The United States should have a death penalty.

Rebuttals R1) The DP is just Note that Roy says that he’s not going to argue deterrence and that he’s going to stake the entire debate on winning his “justice” argument. If Roy loses this argument, he offers no affirmative justification for the death penalty. Roy’s only real support for this argument is an appeal to authority [a logical fallacy]. Roy invokes Immanuel Kant’s opinion, but offers no reason why it’s immoral not to adopt a death penalty. I could just as easily appeal to authority by saying ‘the EU condemns the DP as immoral.’ [1] But more importantly, ‘rule utilitarianism’ tells us that if on balance, the death penalty does more harm than good, then it is immoral to adopt it. Roy also loses this argument because: (1) It undermines his argument that ‘we have to put really bad people to death’ if we’re willing to offer them plea bargains so they can avoid death. Roy answers this by saying that there are “countervailing considerations,” such as providing finality to victims and avoiding law enforcement costs. By admitting that other factors can “outweigh” the need for a death sentence, Roy concedes that if I win my cost argument or any other countervailing interest, this justifies banning the death penalty. (2) The fact we put innocent people to death turns justice. The following source confirms 10 examples of innocent people being put to death and says there are likely many more such examples, but investigations are typically closed after a person is put to death.[3] Roy claims that forensics solves everything, but juries are still willing to convict based only on eyewitness testimony. (3) The racist manner in which the death penalty is applied turns justice. A black defendant is twice as likely to be charged with the death penalty as a white defendant for committing exactly the same crime.[2] A system that determines who dies based on cost and race cannot be “just.” R2) Cost Roy essentially makes two arguments for “cost savings” from the death penalty: (1) plea bargaining and (2) incarceration costs. I will respond to each in turn. (1) Plea bargaining Roy spends a really long time refuting Thaxton’s study of Georgia statistics, which found that plea bargaining induces between 1.5 and 2 guilty pleas per capital defendant who elects to go to trial. It’s honestly not worth quibbling over the numbers here - we can use the estimate from Roy’s study, which found that the DP induces 2.4 pleas per capital trial [p. 14]. However, Roy does not dispute Thaxton’s cost savings statistic of $195,000 per guilty plea, which is based on a completely separate study of Maryland statistics.[4] Even using Roy’s study’s estimate that for each capital trial we induce 2.4 guilty pleas and factoring in the cost savings from plea bargaining, the cost of a capital trial is still $1.53 million more than a non-capital trial. (2) Incarceration costs Incarcerating death row inmates in their own special prison ward [called “death row”] is really expensive. Roy claims only California does this, but so does Texas and every other state. [10] Professor Steiker of Harvard Law School notes that across all states, the cost of death-row incarceration is much higher than for general population incarceration. [5] Roy’s $29K number is for regular incarceration. Death-row incarceration actually costs $90,000/yr more per inmate than regular incarceration. [6] Based on this number [and Roy’s $29K statistic], 15 years of death row incarceration costs $1.8 million. In contrast, Roy said imprisoning someone for “life” (50 years) costs only $1.5 million. Also, Roy is forgetting that the state often pays for a capital trial for nothing because although the jury finds the defendant guilty, it refuses to impose death at the sentencing phase. In California, only 7% of capital trials result in an execution. [11] So in 93% of cases, the state pays an extra $2 million for the capital trial but still has to pay for 50 years of incarceration costs as well. Roy also argued for two “plans” to save money: (1) impeaching judges and (2) requiring all appeals be brought within 2 years. I will respond to each in turn. (1) Impeaching judges Roy argues we should censure or impeach any judge who fails to always rule in favor of the death penalty. However: First, judges are capable of justifying their decisions using legal rules. It’s not ever clear that any given decision is 100% political. Second, in most states juries are the ones that are tasked with imposing death at the sentencing phase. Third, Roy’s plan is unconstitutional. Under Article III of the Constitution, judges are appointed for life to insulate them from political backlash against their decisions. Congress isn’t allowed to impeach judges for decisions it doesn’t like. (2) Limiting the time for appeals Roy wants to require that all appeals be filed within 2 years of conviction, but this is also unconstitutional. Each person convicted of a crime is entitled to two appeals: a direct appeal in state court and a habeas appeal in federal court. The law requires that the habeas appeal be filed only after a defendant loses on direct appeal. [7] Roy’s “2 year” rule is designed to eliminate habeas appeals [because direct appeals often take longer than 2 years]. This is unconstitutional under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended." Additionally, Roy argues we can shift the burden for paying for capital trials from city governments to state governments. However, state governments are strapped for cash too. The GAO source I cited last Round says that states are just as strapped for cash as local governments are. California, for example, has been slashing education spending for years to make up for budget shortfalls, which shows that state spending on the DP would trade off with education, and our bad education system costs our economy $2.3 trillion per year. In addition, many states have a state police department, which directly trades off with DP spending. “In New Jersey, for example, the state spent $16 million on the death penalty in 1991. As a consequence, the state could no longer afford to pay 500 police officers and was forced to lay them off the same year.” [8] State spending is no better than local spending. Roy also never proves a state would be willing to shoulder local court costs. Last, Roy drops the opportunity cost argument. The money from the DP would be *better* spent on expanding police forces because the certainty of punishment has a larger deterrent effect than the severity of punishment. We only solve a paltry 65% of murder cases. Even if the death penalty had a net cost of zero in the long run (due to cost savings), it still has an opportunity cost because the money is better spent on police. R3) Extradition Germany refused to extradite known terrorist Mohammed Hamadi to the US, citing concerns about the death penalty. [9] Hamadi was later released and escaped to Lebanon, thereby avoiding US interrogation. [9] Spain has refused to extradite 8 alleged members of al Qaeda to the US, citing concerns they would be put to death. [9] Roy cites a source saying that the UK was once willing to extradite a 9/11 suspect to us as long as we “promised” not to employ the death penalty, but some countries [like Germany] don’t trust our assurances. If we can’t interrogate terrorist suspects, counter-terrorism efforts are *seriously* compromised. R4) “Lives saved” in prison Roy does not explain this well enough, and the thesis is not clear. Don’t vote on it unless Roy explains it better. Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] Source 1, Rd. 2 [5] 2010 U. Chi. Legal F. 117, 149 [6] Id. at 119. [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] 71 Fordham L. Rev. 2735, 2759 [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com...