The death penalty should be abolished

This should be fun :DDP = Death Penalty>Rebuttals C1: Deterrence A. 88% of criminologistsThis is actually a fallacy, also known as appeal to authority. Here is how the fallacy goes: A is an expert in C. A says C is true. Therefore C is true [1]. My opponent says they are the experts, and they say the DP is not a deterrent, therefore it is not a deterrent. This is a direct violation of that fallacy, and therefore fails. B. States with capital punishment have higher crimeThis argument is very weak, due to the fact it fails to look into past crime cycles in these areas. This simple comparison, as economist John Lott notes, proves nothing. The states without the DP have long enjoyed lower crime rates before they banned the DP. As John Lott noted in his Fox News opinion article:"The 12 states without the death penalty have long enjoyed relatively low murder rates due to factors unrelated to capital punishment. When the death penalty was suspended nationwide from 1968 to 1976, the murder rate in these 12 states still was lower than in most other states. What is much more important is that the states that re-instituted the death penalty had about a 38 percent larger drop in murder rates by 1998. [...] Overall, the rise in executions during the 1990s accounts for about 12 to 14 percent of the overall drop in murders."[2]He is essentially saying the states with no DP have low crime rates for other reasons not concerning the death penalty, whereas the states with the death penalty have always had high crime rates for other reasons. He then showed using common statistics that the moratorium of the DP in the 70s caused higher murder rates and when the states where allowed to have that option again the states that made the change had larger drops in violent crime then the states without it. Another good objection is that of Wesley Lowes:"Others say that states which do have the death penalty have higher crime rates than those that don't, that a more severe punishment only inspires more severe crimes. I must point out that every state in the union is different. These differences include the populations, number of cities, and yes, the crime rates. Strongly urbanized states are more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are more rural, such as those that lack capital punishment. The states that have capital punishment are compelled to have it due to their higher crime rates, not the other way around."[3]Not only does it fail to take into the fact these states have always had these crime rates, but that it also fails to take into account other factors such as population, economies, education etc. This argument is an abysmal failure when it comes to statistics. C. Non-Conclusive evidence If you review 30 years of data, the best objection to deterrence is the one my opponent brought forth: there is conflicting evidence. Though this argument also fails, miserably. Many studies that have looked into the deterrent effect have clear bias. For example, the american society of criminology has a page titled "Anti-Capital Punishment resources".[4] But studies arguing that it decreases crime show a different story. As Naci Moacan argued:"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it. The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect. ...I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) _ what am I going to do, hide them?" His results in his studies show each execution saves 5 lives [5]. May I also note 9/12 studies since 2001 have had similar conclusions, the DP saves lives [2]. Other studies have shown the Illinois Moratorium of 2000 lead to 150 more homicides then what would have been if the DP stayed in place, and that for every 2.75 years you took off of time on death row another murder was prevented [6].C2: The DP is racistA. RaceWhen looking t my opponents basic statistics this conclusion may look convincing, but it is false. It is indeed true that most people sentenced to death row are black, but is that racist? Blacks actually commit many more murders then any white person. Blacks represent 47% of all murderers, and whites 37%. African Americans also represent 35% of those executed, whites 56%. Also whites are executed faster, 17 months faster. This means Blacks likely have a LONGER appeals process, which seems fair to me [7]. Also:"In Baldus' Philadelphia study, we find that if only 2% more white murderers had been sentenced to death and only 2.5% fewer black murderers had been sentenced to death, then each group would have been sentenced to death by juries at the same rate..."[7]Also what it interesting even if my opponents statistics are true, the DP helps blacks more then any other race. Onstudy concluded:"[...]Second, executions deter the murder of whites and African-Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African-Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races..."[8]As we can see, the DP does not harm minorities. B. Defense Council He notes that if they only have one lawyer, likely due to money reasons, they are more likely to be executed. This is the defendants fault, not the states. The defendant could have asked for a lawyer paid for by the state, which in modern times are generally as good as any private lawyer[s]. There they could have gotten many lawyers, for free! This point is a moot. C3: CostThis point needn't be rebutted straight up. But this only looks into individual cases, not the overall picture. For example, the DP serves as a plea bargain. Many times these criminals plead guilty to avoid a death sentence, which avoids the cost of the trial completely. 50% of DP cases resulted in plea bargains, whereas in states with no DP the number was 40% [9]. Further, the DP is only expensive because we make it that expensive. (trials etc.) If we wanted too the DP could cost almost nothing! Meaning reforming the DP, not abolishing it would better better option if you're worried about costs. Also note many studies have been conducted, and when you add all of their data together the DP over time costs less then an average LWOP sentence [9].=> CaseC1: Deterrence The logic behind deterrence dates too 1968. Gary Becker's Study, using deterrence theory, shows criminals fear death and act like normal people. They respond to the costs and benefits [10]. Early DP research conducted by Isaac Ehrlich found the DP had a very strong deterrent effect, and was effective in slowing the rise in murder rates [11]. Other studies found each execution saved 14 lives, Another study found each execution saved 5 lives [12][13].C2: Recidivism Murderers in LWOP often get out of jail, many of them commit more murders. The DP would make it impossible for this to happen and then save lives [14].* almost out of room*Conclusion: I had one more contention but have no more room.A human life is the most valuable thing on earth, an innocent one is anyway. My opponent must prove his system is more valuable then a human life because the DP does save lives. Voters, ask does my opponents case:1. does his C2 & 3 outweigh the lives saved through recidivism and deterence?-> NoVote CON[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] Gary S. Becker, "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," Journal of Political Economy, (1968)[11] Isaac Ehrlich, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," American Economic Review, (1975)[12] H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings, "Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment," Journal of Law and Economics, (2003)[13] Paul R. Zimmerman, "State Executions, Deterrence, and the Incidence of Murder," Journal of Applied Economics, (May 2004)[14] http://tinyurl.com...