Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

== Rebuttals == R1) Innocence My opponent’s argument contradicts his point under recidivism. If you want life sentences to actually be for life, then the risk of locking up an innocent person in jail would also be prevalent--if not more so--under his system. Second, the study done by Gross does not prove innocents have been executed, but they have been convicted. The study’s sample mainly consisted of people who were exonerated. First, this means any/most innocent people put sentenced to death are let go. And second, they may actually not be innocent. Exonerations occur for many reasons, and innocence is a legal term and not a truth. The evidence may not have been overwhelming, even though it is likely the person was guilty. The reason for a high exoneration rate, as economist John Lott notes, doesn’t imply “the defendant was innocent”, but rather “because so much effort is put into appeals” [8]. The study itself admits the high exoneration rate means “a substantial proportion of innocent defendants who are sentenced to death are ultimately exonerated, perhaps a majority” [9]. In other words, the study admits most people who are ‘innocent’ and sentenced to death are actually not executed. Indeed, another analysis finds a rightful conviction rate of 99.72% [10]. Due to the fact life cases have less review--fewer appeals--more innocent people may be harmed if the death penalty is abolished. R2) Costs Studies claiming the DP is costly fail to take into account plea bargains. Before plea bargains are accounted for, the DP costs about 2.6 more as LWOP. But when the they are controlled for, the DP is only about 1.5 times as costly [11]. Cost studies also ignore healthcare costs and rely upon small sample sizes. Similarly, data after 1993 is different than prior data as the definition of a life sentence changed. Studies using large sample sizes have actually concluded the death penalty costs about the same as equivalent LWOP cases [12]. What also must be noted is the benefit of deterrence, as well. A new study suggests the cost of each murder is about $17 million, and other estimates center around 24 million. In extreme cases, murder can cost $24 million due to “victim costs, criminal justice costs, lost offender productivity, and public willingness-to-pay costs. ” [13] Thus, if the death penalty deters just one murder, it reduces the cost to society by about 17 - 24 million. If each execution deters 3 murders, it saves $51 million. And some estimates suggests each execution deters 18 murders [14], or $306 million saved. Thus, even if we assume a high cost of the death penalty of in excess of $3 million [15], if the DP only prevents one murder (low estimate), $14 million are saved. Thus, if my C1 is proven, this point is also disproven. Now my opponent claims the DP is bad because it is used for rape. This is unjust, as it would likely increase crime (if the sentence is the same for rape and murder, just murder the victim--no evidence! ) But merely because a few states did this does not warrant DP abolition. It means the system should be mended, not ended. Or that it should be administered on a Federal Level equally across the states in order to avoid confusion. This is really a moot point. == Defense == C1) Deterrence My opponent begins by refuting the study by Issac Ehrlich. He claims the NAS panel has discredited the study. But the panel itself had many issues and failed to refute the methodology of Ehrlich’s research. After previous criticisms of his work were refuted, the NAS attempted to conclusively prove Ehrlich as incorrect. But the NAS makes many key concessions, including admitting that the best research supports deterrence theory. As Ehrlich and Randall Mark respond, “not a single practitioner of the economic approach to crime is to be found among the Panel's interdisciplinary roster of members” [1]. In other words, they use people with no expertise in econometrics to criticize econometrics. Ehrlich and Mark clarify they are not trying to insult the authors, rather the NAS panel suffers from many shortcomings which stem from their lack of training in the field of econometrics. Ehrlich also argues the NAS does not dispute his findings due to lack of methodological rigor, but the criticism relies upon “conjectures” [1]. He argues they more focused on philosophical/logical questions of the study, not it’s actual methods. My opponent next cites a survey of criminologists. As noted, criminologists (usually) have little expertise in the field of econometrics--where this debate generally focuses. Regardless, the study still fails to refute the deterrence hypothesis. Even though the criminologists think the DP is a weak deterrent, 100% of the sample actually agreed the DP deterred some [2]. Fagan’s analysis is also weak as it seems to fail to control for other variables. The fact the crime rate was low and as was the execution rate is irrelevant, as many other factors reduce crime other than the DP. Further, specifying *when* you were convicted is irrelevant, as the actual execution is often publicized, meaning when they are executed, not convicted, is more important. It also must be noted 59 executions is fairly high (higher than every year from 1976 - 1996), and was higher than everything from 2006 onward [3]. The execution rate peaked around 1999 - 2000 [1], and the greatest increase in the execution rate occurred between 1991 - 2000. At the same time as the massive increase in executions, the fastest decreases in crime occurred--and peaked down in 2000 at the height of the execution rate [4]. Fagan argues after 1998, the correlation breaks (DP falls crime falls). But crime between 1998 - 2008 either increased or stayed the same, so his criticism is incorrect. His strongest criticism is that DP studies fail sensitivity tests (i. e. different variables significantly change the results). However, he must have not been aware of the studies which tried to make the deterrent effect disappear--it did not go away [5]. Thus, the results of these studies are robust and accurate. My opponent then compares states without death penalties to those with death penalties. These comparisons fail for many reasons, the first and obvious being states are different and not comparable. The second being the endogeneity problem. Those states without the DP had low crime before they abolished the DP--so the fact they have low crime is due to other variables than DP laws. Studies have isolated the effect of the DP, and find when other factors are controlled for, states with the DP had larger decreases in crime and had lower crime rates [6]. See, for example, the following graph. I am not saying the DP is the main factor in crime rates, I am merely saying it is one in many. C2) Recidivism My opponent seems to accept my data, but argue LWOP sentences are sufficient in preventing this. But this criticism falls apart when my evidence included 400 people being released from jail who had life sentences. It also falls apart when there is a fairly long list of criminals--often who murder and rape--who had LWOP sentences but were let free and ended up killing again [7]. The death penalty is the only 100% effective way to prevent recidivism. C3) Justice My opponent claims I rely upon emotions, but this is untrue. These are real cases which occur. As I argued, the death penalty is justified in those instances. Thus, in those cases, the DP should be sought out--and, therefore, the DP should not be abolished. He makes an interesting argument--it isn’t just to execute people when taxpayers who may oppose the DP have to fund it. But this can be remedied easily. If people oppose the DP, elect electors against it. Abolish it in your state. And this also can be used against him: Why should people like me fund LWOP cases if we support the DP? Many people also complain about funding roads, when it is obviously a public good. Others oppose funding police departments because the police may oppose marijuana usage. But this does not mean the existence of public roads or a police force is immoral. 1. Isaac Ehrlich and Randall Mark. “Fear of Deterrence: A Critical Evaluation of the ‘Report of the Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects’”, The Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (1977): 293-316. 2. . http://homicidesurvivors.com..../ 3. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 4. . http://www.fbi.gov... 5. . http://www.bus.lsu.edu... 6. . http://www.hawaii.edu... 7. . http://www.wesleylowe.com... 8. . http://www.nationalreview.com... 9. . http://www.pnas.org... 10. . http://www.cato-unbound.org... 11. . http://www.cjlf.org... 12. Sorensen, Jonathan R. , and Rocky LeAnn Pilgrim. Lethal Injection: Capital Punishment in Texas during the Modern Era. Austin, TX: University of Texas, 2006. 13. . http://www.soc.iastate.edu... 14. . http://www.heritage.org...