Death Penalty

I thank my opponent for the opportunity he has provided me in this debate to show why the death penalty should not remain legal. As to his points: "The average cost per inmate (not on death row) in California costs the state 49,000 multiply that by 680 inmates charged with the crime of murder and you will get 33,320,000 the average cost of medicine per inmate is $6,935 multiply that by 680 you get 4,715,800 add that number with 33,320,000 you get 38,035,800(per year). As you can the price of holding a regular inmate exceeds that number." What about food? Clothes? Costs of keeping them under guard? Septic system costs? Administrative costs? Etc. Keep in mind that people on death row are kept in prison nearly as long as those in for life. On top of the ordinary costs, they also have to have greater supervision, plus costs for execution methods, plus added costs of appeals and heightened innocence investigations. "The fact of the matter is the reason that our current system is as costly as it is, is due to the lack of executions in California not because of them. In 30 years California has only executed 13 out of the hundreds of people on death row." Yes. They have done this because of errors in the system and the need to provide due process. In other words, because they have to in order to keep the death penalty just. "… putting a couple of bullets into the murderers the moment they are convicted of the crime [is] my idea of death penalty reform …" Then you have (hypothetically) just killed this man: http://forejustice.org... More to the point, the immediate application of a penalty without judicial review is a denial of due process, essential to justice, and smacks of radical anti-democratic authoritarianism. This is something the United States should never tolerate if it wishes to keep itself true to its ideals. "… every single person accused of murder gets a fair trial. That is exactly what due process is." This would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. The appeals and review process is a part of due process. It isn't just the right to confront your accusers before they take you out back and shoot you. Also, no, not every person gets a fair trial. See the above example for the unfair results that occur following prosecutorial misconduct. Remember that people run these trials, not God. Justice relies upon the hope that enough people in the mix will prevent anyone from playing God. What you are arguing is neither right, nor just, nor moral. "People who are convicted of murder obviously do not get to enjoy their right to life since they have taken somebody Else's right to life therefore they should be put to death immediately." What of people who are falsely convicted of murder? If you take that person's life, wouldn't that make you a murderer who needs to be immediately shot? Also, rights exist for the benefit of the right bearers … the dead are no longer around to demand justice, so at best we can argue that the social prescription of death for murder is intended to provide effect for the rights of those mourning the aggrieved. Their rights would just as well be served knowing that, for as long as the offender can be kept alive, the offender will suffer a loss as they have. "Yes, every study has a margin of error but how can you look at that graph I cited and not admit that the death penalty is working in some way[?]" Because I can provide any number of other events that occurred in one of the peaks, like 1990; I turned nine, for example. Oops, my bad. This isn't an issue of a margin of error. This is an issue of knowing how to read statistics. "On the national scale the graph I cited above shows that with more executions leads to less murders." No, it showed that a higher number of executions correlate with a lower number of murders. That doesn't mean having more executions results in fewer murders. Perhaps having fewer murders resulted in more executions, because more resources ordinarily devoted to handling new cases can be devoted to finishing the job on the old ones. "I tried reading your source but read nothing about the correlation between drugs and murder." The point was that the spike in murders occurred following the national crackdown on marijuana (check the dates). Using your logic that means the illegality of marijuana resulted in more people acting aggressively and committing murder. "Your source does not say we are killing them it simply states the number of people on death row." I will concede that. We just have more people *lined up* to be killed. That still means that the death penalty isn't deterring. "There is two reasons for that. 1.population increase in the U.S. and 2. there has been a decline in executions in many states such as the example I made with California." 1.If population increase was to blame, but the death penalty worked as a deterrent, we would not see population increases correlating with death row population statistics. 2.If declines in executions deter, then why is it that those states with no executions (less than less – none) have fewer murders than even California? Also – this: http://www.prisonactivist.org... "But, there is immediate threat how about those prison guards who are killed while watching inmates? The threat will always be there until they are rightfully put to death." Only until the next batch rolls in as murder has not been deterred. You're arguing incapacitation now, which is invalid for any number of reasons by itself, not the least of which is that there is no way to know who will reoffend. "Capital punishment is the punishment murderers receive." No, I meant … *groan* … you are comparing apples and oranges when you speak about people not having the ability to defend themselves and not being able to punish. One action is taken to prevent unjustified harm, the other to discourage further unjustified harm. You can not use the rationale for one in place of the other. They meet two entirely different objectives. "Whether that is true or not I am sure you will find that the most heinous crimes you can think of are on the rise. I am sure you can equate that to a moral decline." They are not. There is no ‘moral decline.' If anything, we are on a moral upswing and would be doing very well if not for some stupid economic decisions we've made over the past two decades. "North Carolina banned executions of the mentally ill. Giving people who aren't mentally ill a defense for claiming a illness they do not have." Also, it gives the mentally ill who are really mentally ill the clemency that they deserve. Which is more important: the few unworthy lives spared or the few innocent lives saved? If you're for victims' rights, you have to argue the latter. Yet to support the death penalty, you have to argue the former. That's outright hypocrisy. In conclusion, my opponent failed to show why the current death penalty system should remain. He then argued that there should be a new death penalty system, one that remains as unjustified but is more cost effective because it is unjust. I have argued for the system that is cost effective, just, and justified: life imprisonment. I now strongly urge a vote for Con, so that we citizens of the United States can move beyond this very silly and somewhat tragic moment in our history and move towards a new era of heightened civility and efficiency.