Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

== Rebuttals == R1) Innocence My opponent argues lawyers could spend more time making sure innocents are not locked up forever if there is no death penalty. But as noted last round, the death penalty leads to more plea bargains. This means in some cases the DP reduces the amount of time a prosecutor is working on a trial. Further, as being locked up in prison is seen as less extreme than execution, the discretion in those trials is likely to be less. Indeed, as the anti-death penalty Innocence Project notes, prosecutors care more about winning than the truth [1]. So really any people put on death row who are innocent would likely locked up for life no questions asked otherwise. At least the death row system has an emphasis on appeals which reduce the chances of executing an innocent person. Our LWOP system has no such safeties. My opponent essentially argues even though the Gross study does not prove innocent people have been executed, the author thinks people have been executed. This essentially concedes that the claim is mostly hyperbole. My opponent does cite 4 examples, however. It must be noted, though, not one case of someone actually executed has been found innocent via DNA evidence. Indeed, most of the DP exonerations occurred before 1989, and in the 90s is when the DP really became widespread. If anything, this offers support for my position: that very few, if any, people in recent years have been wrongly executed. As Lott notes, the DP error rate is “less than 0.3 percent, and it is actually much lower than that, since many of the exonerations came from convictions that were made before 1989” [2]. The risk of executing an innocent is almost zero. R2) Costs Although the first studies I cited noted how the DP costed more (1.5 times more) it shows how plea bargains almost close the gap between DP costs and LWOP costs. And I noted how cost studies ignored multiple variables, used small sample sizes, etc. I cited research from a neutral academic noting the DP costs about the same as LWOP cases. My opponent drops this. Another study finds the cost of the DP to be 1-3 million dollars less costly than equivalent LWOP cases (assuming LWOP lasts 50 years) [3]. My opponent’s rebuttal to costs is lacking. I have provided evidence from multiple studies indicating the DP is either less costly or about the same as LWOP. So this argument fails to prove the DP should be abolished. I will put my deterrence arguments under C1 in order to avoid confusion--if I prove deterrence, I win this point. == Defense == C1) Deterrence Fagan’s point--that criminals do not respond to the death penalty--is wrong. A criminal is rational. They feel as though the benefits exceed the costs. And this is proven, in part, as to how criminals operate. Street thieves, for example, primarily kill old women. The weak [4]. There is no reason to assume murderers are different. Many murders occur in the midst of another crime. Thus, a large percentage of murderers have some rational element. It also must be noted some murderers are more intelligent than others. Premeditated murderers--which the DP is used against--tend to be fairly intelligent. As economist Joanna Shepard notes, “My results confirm that … people behave economically, weighing their actionsí costs and benefits.” [5] It also must be noted using monthly data you can pinpoint when deterrence occurs. It occurred directly after a person is executed--when it is publicized in newspapers, television, and on social media. This essentially proves the point that criminals--at least some criminals--are aware of their death penalty laws and react rationally in response. In fact, in Illinois, there are many cases of murderers telling reporters how they researched death penalty laws--and they murdered because there were no such laws [6]. My opponent drops the Ehrlich response, saying he finds it ‘humorous’. How is a scholar defending his work funny? My opponent criticizes econometric methods. But what must be noted is the critique occurred in 1996--after the majority of the research I am using was created. It applies only to Ehrlich. However, in 1999, Ehrlich and Liu published a study with totally different methodology. The study continued to find a deterrent effect [7]. Con also cites a lot of research claiming to find no effect. But much of this other research is extremely flawed. As Ehrlich notes, “In their efforts to obscure the empirical findings, they have selectively deleted observations, utilized an inferior regression specification, considered irrelevant variables and correlations, and revealed in the process misunderstanding of elementary statistical concepts” (emphasis added) [8]. Specifically in response to Passel and Taylor, it must be noted their study actually failed to recalculate FBI data. The FBI updated their data in the time frame of their study, and the FBI’s recalculations had a profound effect on the crime rate. Ehrlich is one of the only scholars who