Resolved: Capital punishment in Texas is unjust

I wish to make a note on the criterion used to judge the outcome of this debate. Utilitarianism is a broad term for a wide range of philosophical positions - in particular, there is wide disagreement over the 'utility' or 'good' that is to be maximised - it could be human welfare, preference satisfaction, pleasure or happiness etc. I trust this will not inhibit this debate too much, since we can get an intuitive understanding of what would be condemned by utilitarian standards generally, but it is worth keeping in mind the range of positions denoted by 'utilitarianism'. For the most part, I shall assume that the arguments I present will be tied to a utilitarian understanding of justice, but Con may challenge that assumption if he should wish. I will provide the positive arguments for the resolution, then respond to Con's arguments. Argument 1: The Death Penalty is far more expensive than life imprisonment Death penalty cases are much more expensive than ordinary murder cases; this is because of complex pre-trial motions, lengthy jury selections and expenses for expert witnesses. In addition, courts tend to follow heightened due process because of the irreversibility of the death penalty, drawing out the trial. After conviction, prosecution and defense costs must be paid for the constitutionally mandated appeals.In Kansas, a legislative audit found that the average cost of a death penalty case when compared to a similar non-death penalty case was 70 percent more. [1]; in Maryland, the figure is three times more [2].In addition, the majority of costs are still incurred regardless of the outcome. The true cost of the death penalty includes the costs not only of those trials which successfully execute the criminal in question, but those who are spared as well. Also importantly, if the defendant is convicted but not given the death penalty, the cost of life imprisonment must be paid on top of the trial expenses.A report by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice estimated these figures:1. The cost of the present death penalty system is $137 million per year.2. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year [3]Argument 2: The justice system is racist and excecutes innocent peopleNumerous studies have documented the racial discrimination found in the history of capital punishment. Far more blacks are excecuted relative to their population than white counterparts. This additionally cannot be justified by the claim that black undertake more, and more serious crimes. A study in Philladelphia showed that "blacks in Philadelphia were substantially more likely to get the death penalty than other defendants who committed similar murders." "Black defendants faced odds of receiving a death sentence that were 3.9 times higher than other similarly situated defendants"[4] A fundamental part of utilitarian systems is its impartiality - utility can be generated by anyone regardless of race or gender. By discriminating against and killing people because of their race, this principle is violated. It is difficult to judge how many people have been excecuted who were in actuality innocent - the number is certainly not zero, but it is difficult to determine since evidence is difficult to acquire once the defendant has been killed. In addition, courts have no desire to exonerate people they are responsible for ordering the deaths of. Despite that, there have been five people post-humerously exonerated after death and research indicates 74 innocent people have been excecuted in the period between 1989 and 2004. [5]Counterpoints:Counterpoint 1A: Capital punishment stops crime outside of prison.With regards to threats outside of prison, this is done just as well with life imprisonment. In addition, this opens the possibility of rehibilitation or exoneration of the defendant, whereas once someone is dead there is no possibility of either. Con argues that people have "a sense of safety" because of the death penalty - well personally I would not feel particularly safe if the state had the power to execute its citizens (I live in Britian, where it does not) but Con provides no evidence in any case. Why should citizens fear people who are locked away in maximum security prisons, and why should we not be afraid of being executed by the state, especially given the racial (and income) bias found in the justice system?Counterpoint 1B: Capital punishment stops crime inside of prisonWithout evidence, this really doesn't hold much weight. If such people are held in a maximum security facility the probability of them causing harm will be low. I don't really know the statistic here, so I don't know if people who would have been death row inmates pose a significant threat within prisons. Regardless, violence in prisons is simply inevitable. If we execute people because they have the potential to cause harm within prisons, we should execute people with lesser offences than those currently allowed - unless Con is willing to accept that everyone who could cause harm in prisons should be killed, this point is moot. Counterpoint 2: Capital punishment fits the means of a crimeAs far as I can tell, this contention is irrelevant - purely retributive justice generates no utility, and thus this contention should be dropped per the criterion used to judge this debate. Besides, this argument is absurd - should we rape people who are rapists? Rob the family of people who have robbed other people's families? Eye for an eye justice is a monstrous ideology: as Ghandi put it 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'. [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] http://www.urban.org...[3 http://www.ccfaj.org...[4] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 1 [5] http://www.the-slammer.org...;