The Death Penalty Should Be Implemented In Every Society

Deterrent (1)(2)(3) This will be my main argument upon which my entire debate is based: It has been shown by multiple studies that the death penalty does in fact serve as a deterrent to future criminals. Countries and states that implemented the death penalty have considerably lower crimes than the rest of society. “During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Dudley Sharp of the criminal-justice reform group Justice For All: "From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "(1) Another statement: “The most striking protection of innocent life has been seen in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 -- a 72 percent decrease. ” The graph below drawn by the Bureau of Criminal Justice gives a general overview of the murder rate compared to the number of executions that had taken place in the US up to the year 2000: Some of you might know that I had problems with posting pictures related to this topic. Therefore I urge you to visit this link: . http://www.debate.org... The graph that I found is from the Bureau of Justice. It shows how correlated murders and executions are. As soon as the executions went down, the murder rate skyrocketed. Also, notice that before the execution drop, murders were relatively high. About 10 years after the execution drop, the executions start to go up. Shortly after, the murder rate went down. From this graph we can clearly see that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. Now the question is, how much does the death penalty act as a deterrent? A study by economist Isaac Ehrlich in 1975 stated that for each person executed, an estimated 7 or 8 other people are saved. According to utilitarianism, this is moral and ethical. Seven or eight innocent people should not have to suffer the ultimate price when only a convicted murderer is killed. However, there are many other studies that actually say differently than Isaac Ehrlich. “Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five, and 14). ” “The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston. ” Whichever study you deem to be correct, the results are similar. The death penalty does serve as a great deterrent. Whether the actual number is 3 or 25, the death penalty serves and benefits society as a whole by saving innocent lives. Human Rights(4) I know my opponent will bring up this argument so I might as well write about it now. In Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, it stated, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. However, if we really followed this rule then society would greatly differ. According to it, we would also have to abolish charging taxes and fines since they violate one's "security of person”. We would also have to abolish prisons as a human rights violation because they deprive people of liberty. So the interpretation that abolitionists derive from Article 3 of the Declaration is illogical and contradictory. Also, the current notion of human rights is actually quite new. Modern human rights have been around for less than a century. However, lack of human rights has been around for thousands of years. Europe and Asia haven’t had modern humans rights for thousands (some say ten thousands) of years. Therefore, we can deem lack of human rights to be more important according to the time frame that it was used in history. I will let my opponent provide the bulk of this argument but I just started it off by saying that human rights are not deemed correct and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is obsolete and contradictory. Cost of death penalty (5) (6) (7) Contrary to popular belief, a death penalty does not cost more than life in prison. The reason why modern executions cost so much is because of all the legal proceedings. However, what if we used the most effective execution machine through history? The guillotine. Therefore the cost of the death penalty would go down significantly. If we were to say buy a guillotine (cant find an exact price estimate) for say $20 000, we could use it for countless executions. According to this website listen below, the cost of an incarcerated federal prisoner for one year is $94 500. If a criminal was kept on life without parole for 30 years, $2.835 million dollars would be spent on him. On the other hand, we don’t need to keep people on death row. He could be executed straight after his conviction. Compare $2.835 million+ to $20 000 for multiple executions. Lets assume that my opponent will be stubborn and insist on arguing the current version of the death penalty. The current death penalty costs about $1.2 million dollars. Compare $1.2 million to $2.835 million for keeping a criminal locked up for 30 years. Conclusion I believe that I have successfully demonstrated that the death penalty serves as a great deterrent to future criminals. It saves the lives of innocent people. Also, I started out our argument about human rights (which my opponent will most likely continue) stating that the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights is obsolete and contradictory. I have also shown that a death penalty is more economical than life in jail. Vote PRO Good luck to CON (1). http://wesleylowe.com... (2) Levitt, Steven. Dubner, Stephen. Freakonomics. Toronto: Harper Perennial, 2005. (3) Robert Tanner, "Studies Claim Death Penalty is a Deterrent"  Democrat and Chronicle, June 12, 2007 (4) . http://www.un.org... (5) . http://www.vcn.bc.ca... (6) . http://www.amnestyusa.org...(7)http://boisdejustice.com...