The US should abolish the death penalty

C1) Deterrence Pro accuses me of presenting Gish Gallop. “Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time.” [1] The number of references I used aren’t an example of Gish Gallop, because they aren’t arguments--they only constitute justification for the argument. Then, Pro argues economists don’t constitute a proper source. Dismiss this, because (1) it is a bare assertion (since there’s no justification for the application of the analogy in economics and criminology), and (2) rationality is primarily an economic science [2], which means criminologists do not have expertise in studying the rationality of criminals. Pro has hardly touched the actual offense I presented in favor of deterrence. The three points which Pro presents are not applicable to the study of Tella, Edwards, and Schargrodsky, because they found a *direct* correlation between the introduction of the death penalty and crime drops in various states [3]. The study Pro presents regarding the inconclusiveness of whether the death penalty deters crime only addresses *some* of the studies for deterrence--it doesn’t apply to all studies [4]. Pro brings in three points against the studies: 1. The studies do not factor in the effects of noncapital punishments that may also be imposed. 2. The studies use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers’ perceptions of and response to the use of capital punishment. 3. Estimates of the effect of capital punishment are based on statistical models that make assumptions that are not credible. #1 is downright false, as there has been a *documented* drop in crime with the death penalty, despite the existence of other punishments [5][6]. #2 only applies to studies that don’t use empirical research--the studies I cited *all* are based on actual data regarding crime drops. Pro--and his source--fails to substantiate #3, therefore it can be considered a bare assertion. Pro doesn’t provide *what* assumptions aren’t credible, nor does their source. Finally, the source is a study by criminologists--who, as I said earlier, cannot critique the modern research, which is spearheaded by economists. Empirical studies such as that by Paul Zimmerman [5] and John R. Lott [7] are largely immune to this, simply because they documented a correlation between low homicide rates with heightened executions (the latter study finding that the death penalty was responsible for 12-14% of the crime drop in the 1990s). Most of the individual studies I presented have been dropped by Pro, and Pro fails to (1) substantiate their claims, and (2) refute any of the individual studies I presented. Prefer Con on deterrence, because: 1. Pro doesn’t entirely substantiate any of their claims, nor do they adequately justify that the economic literature is flawed 2. Pro relies on a bare assertion that criminologists are more specialized than economists, which is false, since economists can be *devoted* to studying the rational choice theory, and rationality is primarily an economic science 3. Pro drops all the studies I presented, including the graph by Tella, Edwards, and Schargrodsky, which has empirical data to it and is immune to Pro’s attack on the literature C2) Prevention of recidivism Pro’s argument here--from the beginning--has been entirely semantic. Even if the word is not ‘recidivism’, it does *not* affect any of the impacts: the death penalty prevents *repetition* of crime or ‘relapse’ into criminal behavior, since such a relapse *would* be possible without capital punishment. But under capital punishment, there is no ‘relapse’ into criminal behavior, since there is no initial change--the person would die a criminal. The primary *offense* here is that lives will be saved, as there’s no repetition of homicide. Pro explicitly concedes that such a repetition of homicide *is* high in the United State. Next, Pro presents a straw-man of my argument: I didn’t say people on death row repeat their crime, I said people in prison who repeated their crime *went* to the death row. C3) DP is just a) Capital punishment is the only just, suitable retribution for homicide. Edward Feser argues, “[W]hat a wrongdoer deserves as punishment is a harm proportionate to his offense. … [T]he gravity of the punishment should reflect the gravity of the wrongdoing. Hence those guilty of large thefts should be punished more severely than those guilty of small ones, those guilty of inflicting serious bodily injury should be punished more severely than those merely guilty of theft, and so forth. … If wrongdoers do deserve punishment, and if punishment ought to be scaled to the gravity of the crime (harsher punishments for graver crimes), then it would be absurd to deny that there is a level of criminality for which capital punishment is appropriate” [8]. Seeking retribution proportionally is inherent--according to many