Resolved: Capital Punishment is a beneficial policy

Resolved: Capital Punishment is a beneficial policy Today's resolution is affirmed for the following reasons: ==Popular demand== http://www.heritage.org... This graph shows the citizens' view of capital punishment. ==Incapacitation of the criminal== Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or being released from it. ==Cost== Money is not an inexhaustible commodity. Anti-capital punishment campaigners in the U.S. cite the higher cost of executing someone over life in prison, but this, whilst true for America, has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the U.S. legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 12 years. In Britain in the 20th century, the average time in the condemned cell was from 3 to 8 weeks and only one appeal was permitted. It is MUCH more cost-effective to give someone a shot, buy a bullet, or run volts of electricity, than it is to feed and clothe the person for the rest of their lives. Given that prisons are funded by tax-payer dollars, it is a misuse of our money to not inflict capital punishment. ==Retribution== Execution is a very real punishment. Rather than some form of "rehabilitative" treatment, the criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the offence. This is justice in its coldest, hardest form. Capital punishment justly uses lex talens reasoning, and has the benefits listed above and below. ==Deterrence== Numerous studies published over the past few years, using panel data sets and sophisticated social science techniques, are demonstrating that the death penalty saves lives. Panel studies observe multiple units over several periods. The addition of multiple data collection points gives the results of capital punishment panel studies substantially more credibility than the results of studies that have only single before-and-after intervention measures. Further, the longitudinal nature of the panel data allows researchers to analyze the impact of the death penalty over time that cross-sectional data sets cannot address. Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders. Using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000, Professors Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd were able to compare the relationship between executions and murder incidents before, during, and after the U.S. Supreme Court's death penalty moratorium. They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders. Separately, Professor Shepherd's analysis of monthly data from 1977 to 1999 found three important findings. First, each execution, on average, is associated with three fewer murders. The deterred murders included both crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Second, executions deter the murder of whites and African–Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African–Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races. Third, shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2.75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, one murder is deterred. There are now several reasons on the table for my opponent to address. Voters, I would like you to keep the following in mind throughout the debate: "To whom is capital punishment beneficial?" We can look at the benefits of the criminal, and we can look at the benefits of the law-abiding citizen. Which one do we want to reward? If you want to reward the criminal, vote for the negative side.