Capital Punishment Ought to be Eliminated

Rebutting Observations "Observation 1: The primary purpose of punishment is NOT for retribution" and "Observation 4: The legal system ought not to be retributive, but unstead [sic] rehabilitative" This is not self evident, and should itself be a subject of another debate. Nevertheless, there are cases where rehabilitation is impossible. Such individuals, if ever released, due to the ineffectiveness of the law, or if ever escaped, would poses disproportionally high risk to society at large. Note that the source used is an activist organization. The particular research in question was funded by the Death Penalty Mobilization Fund, which mission is to "abolish the death penalty". The Sheilah's Fund is one part of three that comprise the DPMF. [1] As such, one must call into question the neutrality of the claims made by such study.[1] http://bit.ly... "Observation 2: ineffective for gaining pleas" This too, is a subject of constant debate. Since my opponent's reference requires a login and unavailable, I cannot discuss his claim. However, in [2], the author claimed the death penalty as a powerful tool in plea bargaining, and the factor hindering its use is not the ineffectiveness of the penalty per se, but the ethics and/or resources consideration required by the prosecutor unique to this type of punishment.[2] http://bit.ly... "Observation 3: a hasty conclusion." I present my case for all crimes of the same level - mass and systematic murderer who showed no remorse or compassion, serious crimes committed during war time, or crimes against humanity on the level with that of the Nazis or Pol Pot. The case presented served only as an example. Furthermore, I framed my debate around the forgoing cases, in which the benefits of CP arguably far outweigh its negatives. CP may serves an important function as the ultimate justice to address such crimes against humanity. Rebutting Cases "Case 1: CP Doesn't Deter Crime." This argument is debatable and by no means conclusive. In the oft-cited Ehrlich paper, the ratio of CP versus lives saved is about 1 to 8[3]. One paper claims that pardons, commutations, and exonerations cause murders to increase[4]. Another paper indicates that even murders of passion, among the most irrational of lethal acts, can be deterred [5]. All are published in respected peer reviewed journals.[3] http://bit.ly...[4] http://bit.ly...[5] http://bit.ly... "Case 2: CP is Harmful to the Victims." This is subjective. The reference made by my opponent is a poster with subjective claims without substantial proof. Some victims' families and friends may indeed wants to put the past behind. But most would like to see justice served, especially in a mass murder case. And being constantly reminded that the perpetrator shows no remorse, is alive and well, and may escape and murder more people, does not help. "Case 3: Death of Innocent People(s)" This is an indication of the failure of the prosecution system, not that of the CP itself. Furthermore, within my framework, most such crimes can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, such as the case of Watts, or of Anders Breivik. Additionally, as forensic technology matured, the chance of wrongful conviction has lowered; all the while the various Supreme Court decisions put even more restrictions on CP [8][8] http://bit.ly... "Case 4: Expensive" - My position is not against reducing the number of, or the qualification for death sentences, which will directly reduce cost. "Case 5: CP Low Standard" - Are you referring to one particular form of CP? It can be argued that lethal injection is painless. Modern anesthesia is perfectly capable of render a person fully unconscious for the duration of the administration of the drugs. After all, anesthesia has been used for decades for medical operations, which can be far more painful than CP if the anesthetic agent is ineffective. "Case 6: Unjust" If one consider oneself a property, then is it not permissible to take other's properties? Is the act of taking another's property, just as tyrannous as the same act done by the state? The existence of such act, if not swiftly and equally punished by the state, cannot guarantee an equal and fair society. The state, in such situation, is reasonably and logically expected to remove such property from the perpetrator of the crime, return the same to the original owner, and may in addition impose further punitive remedies against the perpetrator. Without such justice, the strong can just takes from the weak, and chaos will ensure. "Case 7: The State May Run Into Legal Trouble" In Gregg v. Georgia [8], the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to reaffirm the constitutionality of CP. The fact that States may ignore international law is another matter altogether, and State's political agenda does not fit into the framework of this debate. Rebutting Rebuttals "Watts may not enjoy prison" I make this case with Watts only as an example. You and I are both unqualified to dictate weather he may or may not enjoy prison - a forensic mental health professionals is. The fact that one person may not enjoy prison life does not precludes the fact that some other people may do. One has two reasons to believe Watts may enjoy prison. One is the fact that he was better as a prisoner than as a free man in society - he is a model prisoner, while he committed multiple murder with impunity as a free man. The second indication is the fact that Watts made it clear that he would kill again if ever released. One can think of no other reason for making such statement other than that he wished to remain in prison. In Atkins v. Virginia [9], an IQ of 59 was deemed "mildly mentally retarded" by a clinical psychologist. Thus in the case of Watts, with an IQ of 75, cannot be deemed mentally retarded by the same standard. In [10], one can see that an IQ of 75 would be at the first 25 percentile of the population, while an IQ of 59 would be at around a few first percentiles. He was perfectly capable of making bargains with law enforcement, which indicates at least a certain level of intelligent thought.[9] http://bit.ly...[10] http://bit.ly... "Punishment of the mentally ill" Anti-social personality disorder, characterized by "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others" and "impoverished moral sense or conscience", [11] is definitively not a valid legal defense against CP. If anything, it can only serve as a justification for further incarceration.[11] http://bit.ly... My opponent, in framing CP as "the systemic murder brought forth by the state", attempted to make a false equivalent of CP and murder. Murder, by definition, is the "unlawful killing of another human". CP, on the other hand, is lawful, since it is administered after trial(s) by jury and successful conviction(s). Safety concerns to judges, jury, prosecutors and witnesses against revenge is real. Judges and prosecutors can have better protection, but jury and witnesses will likely cannot. Additionally, my framework is around particular heinous crimes. Such cases may put them in even more danger in case of an escape or early release.With all my opponent's arguments addressed, my former arguments still stands.Argument: Without CP, we would be incapable to properly punish an individual in proportional to his crime. Watts confessed in detail the killing of 12 woman, personally claimed to have killed 40 women, and implied there were more than 80 victims in total. He served an actual 25 years in prison, before died of natural cause. In comparison, Christopher Williams, a Montana medical marijuana provider is facing 82 to 85 years behind bars[13]. Patricia Spottedcrow, an Oklahoma mother of four got a 12-year prison sentence for a $31 pot sale [13]. For a system where the severity such a lesser crimes is near or equal to a that of a serial murderer, where is the balance of justice? How can people trust in the law? [13] http://bit.ly...