The death penalty should be abolished

Deterministic effect My opponent claims I have dropped much what he has said, I beg to differ. My opponent argued two points, both I attacked. 1. Determinism is true 2. Eriksson’s theory proves men aren’t responsible For number one, my opponent claims people can still function at high capacities. However I fail to see relevancy. If they are determined to think that way, doesn’t this mean they are set at a certain capacity? Further, this implies free will can work with determinism existing. If that was possible, then he could prove his point. However, these two philosophies cannot coincide. It makes little sense. My opponent has argued men are not responsible for their actions (if this is the case, he contradicts himself as I pointed out lest round. If they were not responsible, LWOP would also be unjust). Peter Van Inwagon wrote a paper, which I find very compelling. His argument goes as follows: T0 is some time before J’s birth. P0 to symbolize the proposition that expresses the state of the world at T0, P to symbolize the proposition that expresses the state of the world at T, and L to denote the conjunction into a single proposition of all laws of physics. To quote his paper: “(1) If' determinism is true, then the conjunction of PD and L entails P. (2) If J had raised his hand at T, then P would be false. (3) If (2) is true, then if J could have raised his hand at T, J could have rendered P false." (4) If J could have rendered P false, and if the conjunction of P0 and L entails P, then J could have rendered the conjunction of P0 and L false. (5) If J could have rendered the conjunction and L false, then J could have rendered L false. (6) J could not have rendered L false. (7) If determinism is true, J could not have raised his hand at T.”[1] My opponent actually drops the logic behind my rebuttal to Erikson. His theory merely argues some would be predisposed to crime, not that they had no choice but to commit the crime. Merely being predisposed to crime does not mean you are innocent. As stated, this is like saying someone who was raped as a child should rape children when they are older because statistically (and based on psychology) they are predisposed to commit these acts. This is a weak argument, and I feel the majority of the readers would agree. Assuming determinism is false (as it is incompatible with free-will) then you actually do have an option not to commit these acts. If you have control over your thoughts, then you ought to be found guilty. And even those “in the heat of the moment” have other options. So, lets make this clear: being predisposed to crime does not mean you are not responsible for your actions. Innocents Yes, DNA testing has been around for a while, however DNA testing has improved over the years. Now, six methods are in use for DNA testing. For example, the first DNA machines needed blood to be used and the blood sample needed to be the size of a quarter. So at first, it would be unusable in courts as we would need to affirm the blood was the defendants (not the victims), the defendant would need to have bled a lot, etc. In other words, it was not until recently it could have been used [2]. Further, my assertion was almost correct. In the late 1990’s irrefutable DNA evidence became common exonerating many innocent people from jail and death row. These advancements greatly reduce the likelihood people are executed in the modern era [3]. My opponent fails to defend his source. I showed it is filled with error and fails to distinguish from legal and actual guilt. Half of his evidence is refuted. His second source is the one saying people are released before execution. My opponent claims this means the judicial system is flawed. However, I don’t see how this rebuttal works. As stated, these claims are always too extreme. In reality, only thirty have been released based on actual innocence. This means the death penalty has a 99.8% accuracy rate, and the rate is higher as this statistic reaches back to 1971. With the enhanced technology, the accuracy for the DP is nearly 100% [4]. And, as I will describe below, the amount of lives saved is to high I think it outweighs my opponent’s argument even if all of his innocent points are true. Function Rehabilitation? You have been supporting solitary confinement and LWOP, this means they may rehabilitate but they still reside in prison, so they serve no good to the world. So the point is contradictory to your statements. You have also not proven these men can be rehabilitated, they are determined to think that way aren’t they? Here you claim I also go appeal to consensus. I am not saying X says Y is true, therefore Y is true. I am saying the majority of the evidence says Y is true; therefore it is likely Y is true. I have never said it is a fact the death penalty is the strongest deterrence; note my wording is all evidence points to it. And, regardless, I present more evidence then a fallacy. That is really all the evidence you gave… And you dropped my rebuttal! I even showed your argument proves my point as question 12 (does the DP deter) all criminologists said yes! So, even if we assume it’s a valid point (its good evidence, jut not a proof) then we actually see the point is in my favor [7]. Deterrence and recidivism My opponent’s rebuttal to recidivism is merely the age of the study I cited. A newer report finds 13,000 murders a year are done by those on parole. Using the 6% recidivism rate (affirmed in 2006 by Sorensen) of those murders, 780 of those people killed via recidivism where previously in jail for murder [5]. Further, execution also stops other crimes that I think I already noted (never made an exact number). If it stops murders it obviously stops other violent crime. Sorensen has found, ONLY in Texas, execution would have stopped 711 acts of violent crime from murderers [6]. Even if we assume LWOP is as great of a deterrent as the DP (its not) we still see the DP saves more lives via recidivism prevention.* (readers, go to sources and read the *) What did I drop? You merely added one study to the list on your side, I don’t see how that is relevant. I actually had full-fledged rebuttals to it. My opponent has provided no proof that LWOP deters equally. He merely repeats the number. I have provided solid evidence, convicts prefer LWOP, based on polls 99.9% fight for life, not death [5]. Now, these people in the poll are the few that are not deterred. However, this means those with a criminal mindset are more likely to be deterred by death. So sure, LWOP deters, that’s a fact. However this solid data shows it is unlikely it deters more then death, and likely less so. And my opponent’s rebuttal only refutes a 1996 study by Ehlrich, and that study I cited even specified the DP as the strongest deterrent. So hammering a dead point is useless. All of my studies say harsher punishments deter, and based on the 99.9% data (and their conclusions/results) show the DP is the harshest and, therefore, the most deterrent. Also, my opponent drops my brutalization argument. A study in 2004 (I think I already cited it) found the overall deterrent effect, when a state executes often, saves lives. In other words, the more you use the DP the higher deterrent effect and less brutalization effect. The answer is more, not less [8]. Conclusion: My opponents final remarks seem like concluding statements and not part of deterrence, so I shall let them be. Now, lets assume determinism is true. Doesn’t that mean saving lives is beneficial? Now, summary: Most of my opponent’s case (like deterrence) actually proves we need more DP (see brutalization). And for innocents, that means mend it, don’t end it. He also dropped my point that more innocents die on LWOP then on the DP, meaning abolition would not help. And for determinism, I showed it cannot logically coincide with free will. And I have 100 characters somehow... wow. SOURCES IN COMMENTS