Capital Punishment

Deterrence First off, let's get one thing straight that you'd already be aware of if you'd read my previous post, my entire case from the start has been that DP does not affect homicide rates. It does not affect it in DP states and obviously does not affect it in non-DP states, criminals do not care. You accuse me of cherry-picking from your Fox News article, but actually if you'd fully read my post you'll see that I agree with the part you wrongly accused me of leaving out. Now, onto my argument... The entire foundation of Pro's argument for deterrence is based on three things: The refutation of any state/regional comparison due to extraneous variables. More execution equals greater deterrence. A lone Fox News article stating that from an unspecified year between 1968-1976 and the year 1998 there has been a 38% drop in the murder rate of unspecified DP states. I still do not agree with Pro's condemnation of state-comparison due to extraneous variables, due to the fact that even more variables are encountered when you consider the fact that you are comparing different time periods, crime in 1968 and crime in 1998 are obviously far from comparable. All of the variables you cited (“the arrest rates, conviction rates, drug usage rates, population rate, urbanization rate, type of legal system, gun laws, etc”) have changed vastly over time within the states, just as they do geographically. Nevertheless, I will conform to Pro's inane rules and base my argument only on individual states and their trends over time. Just so everybody knows DP prohibition means the time between 1968 – 1976 in which no executions took place in the US. According to your deterrent logic Texas, as America's most prolific executor (1), should show a significant drop in homicide since the DP prohibition. In 1972, a year I'm choosing due to the fact that it was the median homicide-rate year of the prohibition, the murder rate was 1,440. (2) In 1996 the murder rate was 1,447. Through the entire 1980's and up until 1994 the murder rate topped 2,000 (with the exception of 1987.) 1998 was the year Fox News cited as the one in which the 38% drop had occurred. If states which use DP most get the biggest deterrence effect then Texas should've received at least 38%, but at 1,346 it was hardly substantial. It was marginally less than 1972 but more than 1970 (1,299). I am using your type of statistics and rules here to prove my argument. In fact, 1997 was the first year since 1972 where the homicide rate has been lower! That means that in the 25 years of DP in the biggest DP user the homicide rate was higher than during prohibition! (2) This evidence against deterrence is beyond conclusive. Innocents This argument Pro is posing is pretty low. He maintains that due to the fact that only 69 truly innocent individuals that we know of could have been murdered by the state since 1973 then this is acceptable. Of course it isn't, this 'if you want to make an omelette you have to break some eggs' attitude shrugs off the possible executions of 69 people by the apparent 'justice' system. We have no idea how many innocents have actually been executed for no crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time as the cases of executed individuals are almost never reopened. Pro reverts back to the 99% argument, seemingly having missed my point in my previous post. My point was that the 99% should not be claimed for DP as a plus but instead the US court system. It's not DP has a 99% accuracy rate, it's the US courts have a 99% accuracy rate. Of course, if life without parole was the option instead of DP then the amount of people killed unjustly would be 0, those who were wrongly accused could fight for their freedom without a death sentence hanging over their heads and more innocents wouldn't continue to go under the radar. I suppose the question is: Do you believe the inevitable execution of dozens of innocent people is worth it so that the state can take revenge on murderers by murdering them back instead of a simple life sentence? Recidivism According to the source you provided, 52,000 prisoners were serving time for murder in 1984, 810 murdered again when they were released, that's 1.5% of them. Also, sources show that of the roughly 22,000 murders a year in the US, only 150 of the murderers receive the death penalty. (3) If you apply the established 1.5% to this 150 then you see that only 2.25 recidivist murders occur per year in the entire US! The crux of Pro's argument seems to be that if that 810 had got DP then they would not have murdered again, this is true. However, to be sure that you get that 810 within the 52,000 then you would need to execute every single one. So if all of those 52,000 were executed for their murders it would mean the 821 murder victims were saved but it would still mean 51,190 potentially rehabilitated individuals would be killed as a preventative measure for a recidivism that never would have happened. Is this a sensible argument? No! Constitution Dignity - The state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect. (9) Actually, contrary to what you claimed, electrocution and the gas chamber are still in use in the United States. Nine states still hold electrocution as a method and four states still hold the gas chamber as a secondary method (4), therefore the twelve botched executions by these methods are still relevant, along with the overwhelming 31 by lethal injection. The biggest mistake you continue to make with your argument is that you're arguing for the method as it is supposed to be carried out and not as it often is carried out. I am going to list the four principles Justice Brennan cited as the defining of Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture. A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in an arbitrary fashion. A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society. A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary. (5) As I cited in my previous post, a study in The Lancet found that "88% of inmates receiving the lethal injection were given a lower amount of anaesthesia than someone would be given during surgery, with 43% having concentrations consistent with awareness." (6) After the anaesthesia phase a drug called pancuronium bromide is administered (7), which completely paralyses every muscle in the individuals body rendering them unable to even breathe. Carol Vera, a woman who underwent an operation on her eyes, was given pancuronium bromide to paralyse her when she had not been properly sedated. She described the feeling of the drug being injected as like “ignited jet fuel going through your body.” (8) Therefore, given the fact that 88% of prisoners are not even given enough anaesthesia as required for surgery and 43% are completely awake, this provides a horrifying picture of just how cruel lethal injection is. Also, due to the lack of medical professionals willing to supervise (proven in previous post), this faulty method will continue. This method, due to it's inherently cruel nature, certainly does not meet the "essential predicate" of treating someone with respect. With the varying rate of anaesthesia, as well as it being often being performed completely wrongly as cited in the "botched executions" list, it could also certainly be deemed to be carried out in an arbitrary fashion. It's obvious that giving someone intense tortuous pain during execution would be rejected throughout society, putting someone in such pain could also very easily be deemed unnecessary, seeing as DP's objective is to humanely kill, not torture. Sources in comments.