The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

I. The Right to DieTo be honest, this argument is rather silly. While I do personally believe that one has the right to die, there’s no need to organize and run a façade like the death penalty to handle the very few cases where criminals actually want to die. It could hardly even be considered a penalty if the criminal actually wants to die. Any cases like this should be handled privately instead of through the government, where the very same problems I described in my first argument would still apply. II. Purpose of JusticeMy opponent’s first part of his argument contradicts the second part. He first says that, in cases of murder, the murderer can do nothing to even partially replace what he took from the victim and his family. But then he argues that having the murderer executed is the only means by which the victim and his family can be avenged, even though he previously argued that nothing could avenge the murder. Even without this contradiction, the second part of my opponent’s argument relies on faulty moral arithmetic. Executing a murderer will do nothing to bring their victim back to life, and it will do nothing to bring their victim back to their family. All it will do is give the family a false sense of vengeance and retribution, which is clearly not the same as having the victim back. Thus, the death penalty in no way finds balance in the offence of murder. In fact, oftentimes, the families of the victims don’t want the death penalty. Darlene Farah, whose daughter was murdered, didn’t want the death penalty for the murderer. “Farah said, ‘I do not want my family to go through the years of trials and appeals that come with death-penalty cases. ’ Instead, she wants her family to be able to, ‘celebrate [Shelby's] life, honor her memory and begin the lengthy healing process. ’ Darlene Farah says her daughter would not have wanted the death penalty to be sought on her behalf, and ‘more killing in no way honors my daughter’s memory or provides solace to my family. ’”[1]III. Accrued CostI was actually going to put an argument on the costs of the death penalty in my original argument, but, due to space limitations, I was forced to omit it, as I liked the three arguments I put better. This is because, contrary to my opponent’s claims, a comparison between the death penalty and life without parole by cost actually favors the latter. Cost analyses have shown that, in a given year, Florida spends anywhere between $25 million and $50 million more than it would have if it had gone for life without parole instead of the death penalty, that, if Indiana had not had the death penalty over the course of its statehood, it would have saved $37.1 million, that Maryland spent $186 million more between 1978 and 1999 than it would have if all of the death penalty cases it prosecuted had instead been life without parole cases, and that California spends around $114 million a year more to prosecute death penalty cases than life without parole cases. Other studies have shown similar results for other states that have the death penalty. [2][3][4][5]It admittedly seems weird that this is the case, given that housing a prisoner for the rest of their life is expensive, and the death penalty should be rather cheap. However, there are a number of reasons the death penalty is more expensive than life without parole. In death penalty cases, compared to life without parole cases, lawyers spend a good deal more time looking over death penalty cases, the jury selection process is more complicated, the trial itself takes longer, and requires more expert testimony, and the appeals process is much more drawn out. All of this adds up to costing a good bit more than life without parole cases, even including the fact that some prisoners would have to be housed for 70 or 80 years. [6]My opponent mentions two things to try to counter my arguments here. One is a revision of the appeals process. To benefit my opponent, any plan would have to reduce the complexity and length of the appeals process. However, given that death penalty cases involve the potential for an innocent life to be taken, every safeguard should be in place to make such an outcome as unlikely as possible, and any additional costs that are accrued as a result of such a complicated appeals process are thus necessary. Revising the appeals process would likely condemn more innocent people than the death penalty currently does already. The other is that most studies don’t take into account the potential longevity of some prisoners. One, the source my opponent cites makes their case here on one study, even though I have directly cited four other studies, and indirectly cited another 30 or so. And two, the average life expectancy of natural life prisoners is 58 years, even though the average life expectancy of the average person is 78 years, so the fact that the population as a whole is getting older has little bearing on prisoners. In addition, while the life expectancy is increasing, it is likely that it is increasing at a far slower rate for natural life prisoners, and it is unlikely that any current or near future increases in housing costs for life prisoners will outweigh the increased cost of death penalty cases. [7]IV. DeterrenceThere is actually considerable evidence that shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent to capital crime. For one thing, a simple analysis of the murder rates of states with and without the death penalty shows that states without the death penalty have, on average, lower murder rates than states with the death penalty. The graph below shows this[8]: Nevertheless, there’s a chance that this fact is due to some other underlying variable (although that’s unlikely, given the fact that it’d have to causally affect a diverse set of states rather equally). However, one meta study found that the majority of studies say that the death penalty is no greater deterrent to murder than life without parole. In addition, a poll found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists believed that the death penalty was not an effective deterrent to crime any more so than any other punishment. [9][10]In addition, the specific study my opponent cites is flawed. The National Research council criticized the study’s methodology, specifically its use of instrumental variables. The report the NRC wrote said that, “The idea behind an instrument is to separate out the part of any observed relationship between the death penalty and homicide that is spurious (i. e. , resulting from the relationship of both to other factors) from the part of the relationship between the death penalty and homicide that is causal. ” The problem with the Emory University studies was that they assumed that the instrument itself didn’t influence the homicide rate, which is assuming too much. [11]Sources[1]: . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2]: . https://www.law.columbia.edu...[3]: . http://www.economist.com...[4]: . http://www.nytimes.com...[5]: . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[6]: . http://deathpenalty.org...[7]: . http://fairsentencingofyouth.org...[8]: . http://nmrepeal.org...[9]: . https://www.aclu-de.org...[10]: . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[11]: . https://www.law.upenn.edu...