Capital Punishment

Deterrence My opponent’s case is actually extremely weak. He put all of his faith into cross sectional data (in other words, comparing states). However statistically these analyses are discredited. Lets use an analogy—guns effects on crime—and cross sectional analysis. Suppose the countries with the highest crime adopt the strictest gun control. Even if these restrictions lowered crime, it would appear otherwise. Economists refer to this as the endogenity problem. The adoption of a policy is a reaction to other events, in this case crime. In other words, states adopt these laws because they have high crime, and don’t have high crime because of the death penalty. The only way to correctly look at the data and assume one or the other hypothesis is to isolate the influence of crime on the adoption of the law. My opponent’s case is extremely weak. When doing such variable datasets (control for the variable, my opponent doesn’t and his studies are therefore bogus) we see a deterrent effect. Even in times of high crime we would have less deaths then if the state kept its abolitionist policies. Shepard finds that states that have the DP indeed deter. However, he finds those with more common death penalty usage (like Texas) have a stronger deterrent effect then those who use the DP less. Shepard notes: “I am definitely against the death penalty on lots of different grounds... But I do believe that people respond to incentives.” His results noted the death penalty only deters if a state has executed at least nine people since 1977. He further noted, “Deterrence cannot be achieved with a half-hearted execution program.” In other words, more death penalty not less produces a benefit [1]. My opponent also cites the famous Nytimes study, but as John Lott notes: “When the death penalty was suspended nationwide from 1968 to 1976, the murder rate in these 12 states still was lower than in most other states. What is much more important is that the states that reinstituted the death penalty had about a 38 percent larger drop in murder rates by 1998.” In other words, states with the DP had larger drops in crime even when using my opponent’s data! This is one credible way to use cross sectional analysis. And when it is used a deterrent effect arises. He further notes, “Generally, the studies over the last decade that examined how the murder rates in each state changed as they changed their execution rate found that each execution saved the lives of roughly 15 to 18 potential murder victims. Overall, the rise in executions during the 1990s accounts for about 12 to 14 percent of the overall drop in murders.”[2] As we can see, the DP surely acts as a deterrent. Innocents My opponent argues poor people are discriminated against… He admits they commit crime more often. In other words, this form of profiling (after using proper evidence) shows overall no innocents executed by the DP. My opponent cites the DPIC multiple times in this section, however their list is highly flawed. The list made no distinction between legal and actual innocence. We all know the difference. Much of the time the defendants are given clemency or are let out based on a pardon or legal technicality. In other words, most of the list is false as many of those aquitted where actually guilty but got out based on a technicality [3]. Ward A. Cambell, an attorney general, notes: “In fact, it is arguable that at least 68 of the 102 defendants on the List should not be on the List at all leaving only 34 released defendants with claims of actual innocence less than of 1% of the 6,930 defendants sentenced to death between 1973 and 2000.” In other words, 68 of these where let out based on a technicality. In other words, the DP has over a 99% accuracy rate! Further, the sources for the DPIC list is very weak. Cambell refutes the main studies they cite. Many of the studies used pre-Furman data before the DP was forced to have higher evidence standards. In other words, the DP is more certain now then it was before Furman, and using this data skews the results. Further, many of the studies the DPIC cited actually agree innocent execution is rare giving the DP an over 99% accuracy rate. He further notes, “As noted, the DPIC currently limits the cases on the List to those in which a prisoner has been acquitted on retrial or charges have been formally dismissed. However, the DPIC List also includes other cases in which the conviction was reversed because of legally insufficient evidence or because the prisoner ultimately pled to a lesser charge. As will be shown, inserting these cases on the List is misleading in terms of assessing whether truly innocent defendants have been convicted and sentenced to death. In actuality, the DPIC List includes a number of “false exonerations” [4]. As we can see, my opponent’s argument is hugely misleading. In other words, over half of those on the list where truly guilty. Meaning the DP has a 99.6% accuracy rate. Further, the death penalty prevents recidivism and therefore saves many innocent lives. Dudley Sharp notes, “Murderers that we have allowed to murder again, recidivist murderers, MIGHT number around 28,000 since 1973, based upon existing studies.” Basically we see the amount of lives saved hugely outweighs the weak innocents claim which I have shown to be false anyway. He further notes, “28 studies, beginning in 2000, find for a deterrent effect, ranging from 1-28 innocent lives spared per execution, or totals from 1,254 - 35,112 innocent lives saved”[5]. Innocents are, on balance, helped by the DP. My opponent claims poor people are wrongly executed. Poor black males are usually those that commit the most crime [6]. So it would make sense to use DNA tests, hopefully witnesses etc. in order to find the murderer. And it makes sense slight bias is given towards those who are poor and black, they commit 56% of the murders in this country. Constitution This point is also weak. Many judges who oppose the DP even say things like: “Whatever the arguments may be against capital punishment, both on moral grounds and on grounds and in terms of accomplishing the purposes of punishment.... the death penalty has been employed throughout our history, and in a day when it is still widely accepted, it cannot be said to violate the connectional concept of cruelty.” Further, the fifth amendment supports the DP. “...a capital, or otherwise infamous crime... ...be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb... ...nor be deprived of life...without due process of law...”[7] In other words, you can be executed as long as you get “due process” of law, and you get more then that on death row as they have very high evidence standards. My favorite justice, Scalia, notes, “No fewer than three of the Justices with whom I have served (Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun) have maintained that the death penalty is unconstitutional, even though its use is explicitly contemplated in the Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments says that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law; and the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be held to answer for a capital crime without grand-jury indictment.”[7] Basically, as long as due process is given, you cannot argue unconstitutionality. The executioner Its his choice to be in that job, so I don’t see how this is a downside. If he wants to do this its his fault… Conclusion: My case for deterence and recidivism are in the rebuttals. It shows net benefit. SOURCES IN COMMENTS