Death Penalty

I agree with the terms he set up. Here's my rebuttal of his arguments. Rebuttal to Contention 1: Deterrent EffectActually, in another study Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. LaCock in 2007, a large consensus among criminologists was that it added no deterrent effects that a life sentence couldn't already achieve. [1]"Richard Berk noted that the execution figures by state by year for the 1977 to 1997 period were highly skewed. Berk specifically noted that most statesâ€"accounting for 859 of the 1,000 observationsâ€"had zero executions in a given year, and only a few states had more than a handful in a few years, with most of these being from Texas. He used a straightforward procedure to assess the implications of this skewed measure: using Mocan and Gittingsâ€™s original data set, he removed the Texas data and ran the model exactly as the original authors did, albeit only for the other forty-nine states. The deterrent effect of executions disappeared. Berk concluded that 'it would be bad statistics and bad social policy to generalize from the 11 observations to the remaining 989. '" [2] The study shows the flaws in previous studies conducted about deterrence in a death sentence. But let's just assume that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. My opponent goes on to say that being tough on crime sends a message that crime doesn't pay and criminals will feel the consequences of the crime. He also says that capital punishment will shows them that they'll receive even more problems in prison. But the death penalty reinforces that killing is fine, as long as it's the government doing it. "The death penalty is used to deter killers, but it models the very behavior it seeks to prevent. It teaches the lesson that it is acceptable to kill, as long as the state is the one doing the killing. Hence the term 'capital punishment. ' This is somewhat paradoxical. As my friend Jed said, 'We don't like people who kill other people, so to show everyone how much we don't like people who kill people, we are going to kill people who kill other people. It seems like capital punishment pretty much goes against everything it claims to be for. ' The death penalty answers violence with counter-violence. As American novelist Wendell Berry said, 'Violence breeds violence. Acts of violence committed in "justice" or in affirmation of "rights" or in defense of "peace" do not end violence. They prepare and justify its continuation. '" [3]So why should the death penalty be used as a deterrent if the government is using it in a hypocritical way? My opponent then says that, since we haven't had many executions, the rates of murder have gone down, but the rates of aggravated assault and rape has gone up. But, according to the list of crimes that the death penalty applies to, rape and aggravated assault aren't on there. [4] The rise of rape and aggravated assault is irrelevant to the argument. Let's get back to when my opponent said that the rates of murder actually went down since we've had less executions over the years. This is a defensive argument and proves the point that the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent. Rebuttal to Contention 2: Lack of AlternativesMy opponent says that Psychology Today states that conditions such as psychopathy are prevalent in criminal activity and that there's no cure. He never linked to the article, he just linked to the same FBI crime rate statistics from his last argument. This is probably a mistake, but without the proof, this can be thrown out as a bare assertion. Then, he says that 5% to 10% of death row inmates suffer from severe mental illness. So are you saying that we should punish them for being mentally ill or for the crime they committed? My opponent goes on to say that it isn't necessarily treatable and that many dangerous criminals show very little empathy or remorse. But we shouldn't kill them because they might be psychopaths. This is punishing someone they have no control over. Proof? "In 2012, Dr. Kent Kiehl, a psychologist at the University of Mexico and one of the foremost experts on psychopathy, discovered that psychopaths have reduced gray matter in the paralimbic system of the brain. His longtime suspicions were confirmed: Psychopaths -- who are unremorseful and antisocial -- have fundamentally different brains than the rest of us. The finding was replicated in psychopathic youth the following year. While the link between brain structure and psychopathy is correlational, the youth data strongly suggested that the stunted paralimbic system is present from birth. " [5] Yes, they should be held responsible for their actions, just like anybody else with a mental illness, but my opponent's third paragraph of Contention 2 implied that we should kill them because they're psychopaths and not for the crimes they commit, which somewhat goes against his argument. After this, my opponent brings up the cost of maximum security and the cost of all prisoners, which are both very hefty prices. But I found a comparison of maximum security and death row inmates, if you take cost into account. "In Texas, one death penalty case costs the state about 2.3 million dollars. This is three times higher than what it would cost to imprison one inmate in the highest security prison cell available for 40 years. " [6] Does this not prove that maximum security costs less than death row? Let's get back to the second half of my opponent's argument where he says that the cost of all prisoners in the United States is $190 million. Wouldn't death row inmates be combined in that cost? Look back at the quote comparing death row costs to maximum security, at least in Texas. The cost would be reduced if we didn't have the death penalty in the first place. After all, like my opponent said, this money could be used to help the American economy. Then, he says that federal reform can't fix this problem because there are ways for prisoners to escape. But people waiting for death row can still escape from prison. The average time inmates wait for execution is just under 16 years. [7] This is still plenty of time to escape. Rebuttal to Contention 3: CostMost of my opponent's arguments revolve around plea bargains, so I'll also focus on that my my rebuttal. Plea Bargain- an arrangement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge in the expectation of leniency. [8]Yes, I agree that the plea bargain will greatly reduce the costs of the case and prosecution, but not every criminal will take a plea bargain. Regardless, the costs of the death penalty are still very high, which my opponent points out. Again, this makes for a defensive argument and proves a point I'll provide in my opening statements. Rebuttal to Contention 4: Reforms NecessaryIn this argument, my opponent goes on to say that we could give more funding to the judicial system, the police force, and defense. Mind you, in my opponent's last argument, he quotes the following:“Defense costs were about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution costs were as much as four times higher than for non-death penalty cases. ” [9] Too much money goes into the death penalty already, as I'll prove in my opening statements. My opponent said earlier that $190 million goes into prisoners already. Why add to the high cost by funding them more when we can get rid of the death penalty and save money. Thank you and good bye. I look forward to my opponent's defense. Citations[1]. http://deathpenalty.org...[2]http://www.deathpenalty.org...[3]https://www.psychologytoday.com...[4]https://www.google.com...[5]https://www.google.com...[6]http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com...[7]http://blogs.findlaw.com...[8]https://www.google.com...[9]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...