The US should abolish capital punishment

OBV 1 My opponent by silence has accepted that a utilitarian framework is best that I have outline in the observation I made before my rebuttals. With this in mind, we still need to see that the Con wins. OBV 2 I agree to drop the point about cost because it should not be a factor in today’s debate. Counter-Rebuttal 1: Deterrent effect My opponent seems to be under the assumption that the rational action theory is false. However, allow me to explain why the premise I presented is true. Remember, the rational action theory states that people act rationally, under the circumstances given. If this is not true, then everybody would have the potential to murder under the right circumstances that make someone have a lapse in judgement. However, this is not the main point. The fact is that homicides of passion usually do not result in the death penalty from being administered. If we were to observe Crime and Consequences in 2012, we would see the following: “Capital murder generally involves a premeditated killing or a killing in the course of another crime that is premeditated. ” . http://www.crimeandconsequences.com... This shows that my opponent’s argument falls because it hinges on the assumption that crimes of passion would result in the capital punishment being administered. However, there is good news. According to a University of Chicago study in 2004, we can clearly see that regardless of the arguments of my opponent, crimes of passion are reduced as well as premeditated murder. Not only this, but life in prison simply does not have the same deterrence effect as the death penalty. This is also explained by the Heritage Foundation where it has stated that “First, each execution, on average, is associated with three fewer murders. The deterred murders included both crimes of passion and murders by intimates. ” . http://www.heritage.org... . http://www.jstor.org... This proves the fact that the econometric model used to show how criminals weigh the pros and cons of an action in accurate. Counter-Rebuttal 2: Recidivism My opponent has asked for a specific time in which a prisoner escapes and kills again, and I intend to deliver. . http://www.wesleylowe.com... This link gives you a short list of those who have been either admitted out of jail, or escaped, and killed again. Most of them involved a prison break, if not all. This is a harm to people as more murder and crime will result in lives lost, and much more harm than someone who administers drugs to a criminal. Yes, a lot did break out of death row, but as long as we can “fiat” arguments, we can easily reform the death row system to make sure that security is much more tight around death row inmates. Next, my opponent argues against my mental health point, stating that mental health actually works. This is untrue. If we were to look at the Forensics College, it gives us a list of the most popular disorders from killers. These are Schizophrenia, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Antisocial Disorder. I will explain why all three are practically un-curable. Let us look toward the symptoms of Antisocial Personality Disorder. According to the Mayo Clinic, common symptoms involve lying, manipulating, disregard for right and wrong, hostility, and trouble with the law. . http://www.mayoclinic.org... With this in mind, it is quite certain that treatment may be an option, but given the nature of the symptoms, it is nearly impossible to understand whether one is able to be treated in the long term, and may become a danger to society if escaped. The symptoms are quite similar for all of the disorders involved usually in criminals on death row, meaning this does not simply just apply to those with Antisocial Personality Disorder. Yes, my opponent may state that in one model on the state level it might work, but he offers no proof that it would translate to the national level. Remember, the Maryland model was simply that of drug offenders, not murderers. Counter-Rebuttal 3: Innocence My opponent states that judges that are tough on crime means that exonerations are not as likely to happen. On the contrary, exonerations have gone up in number despite the fact that executions have gone down. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . http://www.law.umich.edu... For reference, the Death Penalty Information Center shows that the rate of executions has gone down while the exonerations are the other link. I can’t post more than one graph for some reason. What does this tell us? Well, despite my opponent stating that there are judges who are pro death penalty intentionally executing people with no appellate process, there is more exonerations and more people getting off of death row. This is contrary to my opponent’s claim. Counter Rebuttal 4: Opponent’s arguments I was running out of space, so I had to make my previous rebuttals brief. However, I believe refuting them as a whole is best. Remember, my opponent now agrees to a utilitarian framework by silence, so we need to see that we need to look toward the majority of people and see why the death penalty serves the majority. Thus, I have provided you with statistics showing that we deter murder at a moderate to high rate, with some variance per study. The most recent one I offer is from the University of Chicago, which states that the death penalty deters three murders per execution. Not only this, but I have also proven that given the lack of alternatives, we put the people at risk by not keeping the death penalty because of the possibility of escape and the fact that mental rehabilitation is not an option. Not only this, but my opponent has targeted only a small percentage of people who are effected. Given the lack of executions in the status quo, the amount of people who do not feel closure, or who suffer psychological damage is limited. We need to see the bigger picture and realize that my opponent’s points do not stand over mine. Conclusion We see that my arguments stand while my opponent’s arguments are outweighed and not as important by the lives saved from the deterrence of crime since his own argument relating to innocent people killed does not stand.