Intemediate's Debate Competition R2: The Death Penalty Should Be Legal.

Rebuttal and closing statements. ========== “LWOP allows for a life to continue, but not be as final and cruel.” You yourself agreed that the permanence of a punishment is desirable: “As you said, a permanent punishment is best…” The finality and “cruelty” of the DP is what we need the death penalty for – deterrence. You say it is illogical to ban a candy stealing child from all the stores, then how is it logical to put a thief in jail, effectively banning him from everything? Expenses can be made in the name of justice, because it is justice that keeps a safe environment for the rest of us who abide laws to make contributions to society. Simply keeping the criminal confined is not useful, as no one would have the negative incentive to not commit a crime. As I have explained, the DP both deters would-be criminals, and those who might relapse into recidivism. “If they fully understood the life they were losing with LWOP, it could deter them equally.” That’s not true. As explained in my source [1], humans fear death much more than a lack of freedom. Certainly, those among us who see life lightly would probably prefer a DP over a LWOP, but the rational humans are unlikely to commit crimes deserving of death anyway. Truth is, most of the human race depends on emotion and primal instincts when making decisions. Threats of DP do deter people. The zealous fanatics fear neither death, nor any other punishment because they are irrational. If the DP doesn’t work, then few things would work. You said that “There can be exceptions for particularly evil crimes, such as 9/11,” yet you contradict yourself since 9/11 is a crime committed by fanatics. “1.2% is a small number, and why not give the 98.8% a second chance instead of killing them” I never said to sentence all the murderers who will be paroled to death. I’m citing that as a statistic for why heavy sentences should be inflicted. “this money could be better spent on persecuting other murderers that are free due to lack of evidence” This is essentially a rephrase of “it costs too much money,” except this time in conjunction with a seemingly significant opportunity cost; perhaps the money can be used for African relief funds? I’ve mentioned before, we can spare the expenses because spending that money on convicting criminals who deserve the DP is more than just killing someone; it contributes to stability, deters would-be criminals, and the bargaining leverage of the DP saves time for law enforcement. “one innocent life would be the cost 12 guilty and likely repeat offender lives, as opposed to 10 years of a life for 12 life sentences” I do not understand this. But my points are: wrongful convictions are extremely rare; I’m not advocating for sentencing all the LWP people to death. “If the majority of citizens believe the DP is either unnecessarily cruel or not punishment at all, than the DP should not be legal in that state.” The majority do believe the DP should be legal. Source [2] says 60%, and source [3] says when people stop being oblivious to what criminals can do, that number jumps to 70%. I would hope that not all these people are murders who wish to get the death penalty. ========== Closing My arguments were essentially: 1. The DP deters, is just, and maintains necessary order for society to function. 2. The DP grants extra bargaining leverage for prosecutors. 3. The DP is worth the extra legal fees. 4. Wrongful convictions are extremely unlikely, and even if they were discovered, the convicted innocent is usually dead, and served jail time cannot be recovered. 5. A significant majority of the U.S. approve of the use of the DP. I would like to remind the judges once again that I am playing devil’s advocate in this debate. I believe that there are always better alternatives to the death penalty. ========== NS