The US should abolish the death penalty

Burden of Proof Con has suggested I should have the burden of proof, and he has given solid reasons for this. I fully embrace this burden. What this means is that I must show a net benefit for abolition of the Death Penalty. If Con is able to thwart my attempt to net neutral, then he wins. Wrongful death of Innocents Con’s source to back his 99.72% rightful conviction rate appears to be an off the cuff calculation, and does not compare to the peer reviewed study I submitted in round 1[4]. Also, any innocents killed are a massive problem for DP advocates. After all, it is not a matter of accidental death, but intentionally taking a life. Knowing each and every execution could be an individual not guilty of the crime for which they are condemned means we are crossing our fingers and hoping for justice. Also, Con’s assertion ‘the DP saves more lives than it kills’ is a dubious claim since it relies on the presumption of deterrence. I will cover that aspect more in my rebuttal to Con’s deterrence argument below. High Cost of the death penalty Con began this section with an intriguing study which attempts to monetize murder and other crimes. Since the figures are partially based on the cost of prosecution and imprisonment at the DP standards, they would be substantially less with LWOP. Plus, Cohen acknowledges that his sample group was extreme and this may have inflated the estimates. I find this study fascinating, but this aspect of Con’s argument relies on the presumption that capital punishment provides deterrence. I will address that subject below. Moving on, T suggests the cost of LWOP would cost more than CP in Washington. I am willing to agree with his annual cost estimate of LWOP for Washington although it was fortuitous the national average and Washington’s actual cost are close. However, the number he submitted for the cost of DP in Washington (2.01 million) is completely wrong. The actual cost for DP in Washington is $3.07 million [15]. As far as Texas is concerned, the average cost per inmate is $21,390 per year [16]. My figures were calculated for 40 years imprisonment, but so that we might compare apples to apples I have refigured for 50 years and arrived at just over $1 million for LWOP. $1 million is still a far cry from $2.3 million for CP in Texas and represents a significant reduction of cost. Con has claimed my estimate of DP cost in Texas is flawed because of where it came from (genetic fallacy). I concede I could have used a better source (and I will [17]), but the numbers are valid. If they are flawed in any way, it is because the study only accounted for 7.5 years of trial, appeal, and imprisonment instead of the 15 year average that is common now [17]. The cost is most likely a low estimate. Tejretic’s comparison of expenditures related to executions (last year) and the state budget is misguided. In Texas, Capital punishment is paid for by the counties. While they may get a small grant from the state to offset cost, the bulk of the financial burden remains on the county. “The burden is even higher on smaller counties. Jasper County, Texas, raised property taxes by nearly 7% just to pay for a single death penalty case.” [18] Not to mention, we are still talking about millions, or billions, of dollars which could be better used. A study from 1978 determined if the DP were abolished we could have an immediate saving of $170 million dollars per year. Consider what Judge Arthur L. Alarcon had to say about the DP in California. “Since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions." Plea bargains reduce the cost of capital punishment because they avoid it - at least partially. This backs my point of view in multiple ways. This is an acknowledgement the DP is more expensive than alternatives such as life imprisonment. Secondly, in round 2 Con stated,” You forfeit the right violated by you--that’s the basic consequence.” Pleas bargain are not in-line with that assertion yet Con accepts a lesser sentence as a reasonable consequence. Con is simultaneuosly holding life should be forfiet for life taken, and plea bargaining away from it is kosher. This, of course, is contradictory. Deterrence First, I would like to point out a bit of Gish gallop from Con. He has provided 17 different sources in this section providing only a brief summary of a few of them. It would take a disproportionate amount of time for me to attempt to absorb the information in them and rebut them. Plus, it is unlikely I would have the character count for such an endeavor. I'll hit the high points. I continue to question my opponent’s desire to rely on economists instead of criminologists. Criminology is the study of crime from a social perspective. Economists have a much broader social purview. I acknowledge an overlap between the two fields. As an analogy, it is the difference between a maintenance man and an HVAC technician. Both can work on air conditioners, but if you need a new system it is best to utilize the technician’s direct experience over the maintenance man’s mechanical inclination. Criminologists are the ‘technicians’ of criminal behavior while economists are the ‘jack of all trades’. That being said, Con is dismissing the analysis of three decades worth of studies by the National Research Council of the National Academies in which criminologists conclude deterrence is not clear. Specifically, they found: 1. The studies do not factor in the effects of noncapital punishments that may also be imposed. 2. The studies use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers’ perceptions of and response to the use of capital punishment. 3. Estimates of the effect of capital punishment are based on statistical models that make assumptions that are not credible. [6] The deterrence effect cannot objectively be substantiated. Prevention of recidivism I argue that it cannot be called “prevention of recidivism” if we remove the potential for the offender to falter. That is like removing the house to get rid of the rats. No one would accept this as a claim of success if they have lost their home in the process. As I said earlier, it is a bizarre claim. Con has not shown CP prevents recidivism, only that we can remove the vessel that houses the offending consciousness. To truly measure recidivism, we must have an individual capable of it. In other words, he or she must still be alive and autonomous. Finally, Con acknowledges murders happen in prison while waiting on the DP. Murders in prison cancel out his claim of a 0% recidivism rate. Con’s argument has been negated. DP is just Arguing against Capital punishment is not arguing against retribution (not to be confused with vengeance or revenge), and Con’s argument for retribution has left me unscathed. My opponent claims I have dropped a contention of his -“DP is just at least in *some* cases”, but this is not a point he has made, at least, not until now. Also, Con’s accusation of Correlation causation fallacy is flawed. The studies I provided are of many hundreds of cases, considering many factors, and are corroborated by other such studies nationwide. I have already explained that any system which murders innocents in the name of justice is not just. We cannot in good conscience condone such actions in the least – not even for the worst non rehabilitatable offenders (assuming such a thing exists). Resources could be better spent on prevention of future criminals (education, gang prevention, mental health services, drug and alcohol recovery, etc.) instead of disposal of a ‘lost cause’. The resources we waste on CP is an injustice to future generations. Since we have every reason to expect our population to increase, utility is best served by prevention of future criminals. We have many options in this regard, and many under-utilized programs that have been making a verifiable effective difference. [19] In summary, DP is not just - it kills innocents and is arbitrary. Recidivism is not prevented, detterence is questionable, and it is a waste of resources which could be better spent on prevention. I have shown a net benefit if the Death Penalty were abolished. This is my final round of arguments per Con's round 1 requirements, so please allow me to thank the reader and Tejretic's (for a very interesting debate)![15] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [16] http://www.vera.org... [17] http://standdown.typepad.com... [18] http://ejusa.org...[19] https://books.google.com...