psychologists, proportional retribution has an evolutionary origin, e.g. in the case of seeking capital punishment for murder [10][11]. b) Even the justice turn doesn’t entirely defeat the argument. Pro is calling for the abolition of the *entire* death penalty, which means he must argue that all capital punishment is unjust for the turn to even work. Capital punishment is--at least--just when it comes to genocide, or torture and homicide. Consider the case where an 11-year-old boy was neglected, tortured and murdered--he had signs of being beaten, was starved, had cigarette burns on his face, and marks indicating he had been tied [9]. c) The DP is still just from a utilitarian perspective. Deterrence means lives are saved as a direct result of the DP, which means that it upholds justice by saving lives. Therefore, the DP is still just. R1) Innocents Innocents can be discredited as it is offset by deterrence. Nonetheless, I shall address Pro’s argument. The study that Pro uses--one by Samuel Gross--concludes that 4.1% of those on death row are innocent. Joshua Marquis, district attorney of Clatsop County, Oregon, writes, “Gross cited about 390 cases from 1989 to 2003 where he and his team believed serious felony sentences were unfairly handed down against innocent defendants. The cases he cited from Oregon hardly met that test. Gross posits there must be many more exonerations than he identified because he asserts (and Garrett repeats) that in many cases DNA or a recantation by a key witness does not exist. So I rounded Gross’s number up to 400 and multiplied it by ten, yielding 4,000 exonerations—far more than I believe exist for the time period. I divided the 4,000 by 15 million, the number of felonies committed during the same period, yielding a ‘rightful’ conviction rate of 99.93%.” [12] As seen, Gross’ percentage is flawed, so the study can be discredited. R2) Costs First, costs are offset by deterrence. As mentioned, the cost of one murder to society is $17 million. Pro argues that this takes into account DP costs as well, but there wouldn’t be a substantial difference, primarily because of (a) plea bargains, and (b) difference of DP costs by state. So deterrence would--regardless--save enough money to easily offset the costs of the death penalty itself. Furthermore, the *possibility* of extreme situations making the costs higher doesn’t entail probability--Pro fails to prove the latter, which must be done, as Pro has the full BoP. I concede Washington, I based it on a wrong estimate. As for Texas--first, Sorensen and Pilgrim conclude that the DP in Texas--by their estimates--costs the same as the LWOP. And, under your biased estimate, while the DP in Texas may cost more than the LWOP, it only takes up a small amount of the budget. Texas is a state with the death penalty, in addition, which means the costs are offset by the lives saved in Texas. Skepticalone brings a new source for the cost of the DP in Texas, but the source is *not* a proper study--it’s a news report. Prefer my source, which Skepticalone fails to refute. Further, the plea bargaining and justice turn fail, because plea bargaining serves a utilitarian purpose, therefore is still moral and isn’t incompatible with my justice contention. It’s like not killing a criminal if we can gain information from him/her. I can still concede much of costs, but the costs are still outweighed by deterrence--the death penalty completely makes up for the costs. Underview The debate basically comes down to deterrence. If the DP deters substantial crime, it fully makes up for all its costs, offsets innocent lives lost, and makes the DP just. All of Pro’s offense depends on the DP not deterring homicides. I’ve successfully proven that the DP deters homicides. Pro fails to refute *any* of the individual studies that I presented. Pro attacks deterrence in two ways: (1) that criminologists should be preferred to economists, and (2) criminologists are inconclusive. Both fail, for reasons outlined above [e.g. specialization of economists, rationality]. Pro drops all my sources. Since judges can buy that the death penalty deters homicides, judges can also buy that the costs of the DP are less than other sentences, simply because the DP can deter up to 18 homicides per execution, and, with the immense costs of murder, the DP offsets all its costs. Judges can also presume Con on innocent death by this means. Further, even if judges buy costs, lives are more valuable than money by default. So I win on *both* probability and magnitude. Conclusion: I have poked numerous holes in Pro’s case, and Pro fails to substantially refute deterrence. Deterrence offsets *all* of their offense, so prefer Con on probability as well as magnitude. Pro had the full burden of proof, and has failed to fulfill it. For all these reasons, vote Con. Pro must waive the next round. http://www.debate.org...