The United States should Abolish the Death Penalty

"Is it really just bare assertions? IS that not how philosophy woks?" A. You made a claim the death penalty works to deter crime using a quote, but didn't cite a source so we could review the study, therefore we can disregard that, since you did not give us a chance to check its validity. "If just a jail time deters people, what more would death penalty?" A. I have no clue what you really mean there, but you were making a point that having the death penalty increases the rate at which violent criminals are found and arrested which is completely asinine itself and then gave no evidence for this. Well your source is 46 pages long, I won't bother. However, I think my evidence that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent is enough. "...affects the cop, and in turn would also affect possible criminals. I do not agree with the rational choice theory because if it was true, then the evidence would show that states with the death penalty have lower homicide rates. "Do you have evidence of so? If you are allowed to ask for evidence, then I should be allowed to, too. Also, if such evidences are available, I'd like to refute your second part." A. I did give you evidence, I gave you a graph (or a link to it) that shows states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates every year for the last 25 years, so clearly it has not been very effective as a deterrent, but I could give you more. The opinions of top criminologists: A study conducted by Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock surveyed some top criminologists in the country, criminologists who won the Sutherland award at the American Society of Criminology, and and presidents of the society since 1997. The study found that when asked if they believe the death penalty is a deterrent, 88% of them said no, while only 5% said yes, with 7% being indifferent. What we can conclude from this is some of the best criminologists in the country actually believe the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. But it gets worse, when asked if they thought there was good empirical evidence to support it is a deterrent... 94% said no, so even many criminologists who believe the death penalty works as a deterrent agree there is not much evidence to support that claim. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... The opinions of police chiefs: In a 2009 study, police chiefs in the country were surveyed on if they believe the death penalty works as a deterrent, 37% said yes, while 48% said no. So both criminologists and police chiefs agree, no it does not work as a deterrent. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... North Carolina empirical evidence: No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006, and the last death penalty sentence was given in 2012. However, since execution has stopped, state murder rates have declined. If cons argument was true then murder rates would have went up. Also, another comment on the rational theory thing earlier, most people given the death penalty do it "...in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness." So the idea that all people considering homicide think rationally is asinine. http://nccadp.org... I could have even more at the request of con. "False. If evidences are available, then we're can't give all the credits to the death penalty, but we can still give partial credits to death penalty. The fact is murder rates did decrease coincidentally after death penalty was introduced." A. No but come on man, if that was true, states with the death penalty would have decreased in homicide rates, while states without it would have remained stagnant. But this just isn't true. Since all states declined, and states without the death penalty actually declined at a faster rate, we know this is false. If the death penalty deterred homicide, then those states would have decreased at a faster rate, but they decreased at a slower rate. "But from the graph, you can see that death penalty did drop! It had lower rates because it always had lower rates." A. But pal if what your saying had any validity, then since the death penalty deters crime better than life sentences, than those states would have dropped faster, but they dropped slower, and the margin of higher homicide in those states actually grew. What we understand from this is that whatever caused crimes to decrease was not the death penalty, as that would have led to a very high decrease with your logic, but it was actually a slower rate than states without the death penalty. "As for retribution not justifying the lives of innocent people, I'd like to use your own words against you." A. Me making that point was mostly me just saying that if it is for retribution but sometimes innocent people get killed it is clearly counter productive. If you are trying to say that innocent people getting killed with the death penalty, then it's wrong, I gave evidence for that. "Accidentally executing innocent people will be rebutted in a whole different header." A. OOoohhhhhhh scary. To clarify there has been about 23 people that have been proven to be innocent, but there is most likely much more that slipped through the cracks, as hundreds have been exonerated. "How does it cost more? Where does the cost go to? Why does it cost more? I said to elaborate more on why it cost more the beginning of my round... Without any evidence all I can say is saying the death penalty costs u to 5 times more." A. Here they pretend like I gave no evidence that the death penalty costs more, which is 100% inaccurate. But I will do it again. First let me explain why a capital punishment case costs more, in a capital punishment case: two attorneys are required paid at a higher price and a team of legal experts, extra payments to jurors, the expense of appeals and sentencing hearings, and the cost to house people convicted, where prisoners much actually stay in special units that cost more for extra security, some times for decades. So this is why the death penalty costs more, now the numbers again. http://nccadp.org... The death penalty costs between $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 in tax revenue for each death penalty case, for the reasons I stated, while an average life sentence of 40 years in prison costs $1,000,000-$1,250,000. http://okcadp.org... So yes it does cost more. "Furthermore, pro has failed to rebut my point on how the state has the right to take away lives, it would mean that he doesn't oppose this idea." A. Well if the death penalty is in practice, (which I don't agree with) then it should be at a state level. However this is irrelevant because we are arguing over is the death penalty a good idea as it is practiced in the U.S today. Look I already gave you empirical and logical evidence as to why murder rates go down with our without the death penalty, and recent history shows they actually decrease much faster without the death penalty, as the margin between states with the death penalty homicide rates and ones without has actually grew larger from 1990 to 2014. So what my opponent says at the end is fundamentally flawed, as his evidence is simply when the death penalty started murder rates decreased in those states, but from the fact that this trend went on in states with and without the death penalty we can conclude this was not due to the death penalty. Whether the death penalty is evil or not is subjective.