The US should abolish capital punishment

== Rebuttal ==(1) Deterrent effectThe argument that the death penalty deters homicides relies on an econometric model called rational action theory, which states that humans -- including potential murderers -- perform an analysis of costs and benefits before committing any action. Con provides absolutely no evidence to believe in this model. Crimes aren't committed by foreseen rational thought. Dr. Jonathan Groner explains, "The psychological mind-set of the criminal is such that they are not able to consider consequences at the time of the crime. Most crimes are crimes of passion that are done in situations involving intense excitement or concern. People who commit these crimes are not in a normal state of mind -- they do not consider the consequences in a logical way." [1] According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the majority of murders are committed under the influence of drugs/alcohol or in the heat of passion. [2] Rational action theory is indefensible for exactly that reason: people don't consider *long term* consequences, only short term ones. It's for the same reason that people often eat food considered unhealthy. The immediate pleasure, in the minds of most people, outweighs any long-term harm from eating the food. Apply that to murder rates, where the heat of passion causes no consideration of long-term consequences. The studies Con cites are also unreliable. Con first cites a study by Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd from the Emory University, and then research from FCC economist Paul Zimmerman. The methodology of both these studies was poor, and both these studies -- among other studies that showed deterrence -- were criticized by the National Research Council's report on studies on the subject of deterrence. The NRC specifically criticizes the methodology of Zimmerman, 2004, and Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd, 2003, for using instrumental variables. The report summarizes, "The idea behind an instrument is to separate out the part of any observed relationship between the death penalty and homicide that is spurious (i.e., resulting from the relationship of both to other factors) from the part of the relationship between the death penalty and homicide that is causal." [3] But those two studies rely on the assumption that the instrument itself doesn't influence the homicide rate, without proof for that. [3] Finding a variable that allows for the measure of the death penalty's effect on homicide rates without influencing homicide rates itself is very tough, and neither of those studies succeeded in doing that. In fact, almost every pro-deterrence study runs into three problems. First, they fail to take into account the deterrent effect of other forms of punishment. Second, they all rely on the notion that potential murderers fear the death penalty more than other forms of punishment, and that they are actually deterred by it. In other words, the studies don't even establish a causal link, only a correlation. But rational action theory is indefensible and I've explained why above. Even under rational action theory, studies need to find a correct measure of potential risk. For instance, only 15% of those sentenced to death have been executed so far. Third, the assumptions of these statistical models (e.g. instrumental variables) are often not justified or credible. [4] Conclusion. Claiming that capital punishment has a significant deterrent on homicides relies on fundamental assumptions that are unjustified or even indefensible. (2) RecidivismCon first argues that people break out of high-security prisons occasionally, and that, as such, life imprisonment can't prevent recidivism. But Con fails to adequately provide an impact to this, because Con's burden here is to provide an example where they committed another murder *after* breaking out of prison. Committing another murder after breaking out of prison is dangerous for them, because then there's a risk of sending them back to prison. Furthermore, they could break out of death row too. The average death row waiting period is approx. 16 years, before execution (the source has multiple figures, the sum being 190 and the number of samples being 12, so 190 divided by 12 is 15.83). [5] People could break out of death row too. It doesn't make a significant difference. Con then argues that the system of rehabilitation doesn't work. Con's reason is that the government today doesn't spend money into rehabilitation, and will not in the future. But the resolution is a "should" not an "is." That means such objections fall under what is called "fiat" -- regardless of what *will* happen, we're discussing what *should* happen. More government focus should be placed on efforts to rehabilitate criminals. Thus, the counterplan is to add more funding to the mental health system and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation will work. Research from Texas finds that those who participated in rehabilitation programs, in the vast majority of cases, did not reoffend -- a far greater number than those who didn't participate in similar programs. [6] In Maryland, rehabilitation of drug offenders worked much better than punishment, and the same model -- if applied to other states -- would work. [7] There's no reason to think this doesn't apply to capital punishment, especially since so many people on death row are mentally ill (Rd. 2, sources 16 and 17). (3) CostThe argument from cost isn't offensive. The only conclusion Con gains from plea bargains is that "death penalty costs aren't as high as we think." But I didn't even *argue* costs, so this doesn't provide offense. It's completely irrelevant to the debate. In different states, costs of capital punishment differ based on the way it is applied, so it is neither more expensive nor cheaper than life without parole. It can't act as offense, and I'm sure, based on the text of their argument, Con agrees. (4) Innocent executionFirst, Con completely ignores my argument that 10 or so years on death row is terrible (note: average death row wait is 16 years as per most calculations, not 10), even if you're released in the end. It causes severe psychological harms to the prisoner and makes it extremely uncomfortable to live life after that. Some states don't even offer a compensation for that, which is absolutely outrageous. "Death row syndrome" and similar conditions start to set in. Take the example of Nick Yarris, an innocent man who spent horrendous parts of his life on death row. [8] The trauma of conviction and threat of death cause severe psychological harms and even suicides, which is a major impact.Next, DNA evidence isn't always present. That argument is complete garbage for that exact reason. Con might offer a counterplan to execute *only* when there's DNA evidence, but such few executions means fear of execution is wiped out, and the "deterrence" argument doesn't stand at all; at that point, neither does Con's incapacitation argument due to the number of murderers who would be in life imprisonment if such a scenario were to arise. Death-qualified juries are more likely to trust every word of a cop's or jailhouse snitch's mouth and less likely to *remember the evidence* presented at trial. [9] Third, correction of evidence on appeal has become very rare, and that's not just because of improvement in evidence. The election of pro-capital punishment federal judges, for instance, has ensured that appellate review of death penalty cases has gone down significantly. And this isn't just DNA evidence, this includes trusting often involuntary confessions and circumstantial evidence which is often flawed. That's exactly what happened to Jesse Tafero. [10] So all Con has managed to do is slightly mitigate the impact, without any numbers as to what extent that is the case, because appellate review of death penalty cases is rare and death-qualified juries are far more likely to convict, less likely to remember the evidence presented at trial and more likely to trust non-DNA evidence. (5) Other argumentsCon basically drops all my other arguments, only saying that deterrence outweighs the magnitude of those impacts. I've proven that the notion that the death penalty deters homicides, or, at the very least, deters homicides sufficient to outweigh the magnitude of my offense, is completely wrong and based on indefensible econometric models and poor studies. Extend that the death penalty causes psychological harms to people on death row, executioners and to the family/friends of people executed, and extend that capital punishment is extremely inhumane. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...