The Death Penalty

My sources are in the comment section; put there to make space here. Argument 1: Costs "It did say that charge bargains were decreased, but not sentence bargains, the type of bargains I was talking about. The kind that determine what sentence a criminal gets. So this source does not apply. " I don't recall you specifying what plea bargains you were talking about. The study does show that although there are more sentence bargains, there are less charge bargains. Overall, the money saved is offset: "Although the death penalty is associated with an increase in the probability that a defendant agrees to a sentence bargain, it is associated with a decrease in the probability that he will receive a charge bargain, and the effect on plea bargains in general is not statistically different from zero" ; "since the death penalty affects only the terms of the deals defendants make but does not seem to increase defendants' propensity to plea bargain in general, the threat of the death penalty does not seem to reduce the total number of cases that proceed to trial. Thus, the well-documented costs of capital trials do not appear to be offset by reducing total trial costs through plea bargains" [1]. This source does apply. "Regarding his second source, I have two responses. First of all, this source is extremely biased, considering the fact that the entire organization's purpose is to convince others the death penalty is wrong. Secondly, this study was extremely vague. We do not know enough about how the study was carried out, who was studied, what the differences are between their justice systems, etc. I, however, have a study that shows exactly whether deterrence was found in the justice system, or not, and it shows that 90% percent of time, deterrence is found[1]. " Pro's source does not link to a single "study," as he said, singular, but rather a list of them, of which a majority show deterrence is present. That said, there are examples that show that evidence of deterrence is lacking, such as a study at the American Law and Economics Review, which demonstrates how varying models across different studies brings up differing evidence on deterrence for the death penalty [2]. This brings into question how accurate deterrence evidence is; without any consistent examples of sound evidence for deterrence, the death penalty should not be advocated for deterrence purposes. Although my source is biased, it does cite other reliable sources or statistics at the bottom of the page as evidence. Pro claims the source is a study; it is more of a collection of information, put in bullet points. "My opponents third source, is also flawed, as there is no author listed, no evidence brought up (simply logic), and is posted on a blog. The one piece of evidence that is brought up is, no joke, my opponents first source. " There is an author listed for the blog, two of them, one a professor and the other an associate professor, both at Northwestern University. Those credentials should be satisfactory. I have shown my first source to be relevant. His logical claim I shall not bother repeating, since Pro has not addressed it, but it is backed up by the evidence of my first source. "An innocent would obviously argue innocence. I understand my opponents argument, I understand the evidence, but that doesn't mean either make much sense. This argument also contradicts previous arguments made by the Con. This argument does not stand. " Innocents may not obviously argue innocence. If they believe their legal representation is not good enough to show how the evidence is in their favor, they may not want to risk getting the death penalty and accept a plea bargain instead. If Pro thinks my argument lacks logic, then he does not understand it. I have done my best to explain it. Nonetheless, my evidence remains cited in round 3. Argument 2: Deterrence I appreciate Pro's quote, and I would like to quote the study as well: "However, the present study does not prove that deterrence exists. On the other hand, the failure of some studies to find evidence consistent with the deterrence hypothesis does not prove that deterrence is inoperative" [3]. This study states that it does not prove that deterrence exists. The last point shows that my evidence proves nothing as well. Since there is a lack of proof that the death penalty deters crime, the death penalty should not be supported for determent purposes. The study then goes on in saying that it is "on a growing list of empirical work that finds evidence consistent with the deterrence hypothesis," which is that the death penalty deters crime [3]. This may be true, but there is also evidence to the contrary, which includes the studies I have cited before and now [4] [5]. Furthermore, even if the death penalty does deter crime, I have already shown that there are high costs to having it in place, money that could be used in other ways that better deters crime. "he thinks the reasons for the difference between the states crime rates is because of the death penalty, and I think it's because of the population. " The problem with the population argument is that it is not consistent. According to your argument, Massachusetts, which has a higher population, should have a higher murder rate than Connecticut. It does not. My argument still holds up. Massachusetts, which does not have the death penalty, has a lower murder rate than Connecticut, which does have it [6] [7] [8]. My argument based on the death penalty is consistent. It does not prove anything, but it is evidence that goes against the arguments for deterrence. Argument 3: Innocence Pro concedes the possibility of an innocent person being executed, and although it should not be the only reason why someone is against the death penalty, this does not help Pro's case. I have responded to the "weak cards" he mentioned. I am unable to access his 4th or 5th sources, only his 6th. I read his entire sixth source, and I do not know it applies to the possibility that an innocent may give up their right to trial for a plea bargain under the threat of the death penalty if they do not believe their legal representation can defend them, which is what he attempts to apply them to in my understanding of his words. Disadvantage 1: Prison Chaos I have little space, so I can't quote his arguments. I once again am unable to access his not linked source. I provide this quote as a response: "Death Penalty Retentionist States vs. Abolitionist States (data from Bureau of Justice Statistics): Between 2001 and 2007, states with the death penalty had considerably higher prison murder rates on average (4.25/100,000, with four of 38 states reporting no prison homicides in that time period) than those states without the death penalty (.92/100,000, with 7 of 12 states reporting no prison homicides)" [9] As for my fifth source being inept, this is dishonest. The article cites the data with links; it being humorous does not make it not credible. I find it funny that throughout the 3rd round, he tries and fails to make my sources sound not credible, yet he does not even bother to link most of his own sources. Some of his sources I am unable to find, which brings into question how he knows what they say, and seeing that since he does not link them, he probably does not know where they are either. They seem reliable, which is why I don't question them too much, but I just find it weird how he knows what they say yet is not able to link them directly. Seeing how I refuted his claims that my sources are not credible this round, I ask any reader to be suspicious of any of his claims about my sources in his next post. Disadvantage 2: I have responded to his plea bargain argument. I remind Pro he cannot produce any new arguments in this round, only responses to my arguments, since I cannot respond to his new arguments. Unfortunately, for space reasons, I cannot put a summary of my arguments.