Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Removed

Thanks, Hitch. FrameworkObservation 1: The primary purpose of punishment prima facieis retribution; rehabilitation is a secondary concern. Crimes are, after all, acts of aggression against victims where as rehabilitation is an act of restoration towards the criminal; it must thus be regarded as fundamentally unjust to put the benefits of the criminal (IE rehabilitation) above the benefits to the victim (IE compensation and retribution). As Michael Moore put it: “We are justified in punishing because and only because offenders deserve it.” Retribution needs to be valued above restoration. Observation 2: Consider only the effects that the implementation of Capital punishment has on the deserving--victims and law abiding citizens (civil socety). Observation 3: Abolish means to do away with entirely. If there's one forseeable case in which Capital Punishment in needed, you negate.Observation 4: Ignore all objections the CP that address issues with the current system (can be reformed). C1: Capital Punishment deters crimeMethodology: We need to apply ceteris paribus when looking at the Death Penalty. We can't compare Texas to New York, or New Jersey to Louisiana for obvious reasons; consider only the relationships between crime and capital punishment in specific places. Empirics: Westley Lowe observed that between 1991 and 1999 there was a 700% increase in the number of executions, along with a drop of 33% in the murder rate. More specifically, in Texas the resumption of executions in 1982 resulted in a 60% drop in the murder rate; within Texas, the Houston area (Harris county, where the polunsky execution unit is housed) the area with the most aggressive death penalty prosecuters reside, experienced a 72% decrease in the murder rate between '91-99[1]. This is significant, because it shows not only that nationwide murder decreased but as we get into areas that aggressively impost capital punishment (Texas executes more people than any other state, and Harris county more than any other county) the results are even more substantial! I could bring in more empirical evidence for this, but I don't think it's needed. Academics: Lowes findings on deterrence have been supported in at least three major academic studies, namely: Studies from Emory University stating that each execution prevents between three and eighteen murders. [2]A 2006 study from the University of Houston, stating that the Illinois moratorium on the Death Penalty led to 150 additional homicides [3]A University of Colorado at Denver study showing that for each execution five muders were prevented.[4].Logic: Of course, not all of the observed decrease in the murder rate is the result of Capital punishment, but there can be little doubt that a just society and "tough on crime" laws discourage criminal behavior. A study from the Criminal Justice Statistics Center found that a decrease in violent crime resulted from harsher penalties[5] (specifically defined as "Increase in, higher probability of, and longer duration of incarceration."). The result is you negate since the lives of vicious murderers can't outweigh the lives of innocent civilians. C2: RecidivismCapital Punishment carries with it one incredible advantage, and that is that no executed murderer has ever harmed another individual again. As a matter of fact, of Death Row inmates held in 2009 over 5% committed their capital crime while in prison or on escape, and an amazing 2/3rds were previously convicted of a felony[6]. The last time Capital Punishment was abolished in the United States (1972), dozens of inmates were given sentences of life imprisonment and were later paroled, many of whom killed again, over 25 known victims are the result of these post-furman cases, along with dozens more from escaped or paroled murderers[7]. Two things must be drawn from this: 1. Laws change, parole boards change, rulings change, and people forget the past. The only way to forever ensure that a a murderer doesn't strike again is to kill him. 2. An immediate abolition (as the resolution calls for) would lead to more disasters. To use Texas as an example, life without parole was not implement until late 2005, so all inmates who committed their crimes before then (the vast majority) would be eligible for Parole and one day released[8]. Affirmation leads to deaths by historical precedents. Even behind bars criminals manage to strike again. For example, Clarence Ray Allen, serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole (the likely alternative) still managed to cause the deaths of still more people: he got a paroled inmate he knew to kill one who testified against him, along with 2 completely innocent bystanders[9]. In an uncharacteristic act of justice and logic, the state of California executed this filth in 2006. He will never harm anyone again. C3: Justice.Refer back to my framework, we can only justifiably punish people because they deserve it, to deny this is absolute insanity! I will lay out two hypothetical (although not unrealistic) scenarios where the Death Penalty should surely be implemented. I have little doubt that my opponent will accuse me of making an "appeal to emotion" but since Justice is an emotional construct, theres little use in such an objection. One:How should our society respond to evil?Imagine a pedophile. He has fantasies about little girls, and constantly stalks them on the internet and in person. Constantly. Finally one day he snaps, and kidnaps an innocent little child, around age 6 or 7, takes her into a secluded area, pulls off her clothes, and brutally rapes her as she screams in vain for mercy and help. Finally, because he's a sick and twisted animal, he smashes her head with a rock and runs away. Now, we have two options. We can send him to prison for the rest of his life. We can pay to feed, clothe, protect, entertain, and "rehabilitate" him for the rest of his life. We can look the little girls parents in the eye and say, yeah your innocent child had to die, but her killer gets to live off of your dime because we dont want to "sink to his level". Sorry. What justice is that? The parents will have to deal with the constant nightmare of knowing that somewhere that predator still lives, and can still harm others; he can potentially escape, or they could (God forbid) have to go through to biannual nightmares of his parole hearings because of a change in sentencing laws (as happened in the sickening James Moore rape/murder case[10].). At the very least they know that he will be sitting in his cell watching television and pleasuring himself on the memories of what he did to their beautiful daughter for the rest of his days, all payed for by them and their fellow law abiding tax payers. Wonderful.Or, we could hang/electrocute/shoot/euthanize/gas him and end it once and for all. It seems that anyone with any moral sense what so ever knows which option is preferable. Two: Imagine for this scenario we have a leader of a militant personality cult, convicted of rape and murder. His followers are fanatic and will fight to the death to protect him, and commit suicide on his command. In the Aff world, he's imprisoned and his followers fight to get him out--they kill dozens of gaurds and lesser inmates in the process before they are all shot. In the Neg world, the man is rightfully executed and his followers commit suicide with him This might be a strange scenario, but recall that even one example where CP is needed is enough to negate. Also imagine a war criminal such as Adolf Hitler. My opponent must prove his system outweighs mine in:1. Deterrence2. Justice3. Recidivism preventionAlong with showing compelling reasons to change the status quo. Before then, the resolution is completely negated. The Death Penalty is a just consequence for those who choose a path of evil.Sources:1. http://www.debate.org...;