Resolved: The US should abolish capital punishment.

Innocent LivesThe innocent lives argument can extend to criminal justice in general. While there is no consensus on the numbers (as innocence in general criminal cases is not as well-documented as DP cases), there is at least concurrence that innocent people are convicted, to the tune of several thousand (1). Even in Pro's ideal society where justice is rehabilitative, these individuals are still being stripped of their rights by virtue of restriction of movement, privacy, and other rights. The question of what is a "worse" violation of rights is irrelevant; a violation is a violation, and by supporting any system in which a violation occurs, Pro thusly agrees to the principle that innocent people may rightly be deprived of their rights in the criminal justice system. Questions of atonement for wrongful conviction are irrelevant--no amount of money or career training can make up for the losses of time and experiences an innocent person suffers in the legal system. Every year in the system increases the odds of a divorce by an average of 32% (2). Any attempt at atonement is just that--an attempt, and nothing more. That doesn't mean atonement is wrong, but it is obviously insufficient and the government has still done net harm to any individual it wrongly imprisons. Yet, for the legal system to work, we have to allow the risk.In the US legal system, people ought to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; this is the system that best prevents wrongful conviction. If one truly values stopping wrongful convictions, one should work to provide better public defenders and other resources toward a fair trial. In Florida in 2009, each public defender had an annual caseload of over 2725 cases, and were in some instances only able to spend an hour on each case (3). This is particularly alarming in light of the fact that between sixty and ninety percent of defendants need publicly-funded attorneys, and over ninety percent of those cases are resolved by guilty pleas; in 2007, 40% of public defender offices also had no investigators (4). We should make every effort to ensure that criminals receive a fair trial; we should not eliminate the concept of justice from our lexicon just because some innocents might be executed. It is worth noting that DP cases receive far more scrutiny than other--they have procedures and an appeals process that last for years.Furthermore, Pro's claim that the ending of innocent lives is contrary to "innocent until proven guilty" is nonsense. Those people go through the same legal system as everyone else, they must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they are convicted. The US government doesn't execute people it thinks are innocent; it executes those legally proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. InjusticesThe point about systemic bias is a credible criticism of the legal system as a whole, not the DP. Simply fixing the public defender system, as noted above, solves for the bias against the poor. Pro does not adequately explain why the DP is racist in itself (or how the present-day legal system is in fact biased; Pro simply lists examples without interpretation)--if we solve for any racial bias in the legal system, we solve for this issue.Pro does not explain what preventing cruel and unusual punishment entails, making their definition of the term circular--botched injections and psychological stress are cruel and unusual punishment because they're cruel and unusual, in Pro's world. Accidents are not cruel and unusual punishment, because even if they occur during the punishment itself, they are not the punishment, but an unintentional side effect. Regardless, we can solve for all of these issues and still have the DP. Pro kindly noted various execution methods with lower accident rates, a drug to render the subject unconscious, stoppage of mock executions, and better privacy for those who have to testify again as various reforms that would make the punishment presumably not cruel or unusual.Justice for AllThe DP ought to be separated from retributive justice as a whole. The overall retributive justice system suffers from several issues--its criminalization of offenses that are not wrong (drug use, for instance), and ineffectual treatment of those serving time, leading to recidivism rates of over 75% (5). The DP does neither of those things--it is in effect for wrong deeds (murder), and it has a recidivism rate of 0% (dead men commit no crimes). Its deterrence rate has been demonstrated (and we shall defend it here as well). Connecting the DP with the War on Drugs and other failures of the legal system is simply wrong--we are examining the effects of the DP itself, not arguing about whether the status quo of the US justice system is good (it isn't). The criticism that attempts to tie the DP fundamentally to the current system is flawed--the fact that it "sends a message to other criminals that there is a line [that, when crossed], the criminal justice system will [kill] them," is exactly the point, no matter what treatment of other crimes is. That's what deterrence is. We can have a society that is rehabilitative to an extent, but still possesses a line in the sand to deter the worst of crimes. Saying that the USFG "dooms" rapists and murderers with the DP is an exercise in melodrama--those criminals forfeited their rights by committing a crime, and we have a social duty to prevent those crimes from reoccuring in the future. The DP is the best way to do that.DP MoralityPro's argument against the morality of the DP fails for several reasons:1. The USFG is not committing "murder" in an execution--murder is the wrongful taking of another's life, while executions are justified by the undertaking and severity of the crime2. People do benefit from the DP--those whose lives are saved by deterred murders.3. Pro never disputes the point that criminals do not have rights adequately--their claim that the comparison is unequal is irrelevant. To adopt the mindset that all rights are inalienable, but that some are more inalienable than others is to undermine the very foundation of constitutional rights. Thus, Pro must concur that criminals sacrifice their rights by committing a crime.Deterrence Pro attempts to discredit deterrence by providing a theoretical argument for why it should fail with regards to crimes of passion. There is in fact still reason to accept the rational choice theory:"Economic agents are subject to social pressure and emotions: This is, in fact rational because the behavior is performed as self-protection. Larrick (1993) has characterized numerous sources of human motivation that stem from both physical and psychological sources. One example of such an influence can be seen in close athletic competitions where the consequences of a referee’s decisions may have heated outcomes. Referees that govern such competitions have previously been victims to threats and murders, so the instinct to protect their safety is natural and definitely rational. A preoccupation for self-protection may subsequently influence the decisions that are made throughout the competition. From the latter, needs for self-protection and affiliation are considered common and can be considered a rational source of motivation. Although various behaviors like self-control, helping others in need, and dietary selection are likely to be respectively influenced by social and emotional states such Research in Business and Economics Journal - Special Edition Florida Economic Symposium 6 as temptation, empathy, and hunger (e.g. Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990; Laeng, Berridge, & Butter, 1993; Turner & Oakes, 2011;), all of these are factors are also affected by self-serving utility (e.g., Turner & Oaks, 2011; Mattes, 1994) . Utility theory can never explain why an economic agent derives utility from a choice, as it can only predict how the agent will behave rationally with respect to a choice. Thus, any individual agent behavior is assumed to be ultimately determined by the perceived benefits/concerns of the individual rather than direct concern for ambient social and emotional circumstances" (6).Empirically, this is also proven. Shepherd shows that the DP does in fact deter crimes of passion, while also controlling for economic variables (7).Pro also ignored our Luis Vera example, so we have proven grounds for a murderer to be deterred by the DP, and as our statistics are reliable (Pro did not contest the number itself, only its causal nature) have this theoretically solid backing, the relationship between the DP and deterrence is proven.Don't vote for a world that lets the innocent die so that the guilty may live.Sources:1. https://www.washingtonpost.com...2. http://criminology.fsu.edu...3. https://www.acslaw.org...4. 5. http://www.nij.gov...6. http://www.aabri.com...7. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu... (page 29)