Death penalty should be implemented in our society

1. Deterrence The Chief the chief argument for the death penalty is its ability to save lives. Indeed, a strong consensus among modern studies has found the death penalty can deter crime [1. . http://www.cjlf.org...] To understand why the death penalty would deter crime is to understand deterrence theory. Criminals, like humans, are rational actors. They make choices based on what the costs and benefits are. In Economics economists have seen this in all of their research. The higher the cost the less people buy that product. Economists are experts in human behavior and how people will act under certain conditions, and are often the best at determining why people do certain things, and how to stop them from doing these things. Crime goes down when the punishment gets stiffer. Hundreds of empirical studies exist to prove this point. The rebuttal to this will often be criminals, or those committing murder, are not rational actors and cannot be deterred by stiffer punishment. However, juveniles, who are less rational actors, are also affected by stiffer penalties [2. . http://www.bus.lsu.edu...] The early empirical research on the subject by Issac Ehrlich has demonstrated strong deterrent effects by the death penalty, and has responded to most criticism of his work. Meanwhile, other studies have come out to prove the deterrent hypothesis. Some economists noted how the models used in the studies were not robust, but the authors of the studies in question have refuted these analysis’s and noted they actually tried to reduce the deterrent effect by various tests but have found these results simply don’t go away. They are robust and correct [2]. The consensus amongst the research is growing stronger by the day. In the 1960s, studies found criminals acted as rational actors which would then imply stiffer penalties (like the DP) would reduce crime [3. . http://www.nber.org...]. Ehrlich, in his original studies, decided to expand upon this early research on penalties and see if it applied to the death penalty. Ehrlich found the death penalty saved at least three lives per execution [4. . http://deathpenalty.procon.org...] Newer research confirms these findings, generally showing that the death penalty saves 3-18 lives. The Heritage Foundation sums up the evidence, “In summary, the recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives. Each additional execution appears to deter between three and 18 murders. While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African-Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African-Americans. Further moratoria, commuted sentences, and death row removals appear to increase the incidence of murder. ” [5. . http://www.heritage.org...] Many studies by criminologists use models which exclude lagged variables (as the death penalty is often publicized to the public, and therefore criminals, after the execution and before the execution). These early studies by criminologists, therefore, use methods which would not accurately describe the death penalty. They also uses simplistic state-comparison models which inadequately controlled for other variables. Studies that account for these variables and account for lag find a strong deterrent effect [6. . http://www.hawaii.edu...] There is also proof that shortening the amount of time on death row and executing more people on death row increase the deterrent effect [6]. Testimony before congress noted studies that do not find deterrence generally have weak regression models, and updated research proves the deterrent effect. All studies that use data from before and after the death penalty ban and re-legalization find that the death penalty provides a strong deterrent [7. . http://www.judiciary.house.gov...] In short, the death penalty deters crime. 2. Justice Many prisons have great facilities, air conditioning, and are indeed resorts. Although one can argue that this is just for many criminals, jails are nice areas nonetheless [8. . http://www.theatlantic.com...]. Murderers are some of the worst criminals (with only rapists debatably as bad or worse). Murderers don’t deserve a comfy bed, phones, etc. For people who believe in proportionality, anything less than the death penalty would be unjust. We cannot inflict deterrence or correction to those who do not deserve punishment. Then, the main issue in justice system is retribution. Although the state may uphold death penalty laws because of their deterrent effects, the reason we must morally uphold the death penalty because it is what criminals deserve [9. . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...] My opponent would likely agree with the idea of proportionality. If this is correct, than criminals get what they deserve, meaning the death penalty would be morally superior to LWOP. Further, the deterrent effect which I established builds upon the death penalty. The death penalty is a life-life trade off, and we must determine if the lives of innocents are worth more than those guilty. If this is the case, losing a guilty life through the death penalty (assuming the death penalty saves innocent lives) merely shows the death penalty, regardless of proportionality, has a moral benefit for saving other innocents that would otherwise have been murdered. With states which choose life over death, they then condemn many innocents to death inadvertently. The choice of life for a murderer, then, is morally objectionable at least—and near heinous at worst. Then this moderate view of capital punishment should lead us to conclude the death penalty is preferable [10. . http://www.bus.lsu.edu...] ___________ The death penalty is preferable on its deterrence ability alone—and necessary on its moral proportionality basis alone. The death penalty saves lives and is morally preferable.