adjusted for these, his opponents often did not do so. His research more accurately depicts how the death penalty influences the crime rate. These other studies do not [9]. My opponent's Cloninger point really doesn’t harm my case. He admits his study is not bulletproof, but does suggest any neutral observer should take into account his findings. That quote fails to take into account the most recent studies. John Lott has actually determined the rise in the usage of the DP is responsible for 12-14% of the large homicide drop in the 90s. As Lott notes, “The vast majority of recent scholarly research confirms this deterrent effect” [10]. Now my opponent cites the NAS panel and cites it as if it is flawless. But the authors were nearly all criminologists--again, who do not understand econometrics--and all oppose the death penalty. And even then, although they claim methodology is lacking, admit there is some evidence of a deterrent effect. It also must be noted the NAS panel excluded 8 peer-reviewed studies for no good reason which found a deterrent effect. It ignored one finding no effect, and it ignored another non-peer reviewed study finding a deterrent effect. Thus, the NAS panel ignored 9 studies showing a deterrent effect! It only ignored one claiming no effect--though that study only looked into mass shootings. As Lott notes, “No explanation is provided for why these studies are excluded” [11]. In other words, the panel unjustly leaves out about half of the evidence proving a deterrent effect and concluded the DP may deter crime, but the evidence is weak. Of course that happens if you ignore the evidence! The NAS study also does not point out the methodological weaknesses in those claiming no effect. It accepts those almost uncritically. Studies claiming no effect often do not measure the execution rate correctly [11]. So this NAS panel really seems to be ideologically driven. To say 100% said the DP deterred *some* is an accurate conclusion. I did not say it deterred more than LWOP according to the study--merely that it had *some* effect. The article actually provides evidence, however, that the criminologist conclusion that LWOP is a stronger deterrent is false. The first is plea bargains. As criminals plead guilty more often in order to avoid death and instead get life sentences [12], that shows evidence that criminals fear death more than life. The conclusion the study found was (1) The DP deters some, and (2) Although criminologists favor LWOP, actual evidence suggests the DP is a stronger deterrent. And it is the evidence which matters, not expert opinion. And the evidenceshows the DP is a deterrent. C2) Recidivism My opponent wishes for an overhaul of the LWOP system. But if he does this, his entire case falls apart. If he can waive arguments by saying ‘reform it’, then both innocents and costs become a non-issue as we can reform both. So that means he has no arguments for abolition, and loses the debate. And if we do mend LWOP--they’re in there forever--the LWOP system is just as bad as the DP. Innocents get locked up forever and no rehabilitation is attempted. His reforms are just a DP system in another name. C3) Justice I could respond in the same way: you are paying for his death and he never sees light again. Isn’t that great?! The fact is, I don’t want to pay for them to be detained, I want them strung up. So his point really is a two way street. His next response is that roads are not comparable to human life. I never said they were. But the fact is your argument is NOT about life, but about people’s pocketbook. So the comparison in this instance is correct. Pro then states more people oppose the DP. If you think taxes are stealing, then robbing from anyone is immoral. So if even one person opposes the police or roadways, then the are immoral. But they are good because they provide a public good--safety and ease of transportation. The DP offers justice to those harmed, and prevents other innocents from dying via deterrence and incapacitation. My opponent drops my R1 arguments in relation to justice. == Conclusion ==(1) DP deters crime and saves lives(2) DP costs about the same as LWOP (3) DP saves more innocents than it takes away, and it is debatable as to how many people are actually innocent and executed--it is all speculation(4) DP is just (R1), and Con’s rebuttals to that point are weak. Vote Con. 1. http://goo.gl... 2. http://goo.gl... 3. http://goo.gl... 4. http://goo.gl... 5. http://goo.gl... 6. http://goo.gl... 7. Isaac Ehrlich and Zhiqiang Liu. “Sensitivity Analyses of the Deterrence Hypothesis: Let's Keep the Econ in Econometrics.” Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 42, No. 1 (1999): 455-87. 8. Issaac Ehrlich. “Deterrence: Evidence and Inference.” Yale Law Journal Vol. 85, No. 2 (1975). 9. Isaac Ehrlich. “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Reply.” The American Economic Review , Vol. 67, No. 3 (1977). 10. John Lott. Freedomnomics, pp 135. 11. http://goo.gl... 12. http://goo.gl...