Death Penalty

It is more costly because you can not free a dead man, which means that all appeals must be exhausted before sentencing is carried out. It is more costly because a person who is to be executed needs to be guarded more closely. It is more costly because someone dies, and that costs a life. " Can you prove that this is more costly than my number in R2? The number in my round 2 doesn't even take in the costs of medicine and some other expensive things. I also did not take into account in my number, the costs of additional prisons that would have to made to hold these people who do not deserve to live. "This is a separate argument for the death penalty. It is one of modification rather than continuation. I will answer it regardless, but I fail to see how it supports your resolution that the death penalty remain in the United States. " I was making a side opinion I wasn't intending for you to answer it, but since you replied I will address it. "Would we save money if we immediately killed those convicted of murder the first time, assuming no appeal? Yes. We would also have a 12% chance of killing an innocent. " You would need very strong undoubtable evidence to convict somebody of the crime. With strong undoubtable evidence especially with the technological advances such as IDing with finger prints and hair. I seriously doubt its as high as high as 12%. I would like for you to post your source so I can better refute your argument. "Furthermore, it is unconstitutional. You can not deprive a person of life or liberty without applying due process of the law" The death penalty most definitely not unconstitutional. You say that you cannot deprive somebody of life or liberty without applying the due process of law. But criminals lose some legal rights when they decide to break the law. For example if you are convicted of a felon you lose your voting right. If you murder somebody similarly you lose your right to life. "It is a matter of fact. In every state that has abolished the death penalty, murder rates have decreased. This is not proof that the death penalty causes murder. It is however proof that there is no correlation between the death penalty and the prevention of murder. " I am not sure why murder rates have slightly decreased in these states but I am sure its do to other reasons other then abolishing the death penalty. If you want to examine the true effects of the death penalty you should study the effects of it on a nationwide level. Emory University did a recent study on capital punishment determining whether it is indeed a deterrent. The conclusion they came up with was yes it is indeed a deterrent. If you look at the number of executions in between the years 1930-2001 you will notice something interesting. As the number of executions went down Murder rates rose significantly. When executions started rising in the early 90's to the year 2000 murder rates began to decline. Why is this? . http://wiki.idebate.org... Many other similar studies have concluded the same thing. . http://www.redorbit.com... Here are a couple of quotes by the people who have done the study. Naci Mocan(economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. ) "The results are robust, they don't really go away" "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) - what am I going to do, hide them? " Here are other conclusions by the many studies since the year 2001. " Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14). " "Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor" There are many other statements and quotes made by professors who have studied the issue. Read all about it. . http://www.redorbit.com... "A murderer does not get to justify his murders by saying they were mostly bad guys. Neither should the state. " Murder is the key word here. You can legally KILL somebody if its in self defense. The state legally kills people to prevent those people from killing innocent lives. "Please explain the source of the purported moral decline of the United States. If you think it is a lack of faith, I'm sorry to say it isn't. " I never said the moral decline was due to lack of faith please do not put words in my mouth. The crime rate has been steadily increasing since the 1960's all the way till it is now. Rape is on the rise, burglary is on the rise, almost every crime you can think of is on the rise. I think one can argue that there is a moral decline in the nation. Could it be do to loss of faith? Maybe but that is not what I'm arguing. I am simply throwing the fact out there that there is a notable decline of morals in the nation. . http://www.leaderu.com... "You are wrong. North Carolina is a death penalty state on the graph you cited. It still has the death penalty. " I misunderstood what my source said I apologise for that. One of my sources said that North Carolina banned "some" executions. But you can still see how the fewer executions in the state lead to more murders.