Abolishing the Death Penalty

1. Morality My opponent uses utilitarianism as the main case for death penalty abolishment. Utilitarianism is a theory that holds actions which do more harm then good are good, the action which reduces suffering the most is the best option [1. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. In fact, I actually agree with this statement, and am shocked that my opponent argues that the death penalty isn't morally good in this theory. Essentially, my opponent argues that executing the murderer would actually increase overall anguish--that equal punishment isn't fair--therefore, the death penalty is unjust. This is virtually the same as most anti-death penalty arguments when it comes to morality. The death penalty is barbaric, and makes the executioner just as bad as the murderer. If a murderer kills one person, executing him merely doubles the amount of death people. But this is incorrect. In fact, one excellent paper looks into these claims. The argument--that the death penalty deters crime--nullifies my opponents argument. Indeed, if the death penalty saves more lives than it takes away, it will reduce the overall amount of suffering and make the death penalty a moral good [2. http://tinyurl.com...]. I, to an extent, agree with my opponents equal treatment analysis. Rapists should not be raped, mass murderers cannot be executed multiple times. However, the fact remains: punishments should remain proportional to the crime inflicted. A robber, for example, should not be punished the same way as a murderer. Obviously the murderer deserves a worse punishment. What is the worst punishment? Death. As a little kid, when you realize people die, did you ever roll around in bed, worried you would die that night? Scared of death? What was after death--if anything? The fact is, people fear death. It is unknown, we fear the unknown--and our basic instincts tell us that we should avoid death, so that we can continue reproducing. The fact is, although many people say "prison is worse", I suspect if in a courtroom where death was a certianty or life in a jail was probable, they would choose jail every time. Using this basic logic, Edward Fesser argues that, at some point, death penalty would be the most morally just punishment. Even assuming one murder isn't enough to warrant death, the fact is--at some point--the death penalty would be a desirable punishment in order to instill a sense of justice [3. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...]. 2. Cost The cost argument is totally false. In fact, I have written extensivley on the subject. In one article, I summarized both recent and old research. What I found was that the research arguing the death penalty costed more only considered a few factors--and often times didn't even use death penalty cost data. When this is accounted for, although the upfront costs of the DP (trial) are high, in the long run the DP and prison options costed about the same, and in some cases less. In fact, when factors such as plea bargians, geriatric care, and others are accounted for, the death penalty is far cheaper than life in prison. [4. http://tinyurl.com...]. In fact, Virginia has a very swift (6 years) and efficient (65% sentenced to death get executed) death penalty policy. The DP in Virginia is cheaper than life in prison. Further, most studies claiming a high death penalty cost are flawed in many respects [5. http://tinyurl.com...]. One analysis, using multiple data sources as well as assuming many different variables has found that DP costs much less than life in prison. In one assumption, the DP costs 1.88 million, and life in prison costs 3.01 million. At a nigher estimate, you get 5.5 million for prison, and about 1.9 for the death penalty. If these numbers are anywhere near correct, the death penalty costs far less--and at worst the same--as an equivalent sentence to life in prison [6. http://prodeathpenalty.com...]. These studies dont even take into account the cost of murder to a society. Therefore, assuming the death penalty deters lives, the death penalty would save a lot more than I am even arguing. If this was the case, the cost argument is destroyed. 3. Innocence The innocence argument is not very convincing when the facts are looked into. Anti DP groups have argued 34 people have been exonerated using DNA evidence (higher numbers are often tainted as they do not account for actual innocence, whereas DNA does). OF these, 18 have been executed... An error rate of .3 percent... or, 99.7% success rate. And the rate is likely even lower as this data is from pre-1989. Since then, DNA techniques have been used in more and more trials and has become more accurate. If someone thinks its better to let 10 people go then to have 1 falsely executed, good. The current system is doing much better than that right now. And again, this ignores the fact that the death penalty saves lives [7. http://www.nationalreview.com...]. Thus, the amount of innocent being executed is trivial. It is very small, and the amount of lives saved far exceeds the innocent lives lost. 4. Deterrence My opponent cites the NAS pannel on the issue, which claims there is no good evidence that the DP deters lives, but also states there is no evidence that it doesn't. The pannel did not say that the DP doesn't deter, rather, they said there should be more research. However, this report was extremely biassed and flawed. For example, there are actually 18 peer-reviewed studies which show that the death penalty deters crime and saves lives. However, the NAS pannel ONLY looked at 10 of these. There is NO explanation as to why these studies were excluded. They seem to have arbitrarily removed them in order to push a public agenda. Indeed, if you add 8 studies--almost doubling the amount of research they included--it would have been scientific malpractice to say there is no evidence for deterrence (but, it is worse to exclude them). Had they missed one or two studies, ok, fine. But 8?! Ignoring 8 studies that refute their conclusion is very telling about the pannels reliability. When it comes to non-peer reviwed studies, they ignored 1 (out of 2) that showed that the death penalty was a strong deterrent. Economist John Lott further destroys this shameful summary of the research, arguing "Most disappointingly, the NRC report does not discuss the serious problems with most of the studies that find no clear effect. The few studies that fail to find any deterrence from the death penalty have done some odd things. For instance, they measure the execution rate in strange ways. Take an approach first used by Lawrence Katz, Steven Levitt, and Ellen Shustorovish and later by John Donohue and Justin Wolfers. They do not look at the percent of murders that result in execution, but instead at the number of executions per prisoner. [emphasis original]" [8. http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...]. Also, the author of the NAS reports are all DP opponents... Indeed, even a pro-death penalty think tank has done a better job counting the death penalty research articles, including all 18 deterrent studies, and 5 showing no effect (they miss 1 in the no effect section, however, that study found a weak deterrent effect, so the mess up is reasonable) [9. http://www.cjlf.org...]. The fact is, the vast majority of the research demonstrates a strong deterrent effect, and the studies showing no relationship with crime are weak, at best. To argue no relationship is not real is blindness to the economic research. The fact is, people respond to incentives, and it is indisputable that the DP deters *some* crime [10. http://mises.org...]. ConclusionThe DP deters crime, and saves lives. Does not threaten innocents, is not costly, and is morally correct. *longest links shrunk to fit argument