The Death Penalty should be legal in the United States

1-. The death penalty is extremely expensive to implement Con main argument so far is cost. Criminal justice is always expensive, but citizens think justice makes it worthwhile to prosecute serious crimes despite the cost. We should be willing to pay what it takes to obtain justice. Still, the claim that life sentences are cheaper is false. There are three elements of cost involved with a death penalty: 1. The court costs properly associated with extra scrutiny The claimed savings supposes that a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole can be imposed without extra scrutiny. In fact, if there is any savings at all, it is small. Only about 6% of the convictions overturned by the Innocence Project involved death row inmates. [4] They are apply a high level of scrutiny to crimes that would include life without parole. Moreover, inmates convicted of life without parole are certainly going to want to file every appeal possible to get the sentence reduced, and the government is obliged to pay the costs of the prosecution and the defense in those cases. The appeals in such case can go on for the life of the inmate. 2. The court costs incurred unreasonably in defending the laws that permit execution Much of the current costs of pursuing he death penalty involves challenges to the death penalty itself. Courts eager to overturn the death penalty are allowing appeals on such grounds as the drug used for the lethal injection must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. [8. http://www.truth-out.org...] The wording of the present resolution eliminates challenges to the death penalty itself, which can accomplished by legislation. 3. The costs of confining inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security The main costs are actually in housing the inmates on death row rather than in ordinary maximum security confinement. Death row mainly involves a higher level of security, and that includes single-occupant cells rather than two-inmate cells. The premise of the cost savings is that murderers sentenced to life imprisonment rather than execution are safer, and hence may be mixed with the general inmate population. There are no grounds for that assumption. The convicted killer has a free pass to kill inmates or guards, or to escape and kill civilians. No extra penalty is available to deter such action, and data [5] shows there is serious threat. Con has offered as a solution to the problem of "free pass" killings is that extra-high security confinement be used to prevent it. That's exactly the cost that eliminating the death penalty is alleged to save. California is used as an example of the high costs. Virtually no one has been executed in California, due to obstructions sustained by California Courts. Consequently, nearly all inmates are kept in high security until they die of natural causes. Actually carrying out executions reduces those costs substantially. Ohio, for example, as much lower costs because they actually perform executions. A California official said, “They are much more willing to exercise their capital punishment system [in Ohio] than California, thus alleviating one of the pressures that our state wrestles with,” [9. http://www.bloomberg.com... ] The net result is a minor cost increase is suffered by extra scrutiny, but very substantial savings are obtained by not having to maintain the inmate in maximum security for a lifetime. The death penalty saves money. 1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be legal I cited the case of parents executed in front of their children by a contract killer, and asked if justice demand the death penalty. Con brushed aside the question and said that being confined for life was punishment enough. Well, who gets to ultimately decide what is adequate? Juries decide when justice demands the death penalty. [10. http://abcnews.go.com...] In a democracy, the public ought to decide. About two-thirds of the states have the death penalty. As to life being worse, even serial killers are willing to plea bargain to get rid of the possibility of a death sentence. Neither the public nor the killers are confused about the issue. 2+. Execution saves innocent lives Con has not presented a single case of an innocent person being freed. I carefully spelled out why the 17 cases were people who would not necessarily have been executed, and even the Innocence Project itself makes no claim of lives saved. Even though no cases of wrongful executions are established, I granted that there were likely a few. Con cites the page I referenced as having no killings by escapees after 1989. There are, however, killing of guards and inmates after that date, and those count as unnecessary deaths. However, I had noted that the page was an incomplete list. A web search reveals many recent cases. in 2008 an escape killed his wife and child http://www.denverpost.com... in 1997 an escapee killed his wife http://www.sacbee.com... in 2010, two escaped murderers killed an elderly couple http://www.blogforarizona.com... in 1999 a convicted murder killed a prison guard http://amarillo.com... I found eight additional cases of convicted murderers who escaped being recaptured before they killed again. Con's claim that modern technology precludes escape is wrong. No one keeps a careful list, so there are probably many more lives lost in avoiding executions. 3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics Con cites one case of a conviction that was overturned under scrutiny and no recent cases of false executions. Better forensics does not reduce the number of murderers caught and subject to execution. I eliminates false convictions, but DNA provides solid evidence to convict many others who would have gone free in past times. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error Con claims that automobiles provide a benefit in return for the 30,000 innocent lives lost, but he fails to see a benefit to executions. A primary benefit is that justice is done, but it also saves the lives of those the convicted would subsequently kill, it deters murder particularly by the incarcerated, it saves substantial amounts of money on holding murderers for life, and plea bargains save money, solve cases, and provide closure to victims families. 5+. Justice deters crime Con argues that it is Japanese culture that produces their low crime rate, not their use of the death penalty. But what is it about the culture that lowers crime rates? I don't see what racial minorities have to do with it. It isn't the death penalty by itself, but rather that the society as a whole cares a great deal about providing justice, and justice in proportion to the seriousness of the offense. Con points out that foreigners in Japan commit more crimes. Indeed, foreigners are unlikely to come from a culture so concerned with administering true justice, so they are more likely believe they can get away with commiting a serious crime. 6+. The death penalty supports plea bargaining Con argues plea bargaining can also occur under a life sentence. Right, "Plead guilty and we will give you a Kindle in your life sentence without parole. Otherwise go to trial and risk losing the Kindle." The prospect of death is more compelling. The leverage is so great that it alone is reason enough for having a death penalty. It works even if the death penalty is rarely carried out, because the downside to the felon is so great.