Capital Punishment

Deterrence My opponent’s three-point summary and attack is weak. My opponent has conceded his points are weak and, therefore, he has no case. As he has no case at all and my case is based on many studies my case stands superior. My opponent’s first rebuttal (trying to give my no case so its even—a failed attempt) argued to many variables are encountered in my article. He misrepresents the article; he calls it fox news in order to gain support due to hatred for FOX. It should be labeled “John Lott” as he is the writer and is an economist who has extensively studied the DP in his 2007 book freedomnomics and other areas of crime in other studies. My opponent overlooks an important fact; John Lott actually cited an academic study. The studies he cited had large controls for these variables, so the look at trends was then controlled by the variables and, therefore, making the data accurate. His data which he gained from econometric models from his book, “Overall, the rise in executions during the 1990s accounts for about 12 to 14 percent of the overall drop in murders.”[1]. So my opponents rebuttal fails when you mention he controlled for the variables. No states had a drop in crime in the eighties; my opponent’s analysis lacks any regression (unlike my data) to account for variables. Crime in the eighties was quite high due to the fact the crack-cocaine epidemic began. Incarnation rates where also quite low. Dudley Sharp, when he examined the evidence, found if the DP had been abolished crime would have been higher. He notes as the DP was re-legalized, crime rates where lower then they could have been. You can only get conclusions in the 1990s when data on guns, the DP, and abortion was collected. And all scholars note the 1990s is the only time the data was acceptable to make theories. Sharp also looks at data in Texas, which my opponent singles out. It was shown Texas had the fastest falling crime rate in this time, and Texas went from having one of the highest crime rates to having crime rates lower to those in Michigan. In other words, using the trends from the study (not mere comparisons) cross-sectional data proves the deterrence hypothesis [2]. My opponent also ignored my previous argument of most studies find deterrence. 17 studies have found deterrence since 1996 (other estimates say 27, however it depends on how you define study) and 5 find no difference, 2 are inconclusive [3]. Evidence strongly supports deterrence. Innocence & recidivism Again, the 69 claims is an estimate. Even the 69 are in dispute. Mainly because there is much proof clemency was given to them. Proof of the system working is that those proven innocent nearly all the time are let free, and those proven not worthy of death get let LWOP. A better analysis done concludes since 1900, 29 innocents have been killed. Here is the problem: there was no Furman regulation by 1900, so only executions in the modern era should be counted. Studies that gave critique lowered the number to 11. The number based on other analyses has been effectively put to zero. Yes, zero. It’s possible a few have been executed, but the number is defiantly low. What is interesting is all the data makers on the subject argue this about their results, “We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had.”[4] Here is the run down: At maximum 70, using DPIC data which has been shown to be fraudulent by scholars, and using corrected data the number is 0-11, closer to zero. And even if we assume that 11 are the right number, the DP has a net benefit. This I have argued the whole time, note my opponent ignored my deterrence argument here! He never incorporated it above! I showed multiple studies showing it saves 3-18 lives, and Zimmerman 2003 noted each execution saved 14 lives! This means thousands saved, more then the 11 killed [5]. And what did my opponent ignore… ah yes, the DP saves the argument 40,000 lives. This outweighs all arguments today folks. The 99% claim is valid because it shows the innocents executed are minimal compared to those saved. And the DP likely has a lower innocent rate as it forces stronger evidence upon the prosecution. I also believed I showed last round innocents are more likely to die in LWOP as that is what they usually do (plea-bargian), and more of them are killed in jail then those executed… And if I did not say that last round, then I ask the jury to ignore it. My opponent is correct about the 800 my claims. However, this is actually a misrepresentation of the evidence. 821 murders occurred because they where let out of LWOP (notice my opponent dropped my case about life not being life), and they where then jailed. HOWEVER, THIS IGNORES THE SECOND HALF OF THE ARGUNMENT. The 821 numbers was killing innocents outside of jail. It is estimated since Furman recidivism has killed 10,000 people, and using the 821 numbers if you add those killing other inmates the number is 1000. So about 1000-10,000 depending on data method [6]. Now, my opponent argues the 800 number is illogical for the 5,000 executed. False argument. The 800 number is per year! And the 1,000 number is also per year. The 10,000 number is 1971-1997. So, as a preventative measure, the amount of lives saved seems logical. And as those executed are guilty, its unfair to compare them to 800 innocents. Constitution Only 3 states have electrocution, and only two use it as a primary method. Virginia more commonly uses injection [7]. And my opponent totally misrepresents the data! The states with gas chambers have, “Wyoming authorizes lethal gas if lethal injection is ever held to be unconstitutional. However, the gas chamber facility at the old state prison in Rawlins is no longer usable.” [7]. Lethal injection is the main way to execute. Electrocution is only allowed in Kentucky, and there it can be reformed to Lethal Injection and make it constitutional. Reform not abolition. My opponents argument moves from botched execution to “It hurts!”. However, he cannot win the debate with only that! See all those bullets he listed? All of them must be checked to claim unconstitutional. 4 and 5 are not checked with that rebuttal. And the third and second are not checked if he is rebutted. He already loses as two remain unfulfilled. But lets knock the other two off. “T he evidence, including the immediate autopsy of executed serial murderer/rapist Michael Ross, supports that there is no pain within the lethal injection process.”[8] It doesn’t hurt, why? They don’t need that much anesthesia. That’s why they use less, arguing they use less does not mean it hurts. Your conclusion from that is speculation, many studies have shown that speculation to be false and the DP is painless [8]. 4 points unchecked, and therefore does not fufill the reqirement. (Is it 4 points or 5? I know that it not rejected and, therefore, cannot be unconstitutional, and two others are unchecked with my rebuttal above). And my opponents source indicates ALL OF THE PRINCIPLES MUST BE VIOLATED, my opponent never proves this and the point is null and void. Executioner dropped point. I win it automatically. CONCLUSION: Saves 40,000 lives, big plus. Saves 1000 lives from recidivism each year (using studies, not DPIC biased data), and 10,000 overall (slightly higher now). It is not unconstitutional. Little proof any innocent has been executed. Vote CON, and save lives :) A few fun graphs (Not a new argunment as it uses the same data from round 3 and 4) http://www.wesleylowe.com... The 27 studies looked into this and after controlling for variables saw this to be valid ^ SOURCES IN COMMENTS