Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

C1) The Death Penalty is a Deterrent The assumption that the death penalty deters crime is not something new. Economists study how humans work. They study how they react to incentives and punishments. In their research they have determined higher prices reduce consumption, and lower prices increase consumption. In other words, humans are rational creatures. Economists like Gary Becker have found the same applies to criminals as early as the 1960s. Becker argued his models of crime showed how criminals are rational actors, and will change their behavior based upon the cost—punishments—and the benefits [1]. Murray Rothbard agrees with these conclusions, noting “it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty. Sometimes the liberal argument comes perilously close to maintaining that no punishment deters any crime — a manifestly absurd view that could easily be tested by removing all legal penalties for nonpayment of income tax and seeing if there is any reduction in the taxes paid. ” [12]. Thus, we see the theoretical reasons suggest that the death penalty would likely deter *some* crime. With this in mind, it follows more extreme punishments will decrease crime as criminals fear death. Thus, the death penalty would act as a strong deterrent to crime. But is there any evidence for this? Early research was conducted by Issac Ehrlich in the 1970s. His work demonstrated a strong deterrent effect in relation to the death penalty. Most arguments against the death penalty—either morally or in relation to its efficacy—fail to take into account the death penalty’s (DP) strong deterrent effect. Ehrlich’s study found each execution prevents 1 – 8 murders [2]. Recent evidence corroborates these previous conclusions. A strong consensus amongst modern research finds that the DP reduces the rates of homicide. There are at least 17 studies indicating the DP reduces the occurrence of murder, whereas only 5 contest these results. Two are inconclusive—and it must be noted of the studies claiming it is inconclusive, one found a deterrent effect, though waived it as weak [3]. Death penalty opponents have even concluded the DP reduces murder rates. They describe their findings as merely “a scientific finding which demonstrates that people react to incentives” [4]. Thus, these authors actively waive their opinions and conclude the death penalty reduces homicide. Authors who have a vested ideological interest against the DP provide the strongest argument for its existence. The vast majority of evidence suggests the death penalty saves lives. Unless my opponent can prove the harms of the death penalty outweigh its strong deterrent effects, he loses the debate. C2) The Death Penalty Prevents Recidivism According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), recidivism rates for homicide are actually fairly high. Although basic google searches show you liberal journalists claiming the recidivism rate for murderers are zero, this is blatantly incorrect. 12.5% of those whose greatest offense was homicide were arrested within 6 months. Over 5 years, 51.2% had been arrested again. Of those whose only offence was homicide, the rate was 0.9% [5]. So the worst criminals (say, you robbed, then raped, and then murdered the victim) had extremely high recidivism rates of 51.2%--and that demographic is the most likely to be executed. Of those who only murder, it is about 1%. Although the second number may seem small, it is fairly significant. In New York alone, 230 murderers and sexual predators have been released [6]. This means, using the low 0.9% number, 2 people would have been murdered due to recidivism. Assuming California and Texas are the only ones with comparable numbers (~200), and the rest only released one, we would have about 677 murderers released each year. This would be about 6 murders due to released murders each year. And this is a low estimate! In California, there have been 1400 murderers in prison for life released over a short 3 year period (466 per year) [7]. As we can see, the amount of people released from prison is actually fairly high and may lead to dozens of unwanted murders from those who repeat their crimes. Even those who were in prison for ‘life’ have been released and inflicting harm on innocent people. One of the most efficient ways to do this is execution. An anti-death penalty article admits although murders committed by those serving a life without parole sentence is rare, the rate is about 4.1/100,000 (personal calculation based upon their cross-sectional comparisons) [10]. In 2013 there were around 50,000 prisoners serving life without parole sentences [11]. This means every year there are 3 murders committed by those serving life without parole sentences in prison. Although the anti-DP article claims DP would increase these with their cross-sectional data, a conclusion makes no sense—something I would respond to if my opponent chooses to bring it up. But based on this, if more murderers are executed (or even all), 2-3 murders would be prevented each year. C3) Justice How our society punishes those who harm other people should be proportional as to what crime is committed. A more extreme punishment (e. g. death) should be given to someone who commits atrocious crimes. An example of where the death penalty would be appropriate would be the murder of Kelly Anne Bates. Bates was tortured for four weeks prior to her death. Here eyes were gouged out 3 weeks before her death—being drowned in a bathtub. The autopsy found 150 separate injuries on her body. She suffered burns, a hot iron was applied to her thigh, her warm was broken, she was partially scalped, she was stabbed, and parts of her body was mutilated—including her ears and genitals [8]. The perpetrator was only sentenced to life in prison and would serve at least 20 years—meaning he could potentially be released. I ask my opponent to justify not executing criminals such as this. Indeed, there is at least some point where execution—which involves taking away the life of a person—would be justified in the case of an atrocity such as this. Should the murderer only serve 20 years in prison, while being fed, clothed, kept warm, and in some cases even obtain companionship? Taking the life away of a person—even criminals—must be treated with great care. However, there are cases where the death penalty is required in order to facilitate justice. Once dead, it is the only guaranteed way they can never kill again. They will have no chance of killing other inmates, people if paroled because they are ‘rehabilitated’, etc. The death penalty is the only sure way to make sure (1) they are harshly punished and (2) the punishment is permanent. Rothbard, a libertarian cited above, expands this argument. He claims the murderer forfeits his right to life after he commits his crime. He then argues—from a rights perspective—that the victim (or, in this case, those related to the victim) should have the choice as to whether or not the death penalty should be used. The victim had no choice. But he argues the victim or his relatives should have the right to select the punishment—and to deny that right would be to subvert the rights of those involved in the case [13]. Rothbard also suggests people should put how they want a potential murderer to be treated in their will. Thus, liberals can say they do not want executions, and extremists like me can write statements in a blunt manner, “string him up! ” Thus, the death penalty is morally justified from a libertarian perspective—one which is meant to ensure rights to all people. And this means, at least in some cases, the death penalty would help promote the rights of the victim. What also must be noted is that this is a corollary to C1. C1 proves death acts as a deterrent. If my opponent wishes to contest this point or make any moral arguments, he must first prove the harms of the death penalty outweigh the tremendous amount of lives saved. As the Heritage Foundation explains, “If each execution is saving lives, the harms of capital punishment would have to be very great to justify its abolition” [9]. The DP is morally justified and often is required in order to ensure justice prevails. 1. . http://www.nber.org... 2. . http://deathpenalty.procon.org... 3. . http://www.cjlf.org... 4. . http://www.nber.org... 5. . http://www.bjs.gov... 6. . http://nypost.com... 7. . http://www.cbsnews.com... 8. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. . http://www.heritage.org... 10. . https://death.rdsecure.org... 11. . http://www.businessinsider.com... 12. . http://mises.org...