execution of one, is 28 years...This is plenty of time to come to a watertight conclusion," Once again, humans are fallible, so error is possible. A lot of time is taken, but error is certainly possible. There is no denying it. "2. No proof. The other response is that there has never any conclusive proof that any of the inmates executed in modern times were innocent[4]. Think about it -- In a thirty year period no has had an absolute exoneration. There are only two reasons this would be so. 1. Widespread evidence tampering, or 2. Death Penalty convictions are correct. I plan to talk about this more in my rebuttals as so my opponent can expound upon this a little more." I will restate what I said earlier: "Most courts generally do not entertain the possibility that they executed an innocent person, while defense attorneys focus their attention on clients' who can be saved." Furthermore, I have already said that under the threat of the death penalty, people may accept plea charges and plead guilty, whether guilty or not. The death penalty still causes innocent people to be detained. Disadvantage 1: Prison Chaos - Counter "You come to two terrifying scenarios. Either 1: The criminal spends his life planning and scheming so as to escape" As opposed to someone on death row? Escape is something that all sorts of prisoners may attempt, not just those who receive a life sentence. Either way, prison escapes are on the decline, despite the rising amount of criminals in jail [5]. "2: The criminal kills other inmates and guards, because he has nothing else to be threatened with." He has little evidence to show how common this actually happens, and once again, this is a problem for all prisoners, not just those with life sentences. People with life sentences may think they have less to lose, but so may people on death row. Disadvantage 2: Lost of Plea Bargaining - Counter I have refuted his argument in my response to counter 1. [1] http://www.princeton.edu... [2] http://ejusa.org... [3] http://cheaptalk.org... [4] http://contentdm.ncsconline.org... [5] http://www.slate.com...