The Death Penalty Should Be Implemented In Every Society

First of all, Knuckle says at the beginning "Round 2: Main Case (no rebuttals)"!Then he claims in Round 3 that I did not address his case about deterrence in my Round 2, which is ridiculous because I was just following his rules. I addressed it now.1) DeterrentMost of Pro's data is secondhand data complied by Wesley Lowe, and biased with Wesley's own pro-DP opinions. I will first refute each of them. Second, I will show that corelation could exist either way. Third, I will prove through logical reasoning why no causation exists. (I) Refutations(A) Temporary suspension of DP 1972-1976Wesley mentions a bunch of years where the murder rate fluctuated. That could have been due a number of different factors such as economic recession and unemployment. Here, it can clearly be seen that Pro's corelation can be better explained because of higher rates of unemployment. Year - Executions - Unemployment rate[7]1964 - 9250 - 5.2%1969 - 14590 - 3.5%1975 - 20510 - 8.5%1980 - 23040 - 7.1%For 3 out of Pro's 4 data points, it can be seen that the murder rate directly corelates with unemployment. Pro as well as Wesley are comparing apples to oranges because they are choosing years of higher unemployment rates where DP was suspended and lower rates of unemployment where DP was not. Even Ehrlich, who Wesley cites on his website admits that murder rates increase during times of higher unemployment [1]. Criminals resort to violence to fulfill their basic needs. (B) Dudley Sharp"The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999, a 44 percent reduction."Same cause-corelation fallacy. Unemployment rate was 7.1% in 1980 and 4.2% in 1999 [7]. A 59% reduction. (C) Texas"the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent."Same. Below graph shows how unemployment rates in Texas have declined almost by half from 1991 to 1999 [8]. (D) Pro's graphThe trends of homicide rates in DP states and non DP states are almost entirely the same. If the trends in the picture were due to deterrent effect, then once the DP was re-instated, only the states in which DP was legal should have seen a fall in murder rate, not all states. A decrease in murder rate in all states can be better explained by economic factors.The picture shows that from 1930 to 1960, murders actually decreased with decrease in executions. The graph actually supports both the Pro-DP and the Anti-DP positions. It wouldn't do to cherry pick the years where there is an inverse corelation. (E) Ehrlich Ehrlich's study is flawed. Pro never cites the actual study, he just wrote whatever Wesley wrote about the study on his website. I posted the original below [1]. Ehrlich's study was based entirely on mathematical analysis during which, he made an assumption that criminals respond to incentives [1]. That is a flawed way to conduct a study. Response to incentives should be the conclusion, not an initial assumption. This showed circular reasoning. In fact, a panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, determined that Ehrlich's work had methodological and conceptual shortcomings [5]. A report by the Dartmoth University shows that when the time period chosen for Ehrlich's model is changed, the slight negative corelation between executions and murder completely disappeared [10]. (F) Emory Univ. Profs.“Each execution deters an average of 18 murders"Pro never even found the study. I posted an article from one of those Prof's Joana Shepherd below [19]. She admits that although executions appear to deter crime in approximately 1/5 of the states the study was conducted in, in the remaining 80%, executions show no deterrent effect [19]. An Emory Prof. herself admitted that deterrence only occurs 20% of the time. Indeed, in some of these states, executions produce the opposite effect: Murders increase after executions [19]. The studies are nullified and inconclusive. (G) Illinois moratorium “The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following” Unemployment in Illinois increased from 2000 to 2004 [12]. Pro didn't even cite the original studies. He is simply throwing out isolated sentences from each study straight from Wesley's homepage. I have now shown that by failing to account for all the variables the comparisons were flawed. All the studies have been negated. (II) Counter-examples(i) The murder rate in Canada was 25% below the rate at the time of abolition [4]. If Pro's studies were accurate, Canadian murder rate should have increased. (ii) If the DP actually deterred criminals, then states that used the DP should have a lower crime rate than those that don't. However, no such corelation can be made. In fact states with DP have higher murder rates [11].(iii) A study conducted by Michael Radelet found out that 86% of leading criminologists think that abolishing the DP in a particular state would not have any significant effects on the murder rate in that state [6]. (iv) The study by Dartmouth also concluded that the DP has no effect on murder rates [10]. (III) Logical reasoning behind the lack of corelation(a)Any punishment can be a deterrent only if promptly and consistently applied. Due to it's nature and it's irreversibility, it is not possibe with the DP. Taking of a human life must not be done without caution. (b) Some people actually choose to get the DP over life in prison because of the better conditions on death row [9]. (c) Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended [12]. (d) According to the ACLE, even when crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who expect to escape detection and arrest [12]. (e) The number of executions is very small and such a small sample size is prone to errors. Either side could prove whatever they want. I showed why murder rate is completely unrelated to executions. Pro has the burden to prove both causation and corelation.2) Cost The DP costs more than LWOP. Pro admits that DP costs more when all the legal proceedings are included. However legal proceedings are an integral part of the DP. The finality and irreversibility of the DP require us to take all possible precautions and exhaust all appeals before the execution is done. When legal costs are considered, a DP case costs at least $1.25 million more than a comparable case with a sentence of LWOP [15]. In North Carolina, spending increased by $2 million when a county experienced a capital case [16]. 3) Human Rights(A) The flaw with Pro's syllogism is that Pro assumes anything that is modern is not "correct." He doesn't say why. (B) Lethal InjectionThe first drug Sodium Thiopental is an short acting drug that wears off and leads to consciousness, while the inmate is unable to express pain because the second drug pancuronium bromide paralyzes them leading to a painful death [17].The fact that Medical professionals are prohibited from performing the execution means that it is done by amateurs which greatly increases the risk of a screwed-up execution [18].4) Innocent people die(A) "So you are saying that there have been 273 exoneration's since 2000 but only 138 exoneration's in total. Contradictory much?"If you read carefully, you will see that the 138 is for death row only. 273 since 2000 is for all post-conviction exonerations. Jump to conclusions much?Pro relies on Ehrlich's study and assumes that 3 people are saved per execution. I refuted the study in 1E. (B) The best way to get a conviction overturned is to have a competent attorney [14]. This creates a disparity between the rich and the poor. Those who can get good lawyers who work harder, and find DNA evidence are likely to be spared while poorer people get executed.(C) Pro again uses Ehrlich's flawed study. Sources http://bit.ly...