Resolved: The US should abolish capital punishment.

Thanks to Pro for his opening arguments, in this round I will engage in all of my rebuttals. R1: Morality of the DP In this premise, Pro argues that the infringement of rights as punishment is ultimately a necessary means of its preservation. In the argument titled “Criminals Forfeit their Rights”, the excerpt is below: “Thus, those who do not respect the rights of others forfeit their own rights. This is the foundation of the criminal justice system. Unless Pro advocates for no restriction of rights whatsoever (ie no criminal justice system, as detention inherently restricts a person's rights), they must agree to this principle.” However, in order to adhere or uphold the principles of one’s constitutional rights, it would be contradictory, if not; hypocritical to value the principals of constitutional rights yet not hesitate to infringe it upon criminals. The death penalty does such, by condemning the act of murder yet not flinching in committing upon the criminal, would it make the government any better than the criminal who committed the crime? The primary goal of a punishment is to not only deter would be criminals but also to prevent them from committing such a crime in the future, or in other words, to discipline them into not committing the crime again. Nothing is ultimately benefited from such a punishment as the DP, as no one benefits from the death of the criminal just as no one benefits from the death of the victim. To respond to a crime with the retributive mentality that would come with the DP would only perpetuate the cycle of grief and violence as the family of the criminal may struggle to reconcile obedience to the government with having lost a loved one as a result of said government. The right to live is too great a right and too important of one to be compared with the freedom of mobility that would be restricted by detention. In short, such a comparison would be insufficient. R2: Failure in Deterrence A primary pillar in both Con’s argument and in Pro-DP rhetoric in general is the idea of deterrence theory, that the threat of potential execution for heinous crimes would be a sufficient deterrent against committing said crime. As seen in Con’s second argument, deterrence theory takes a primary foundation in this pillar: “The DP deters homicides by putting the fear of death into would-be criminals. Rational action theory suggests that all mentally stable humans perform a cost/benefit analysis prior to committing any action. This theory has been applied to criminology, and shows that the DP has a significant deterrent effect on homicides.” Hence, to disprove the validity of deterrence theory as an incentive for the death penalty would be to sufficiently discredit Con’s argument. One of the ultimate failures of upholding deterrence theory is in assumption that every crime committed is in a state of foreseen, deliberate or rational thought. In short, as Dr Jonathan Groner of Ohio State College of Medicine and public health would say: “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] On the theoretical front, the DP fails in justifying deterrence theory for crimes of passion, especially murder, as such crime still can warrant the death penalty [2]. Statistically speaking, deterrence theory does hold up in justification to the death penalty. Firstly, to address the statistics that Con has given. Con first cites a 2007 article from The Washington Post, the article itself however fails to decisively prove how the death penalty deters crimes. It brings in numbers of “3-18 homocides” yet it doesn’t decisively prove the correlation of such numbers to the perceived cause of the death penalty. In short, the article alongside the argument fail to give reason as to why or how the DP causes such deterrence, it also fails to show how other factors may not be in place such as socio economic conditions or environmental factors. To which studies have shown to yield a much greater influence over one’s likelihood to crime as opposed to simple deterrence [3] In Conclusion, the Death Penalty fails to act as a sufficient deterrent against heinous crimes. As most criminals either do not care or do not consider the ultimate consequences of their crimes, deterrence theory assumes that the criminal would be in a state where both factors are seriously considered. Yet such is not the case, especially in crimes of passion. Con’s statistics have also failed in sufficiently proving the effectiveness of such a theory in practice. Sources: 1. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 2. http://deathpenalty.procon.org... 3. http://arjournals.annualreviews.org... This concludes our rebuttals, and we much wait for our opponent’s response.