The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Interesting. I thank PRO for his quick response!I shall go in this order.1) Rebuttals2) Refutations3) Conclusions==Rebuttals==I shall first start off defending my arguments.C1: DeterrenceApparently, my opponent has still failed to realize the obvious flaw in his sources. Simply comparing the homicide rates of different states is not an accurate way of measuring the effects of the death penalty. My sources have used sophisticated means of isolating the effects of the death penalty from outside factors, for example socioeconomic and policy. Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties, Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders [1]. "Panel data sets allow social scientists to separate the effect of capital punishment from other socioeconomic and policy factors" [2]. I emphasize this due to the fact that my opponent repeatedly cites flawed studies throughout the debate and has failed to present a validated reason for why the death penalty does not deter.The Emory group used nationwide data from 1960 to 2000,and discovered that 91% of the states had higher homicide rates after they suspended the death penalty [3]. On the other hand, 70% of the states had homicides decrease after the Death Penalty was put back in place [3].And finally repeat murderers are stopped and possible murders are deterred [4].Another study also found that even in murders of 'passion', people consider their actions and weigh the costs and benefits [5].Furthermore, a stud, from the Wall Street Journal (I couldn't find the original so I found a source that talked about it) found that the death penalty saves 74 lives by stopping possible murderers in the next year [6].In conclusion, the death penalty helps to save lives - by stopping murderers who repeat and deter possible killers.C2: Bargaining ChipMy opponent must realize that in almost all cases of plea bargains, there is no 'trial'. That is (one of the main) purposes of a plea bargain - to speed up the criminal justice system. My opponent just admitted that the death penalty helps to speed up courts. One must consider the scary thought if we no longer have a useful tool such as the death penalty. And furthermore, my opponent claims that often times, a defendant does not have 'legal representation' so when the threat of the death penalty is brought up, they are 'forced' into plea bargains. However, this argument is flawed. In order for the death penalty to actually be a viable threat, it must be believable, meaning that the death penalty threat can only be used in cases of severe criminal prosecutions. And let it be known that the Sixth Amendment in the constitution guarantees the right to representation by counsel in serious criminal prosecutions [6].We must also consider the fact that abolishing the death penalty will not bring an end of plea bargaining. Plea bargaining in general will continue without the DP. And furthermore, my opponent has not yet said anything about the fact that the threat of the death penalty can allow prosecutors to get vital information, such as the location of a dying person. Alternatives such as "Life in Prison" won't work - criminals understand that they are going to prison no matter what, but of course their risk-taking nature allows them to believe that "Perhaps I'll get an early parole (see 'C1: Life in Prison')". However death is another thing - you cannot escape it. Basically, my opponent gives up the argument that the death penalty can be used to save lives - in the circumstances that someone's life is on the line and the police need information from a criminal.C3: AccuracyThere has never been any solid proof of an innocent man actually being executed! Many studies that claim that innocents have been executed use flawed reasoning/methodology [4].*sighs* My opponent uses a source that talks about the UK's criminal justice system. The debate is confined to only the united states.CODIS, or the DNA database for the United States, uses 13 markers [7].Furthermore, my opponent fails to observe non-DNA methods of determining guilt. He basically concedes this point to me.C4: Popularity [9].Now this directly disproves my opponents arguments as it shows that 61% of people support the Death Penalty, so I shall no precede to compare sources to see which one of our polls still stand.a) Your bar graph comes from an obscure source.b) My source (Gallup) is arguably one of the best sources for polls.c) Your bar graph has an unknown date.d) My source was recently updated (Oct 2011)Quite frankly, I believe that the voters should consider my poll over his.==Refutations==Now I shall refute my opponents arguments.C1: Life in PrisonMy opponents arguments about how homicide rates in prisons is decreasing is eithera) Not Relevantorb) Supports my caseWhy? Due to the fact that murderers are being executed, one can expect that there are not as much murderers in prison as there will be in the future if we abolish the death penalty. Hypothetically speaking, abolishing the death penalty means that more murderers will be spending their lives in jail.Say in 2012, there are X number of murderers scheduled to be executed. However, they are sent to prison.This means there will be X more murderers in prisons.Then in 2013, there are Y number of murderers who should be executed, but they are sent to prison.X + Y in prison.And so on. Furthermore, the numbers will continue to grow until the first generation (X) start to die. We see that there is going to be an accumulation of murderers - which make prisons far more dangerous then they are now.C2: Risk of Innocent LivesI believe that my opponent has confused "execute" with "exonerate". My opponent claims that 84 hundred million people are executed!** Let me remind you that there are only 300 million people living in America right now... Furthermore, there are only around 1000 people who have been executed since 1976 [10]. My opponent has obviously confused something up, and has not provided a direct link to where he got his statistics from, so I cannot say much.**I lol'd so hardAnd let me remind you that even people do not support the death penalty admit that they are only "possibly innocent" [10]. Once again, there is no evidence that an actual innocent person has been executed.==Conclusions==My arguments:C1: Deterrence--I've give several studies that have sophisticated methods of isololating the DP's deterrent effect.---18 to 74 lives can be saved.--My opponent has given sources that used flawed methods that do not isolate the DP, so outside factors are involved.-In the end, my opponent has failed to give a valid reason to why the DP does not deter.C2: Bargaining Chip- My opponent concedes the fact that when the police need vital information, the death penalty can be used to save a person's life, without having to actually kill the defendent.--Defendent will have legal representation-Without the DP, the backlogging of cases might occur.--This means that justice, in some cases, will not occur because the police are overburdened with too many cases.- False confessions are the police's fault, not the DP's.-In the end, the DP is a beneficial bargaining chip for prosecutors.C3: Accuracy/My opponent's C1: Risk of Innocents- The Death Penalty has nearly a 99.6% rate of accuracy.--There is no actual evidence that supports the claim that anyone innocent has been executed.- The average wait is 20 years. This gives more than enough time for organizations such as The Innocence Project to find if anyone is actually innocent.- My opponents only arguments were that "DNA may be flawed"--He does not examine other methods.- In round 4, he has claimed false numbers of people who were wrongfully executed.- There is no actual evidence supporting the thought that innocents have actually be executed.C4: Popularity- See first round. He conceded points 2-5.- I have superior sources."Life in Prison" Out of space, just re-read.My sources are in the comments section.