Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

Last round focusing on more rebuttals and a few more mentionable points. ____ "At least the death row system has an emphasis on appeals which reduce the chances of executing an innocent person. Our LWOP system has no such safeties". My opponent seems to miss the point entirely. If there was no death penalty, lawyers would have more time and resources to review any evidence that appears in a LWOP case. It's a fact. Right now, as pointed out earlier, almost all the time of a defense lawyer is spent on death row cases. This means with a death penalty in place, many more inmates will be unjustly kept in prison. ____ My opponent does cite 4 examples, however. It must be noted, though, not one case of someone actually executed has been found innocent via DNA evidence. Indeed, most of the DP exoneration's occurred before 1989, and in the 90s is when the DP really became widespread. If anything, this offers support for my position: that very few, if any, people in recent years have been wrongly executed. As Lott notes, the DP error rate is “less than 0.3 percent, and it is actually much lower than that, since many of the exoneration's came from convictions that were made before 1989” [2]. This is just flat out wrong. My opponent mentions that none of them were exonerated. This, in many of the cases, was in spite of the DNA evidence. My opponent seems to forgets who does the exonerating. Of course States that accidentally kill people who are innocent are going to criticize and undermine evidence pointing it out. All the while he is still comfortable with the risk of killing an innocent because he feels its unlikely. ____ "it shows how plea bargains almost close the gap between DP costs and LWOP costs" My opponents entire argument for this round has come from a single source which I must believe is estimating costs once again, on very selective amounts of information. In terms of cost, all the numbers present in Cons source are wonderful, but they are generated by a group called Pro Death Penalty .com. Numerous State legislature committees have done cost analysis on their states death penalty cases and overall costs to the state each year. These numbers are up to the year 2014. Each state found on average the death penalty cases cost much more even with plea bargains leading to a different sentencing. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... New York since introducing the death penalty has wasted 170 millions dollars on sentencing without executing a single person. __ California has spent 4 billion dollars executing 13 people. They spend millions a year to house and legally manage their enormous death row populace of over 700 inmates. __ In my home state of Maryland the base cost of the death penalty before an inmates stay in prison is approximately 1.9 million dollars. - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... __ The high cost of capital punishment has literally forced many counties to raise taxes or cut funds to public projects according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. - http://www.nber.org... I guess human lives have some relation to roads after all. ___ According to a committee formed by the Indiana state legislature the death penalty costs 38% more than a LWOP sentence. ____ Consider also the 150 inmates who were exonerated still alive. Take account the average cost of their cases being 1.5 million dollars. 225 million dollars spent to convict innocent people. The average time they spent behind bars was 11 years. ____ States that have huge death row populations have been able to admit the financial burden based on their own numbers. I'll continue to take their word for it. ____ "C1) Deterrence" "agan’s point--that criminals do not respond to the death penalty--is wrong. A criminal is rational. They feel as though the benefits exceed the costs. And this is proved, in part, as to how criminals operate." Con, that right there is a statement. For it to be an argument you must produce evidence or some sort of verifiable support to that statement. Unfortunately for you there is no existing study that has ever determined your statement to be the truth. You cite Shepards remarks on how to tell when deterrence occurred. The reality is that you cannot determine objectively that deterrence occurred. You can determine that in a certain time frame there is less or more crime. To say that deterrence occurred is purely speculative and that's all it can ever be if you rely on arbitrary fluctuating numbers. I might add that those numbers are exactly why people who use your model in finding deterrence end up with different results based on their agenda/bias etc. _____ "My opponent criticizes econometric methods. But what must be noted is the critique occurred in 1996--after the majority of the research I am using was created. It applies only to Ehrlich. However, in 1999, Ehrlich and Liu published a study with totally different methodology. The study continued to find a deterrent effect" I'm sorry con but the most recent study done in 2012 by the National Research Council has also determined the faulty of deterrence models and has stated that the findings done by any econometrician, whether in favor or against the death penalty, should not be used to influence public policy the main faulty in summary being that, "they use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers’ perceptions of and response to the capital punishment component of a sanction regime. In addition, the existing studies use strong and unverifiable assumptions to identify the effects of capital punishment on homicides." Let me remind the voters that the NRC was disappointed with these findings stating that, "The committee was disappointed to reach the conclusion that research conducted in the 30 years since the earlier NRC report has not sufficiently advanced knowledge to allow a conclusion, however qualified, about the effect of the death penalty on homicide rates." Essentially they are saying based on the evidence available we cant claim there is any deterrence effect. They also claim that using similar models to the ones con has provided we cannot determine there is not effect. It is as I have said, indeterminable. http://www.nap.edu... ___ "My opponent wishes for an overhaul of the LWOP system. But if he does this, his entire case falls apart. If he can waive arguments by saying ‘reform it’, then both innocents and costs become a non-issue as we can reform both. So that means he has no arguments for abolition, and loses the debate. And if we do mend LWOP--they’re in there forever--the LWOP system is just as bad as the DP. Innocents get locked up forever and no rehabilitation is attempted. His reforms are just a DP system in another name." No con, my intention is not to "waive" the argument. My intention is to point out that just as reforms can be made to the death penalty to prevent wrongful convictions or execution, reforms can be made to LWOP to ensure no possibility of recidivism for those convicted. I'm saying its just as possible as the death penalty being a perfect sentencing. ___ " I could respond in the same way: you are paying for his death and he never sees light again. Isn’t that great?! The fact is, I don’t want to pay for them to be detained, I want them strung up. So his point really is a two way street. " Con claims that my point is a two way street because he can word his reasoning similar to mine. This is a fundamentally flawed argument because it assumes wording is what makes the argument substantive. My point firstly being that a lifetime of never knowing freedom is better than only a decade of not knowing freedom based on how long it takes to be executed (in some of the faster circumstances). Con I was making the point that once they die, all the consequence they know is gone. As long as they are conscious they can experience their punishment and paying for them to rot in jail for a lifetime to regret and to grieve their lost life is a much more appropriate punishment than death. In my eyes death is too merciful a punishment. :) ___ "Pro then states more people oppose the DP" I did not say this at all. I said there are millions in the United States who find the execution of a human being immoral and abhorrent. ___ "My opponent drops my R1 arguments in relation to justice." Con, when we as a society condone the killing of another human being, we condone the idea perpetuated by murderers which is that there are circumstances in which it is ok to kill a human being who is not an immediate danger to us. The only morally justified harm that can be brought to someone is in defense of your life, liberty, and property. A prisoner cannot take those away from you once they are behind bars. ___ Con at one point said criminologists don't know enough about the death penalty. Criminology definition: The scientific study of criminals, criminal behavior, and corrections. I don't know. I feel like they might actually have some bearing on the subject con. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... In Conclusion: (1) Deterrence has been proved indeterminable by a non partisan group. (2) DP can (and has)cost states much more money than LWOP and at the very least have disrupted funds necessary for other things in local cities and counties. (3) Taxpayer dollars have gone to incarcerating and ultimately executing innocent Americans. Cons response to this was that if the government says nuh uh then it didn't happen. (4) Government shouldn't be given the precedent to kill its citizenry when they don't present an immediate threat. (5) For these reasons the death penalty should be abolished. ___ really enjoyed this debate and I want to thank 16Kadams for making a good one! Have some Creedence: