The Death Penalty

I agree with you that nothing will completely deter people from crime and that we should find a system that deters people as much as possible from committing the most terrible acts of crime but I do not believe that the death penalty will deter people any more than life time sentences as the sorts of people who commit these crimes who have completely given up on life and wouldn't be phased by the prospect of death. I agree with you that the people who commit the crimes that you have listed are completely evil and should be punished so that their victims have justice but for one I don't believe that killing the criminals back is justice and is more of an act of revenge. I also wouldn't say that the sort of people that are "lustful serial killers of prostitutes" are the sort of people that I would describe as "reasonably sane". Maybe bank robbers aren't completely insane but to undergo an act like that you would have to of given up on the prospects of life already and would have to be somewhat messed up in the head. For that reason I don't believe that a death penalty deters those people any more than life sentences would. And this way we avoid the extra financial cost and the risk of making irreversible mistakes. On your point about how the death penalty would make more normal people too scared to commit terrible crimes, Although I think that to commit crimes such as murder you would have to be somewhat messed up in the head enough to not care about death, Even if we were to pretend that a level headed and logical person were to commit such a crime, I would argue that the prospect of life sentences is just as scary as the prospect of death. After all if you were to commit such a crime you would have to spend the rest of your days in a high security prison with very little freedom or prospects. I find that just as terrifying as death. I appreciate the sources, Especially source number 4 and I completely agree with you that when it comes to life sentences, Even as someone who is very pro rehabilitation, There is a need to make it more punishment orientated as the statistic that 80% of murderers are eligible to parole is scary to say the least. While it is worth noting after reading the article you linked that these are just people eligible for parole rather than people actually going out on parole the fact that 80% of murderers are even being considered is scary. However like you say this is something that can very easily be solved by making life sentences more punishment orientated and doesn't require a death penalty to resolve. On your point about how the success of a policy does often depend as heavily on how the policy is carried out as much as the policy itself, On your point about costs I don't see a way to necessarily reduce the costs of prosecuting someone for a crime punishable by the death penalty by anything more than a minor amount. Like I mentioned and sourced in my second round comments, A lot of the costs when trying to punish someone with the death penalty are just uncuttable. More security is needed to stop an all or nothing escape in the prisons, Judges are needed to spend more time on a case, Hearing times are longer and staff and directors from various departments need to be present. If costs like these were cuts the possibility of making irreversible mistakes would grow even more. On your point about sane criminals and them fighting cases where they would be sent to death showing that they have not all simply given up on life, I feel that more comes down to human instinct more than anything else, That even when you are backed into a corner and even if you know this is probably the end and you accept it, You probably still will fight until the very end even if you know that it is hopeless. Also like I mentioned earlier, I think the prospect of spending the rest of your life in a high security prison with little freedom and no prospects is arguably just as scary to people as being put to death. Only difference is it allows mistakes to be reversed and it is a process that is cheaper to carry out. On your point about punishing those who's guilt is certain, This is where we go into the morality of the death penalty. Say that the person being punished for a terrible crime is undoubtedly guilty, They pleaded guilty immediately and the costs aren't even a factor, I don't believe killing them is necessarily the right and just thing to do. For one I don't like the idea of the state having the power to kill someone. I also think that to take a life when one has been taken is revenge, Not justice. I also think we as a big society should show that we are moral and are better than the sort of barbaric people who commit terrible acts and punish them without having to take lives ourselves. On your point about the costs of the legal system. While yes things like jury duty is a duty but people whose occupation is something like being a judge and being an attorney, Some very stressful jobs and a role where they spend large part of their lives fulfilling, Especially in a public sector which seems to be constantly being cut in countries the world over, I think they should be paid for the work that they do, Frankly I think many in the justice system in the world over (a part from lawyers) are not paid enough. Your point about making the justice system a societal obligation and more society and community based is an interesting one though but arguably for such a system to arise we would have to change a number of other aspects of society and life to achieve. It is not impossible by any means but I don't believe that the justice system could be run like that in a country that runs on a capitalist system and where the centralised state plays such a large role. I would disagree. I think anyone who argues against the legalisation of marijuana realises the cost of it, While when it comes to the death penalty, I have seen quite a few people who argue for it (not all) often seem to think that the process is cheaper than life sentences. I would disagree. I think that having to spend the rest of your life in a prison is not a glamorous one. You would have very little chance of getting out and little personal freedom. I'd argue that it does punish the person for their crimes without having to stoop down to their levels of having to kill people. If we start going down the route of "an aye for an eye" then we are having to commit the same barbaric acts. Yeah no kidding. The modern world is incredibly complicated and there are many things that need fixing. You have the best line of thinking that anyone could have, Not only the belief that things can change and get better but the drive to take action and try and improve society yourself. I will end off by summarising the points that I have made throughout this debate in a list format: -The death penalty in the US has resulted in a number of innocent deaths and incorrect decisions by courts are not reversible when they sentence someone to death rather than giving them life sentences. -If someone is messed up enough in the head to commit a crime that would warrant a death penalty then chances are the prospect of death would phase them no more than life sentences. -It is significantly more expensive to punish someone with the death penalty than it is to simply punish them with life sentences and a number of these costs are simply uncuttable. -Taking a life when a life has been taken is not justice, It is revenge. Thanks for being a great debate partner and I have enjoyed this debate a lot and I look forward to reading your last rebuttals and closing statement.