This house would abolish the death peanlty in the United States

Re C1: The death penalty deters crime.I've already addressed this point in my opening arguments, however, con cited several studies and papers that I feel needs to be addressed. The first point that he brought up was from David Muhlhausen, who argues that fear of execution can deter potential murderers from carrying out that act. However, as I brought up in contention 3, those who are set on commiting murder, and those who are in the grip of fear and rage, suffer from mental illness or mental retardation don't necessarily understand the gravity of their crimes and may not think of a future execution date. (See source 8, round 2). We can also provide empirical evidence that the death penalty does not deter crime. States without death penalty have lower crime rates than states with the death penalty (1). The second argument he brought up was from Stephen K. Layson. Layson's study is deeply flawed for several reasons. For one, he claimed that each execution can prevent up to 18 homicides. However, he "found" these statistics during a time period in which no jurisdictions executed anyone! In fact, his study that covered from 34-77 only found a deterrent effect in the last 15 of those years. When he testified in front of congress, he stated that if he were to exclude all of the post-1960 data, the evidence for the deterrent effect of capital punishment "becomes very weak" or even "nonexistent." (2 and 3) In summary, the two studies cited by con are deeply flawed and thus their claims should be considered dubious. Re C2: The DP prevents the accused from committing further crime.While recidivism is unfortunate, it is surprising to note that murderers and those freed from death row have the lowest rate of recidivism compared to other criminals. According to a 2014 report by the Bureau of Justice, 2/3 of prisoners were arrested with a new crime within three years and 3/4 were arrested within 5 years. The report found that property offenders were far more likely to recide (4). In commenting on this statistic,"Mullane said she was able to determine that 988 convicted murderers were released from prisons in California over a 20 year period. Out of those 988, she said 1 percent were arrested for new crimes, and 10 percent were arrested for violating parole. She found none of the 988 were rearrested for murder, and none went back to prison over the 20 year period she examined." (5) Thus using the death penalty to reduce recidivism leads us into an argumentum ad absurdum. If we execute murderers and others for this purpose, why not those who commit property crimes that are far more likely to recide? In fact, there is a reason why there is a high rate of recidism. Allison Schrager writes (6):"Prison obliterates your earnings potential. Being a convicted felon disqualifies you from certain jobs, housing, or voting. Mueller-Smith estimates that each year in prison reduces the odds of post-release employment by 24% and increases the odds you’ll live on public assistance. Time in prison also lowers the odds you’ll get or stay married. Being in prison and out of the labor force degrades legitimate skills and exposes you to criminal skills and a criminal network. This makes crime a more attractive alternative upon release, even if you run a high risk of returning to prison."Thus because prison reduces opportunity and focuses more on punishment than rehabilitation, it makes it more likely that a person would commit more crimes. Re C3: The Death Penalty brings justice to the deserving and keeps communities aware.In my opinion, this is con's strongest point. In syllogism form, con argues the following:P1: It is right and proper for the guilty to be be punished in proportion to their level of wrongdoing.P2: The proportionate punishment for murder (and perhaps some other offences) is death.C: Therefore, it is right and proper for those guilty of murder (and perhaps some other offences) to be put to death.The problem with con's argument begins in P2. Which crimes are deserving of the death penalty and how grave do they have to be? Where exactly do we draw the line? Furthermore, we have a punishment system based upon lex talionis, then should someone who raped be subjugated to that same rape? Thus we can see that going from the need for proportionality to the appropriateness of death does not follow. The second rebuttal I wish to make to this argument is that the DP does not just effect the condemned. It negatively impacts the executioners, jurors, and justices. The executioners are affected as they are the ones that have to carry out the sentence. Carrying out the sentence is a difficult and emotional task. Clinical research has found that executioners often face PTSD and at least two executioners committed suicide from carrying out the sentence (7). Thus we are asking innocent people to potentially harm themselves in the name of justice. This certainly is not just. Back over to con. Good luck! ______1. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...) 2. (http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu...) 3. (https://babel.hathitrust.org...) 4. (http://www.bjs.gov...) 5. (http://www.cbsnews.com...) 6. (http://qz.com...) 7. (http://www.njadp.org...)