Capital Punishment Should Not Be Practiced as a Form of Legal Discipline

In light of PRO's understanding in technical difficulties I experienced, I waive any rights I might have to acquiring the conduct point. With that said, onto the debate! Criminal Justice Theories: Restraint: PRO claims that for my point to be valid at all, I would need to establish unequivocally that capital offenders (on average) are more dangerous among general prison populations than their non-capital-offender counterparts. First, I need not unequivocally establish this. Once more, the purpose of the restraint theory is to protect society from dangerous criminals [1]. PRO concedes that capital offenders are dangerous. Whether they are more dangerous than other inmates is irrelevant. The fact that they are dangerous means that they should be restrained pursuant to the restraint theory. Mere life sentencing does not allow this if they can continue being a danger in prison. Second, establishing this is actually quite simple. The capital offenders go to prison because they have committed capital offenses. These kinds of inmates have already caused the most damage to society. In allowing them to roam free in prison and create additional violence (which Pro’s own article affirms), they cause even more damage. Even if the violence they produce equates to the amount of violence produced by other criminals, capital offenders will always have the leg up on other inmates in terms of the overall damage they’ve caused against society. Therefore, the solution is to restrain them after sentencing with the death penalty, rather than allowing them aggregate the damage they cause. Education: Pro is incorrect. Education and rehabilitation are two different theories [2]. For those who don’t have access to the law review article I provided affirming this, I’ve uploaded the article to google docs [3]. As I have made no mention of the rehabilitation theory in my case, you may disregard PRO’s rebuttal here. Retribution: Pro claims that losing the rest of one’s life in prison is fair recompense for any and all capital crimes. This is false. Once again, recall the constant violence and criminal activity within the prison environment [4]. Capital offenders are simply being awarded by being allowed the live out the remainder of their lives in an environment that tolerates and promotes their distaste for the law. What kind of justice is that for the victims, much less society? I could go on and on about the countless horror stories regarding prison rape/assault. There are entire documentaries on this subject which our government doesn’t seem capable of effectively controlling. He claims to see no priori reason to assume that a life sentence and the death penalty are any different in terms of justice. I just provided one. I leave this up to you, the voters. Deterrence: Pro insists that despite the statistical data presented on both sides of the argument, his statistics hold. Let us address his five reasons for believing this in the order presented them. (1)As shown by my chart, the entire country has been experiencing a decrease in homicides at the same rate there has been executions since capital punishment has been reinstated throughout the majority of the states. To associate the decrease as being the result of abolishing the death penalty is far too presumptuous. (2)Once again, PRO’s data is misleading. Merely by taking a gander at the statistical data PRO offers, it’s clear that most states have been exhibiting less and less crime (not just the ones that brandish the death penalty). What is the cause of this decrease in the trend? Look no further than the nationwide chart I provided in the previous round. Since capital punishment has been reinstated, rates of homicide have been consistently decreasing. The fact that some states have exhibited less crime simply shows that capital punishment has served its purpose for these states and that it is no longer needed. There are also a wide variety of additional factors to consider when implementing capital punishment. Once again, research shows that the amount of years between sentencing and execution significantly influences the deterrent effect [5]. (3)See the article I provided in the previous round [6]. Canada’s violent crime rate is much higher than the United States’, despite the majority of our country legislating the death penalty. (4)See above. The United States isn’t even in the top 10. (5)Again, this is a simple appeal to authority. We’re not here to discuss what a majority of the unnamed supposedly prominent experts think. Re: Sustaining: Capital Punishment Presents Unwarranted Risks: PRO continues to try and uphold his position that capital punishment should be abolished because of unwarranted risks to the judicial system. For the most part, his rebuttal does nothing to address the shortcomings I cited to this contention. 1)It’s completely irrelevant. Banning capital punishment won’t stop racism. Pro’s arguments are better suited to abolishing the entire justice system. Furthermore, if you’ll recall Pro’s words earlier in this round, he claimed that he saw no difference between a life sentence and the death penalty in terms of the administration of justice. Meaning according to his own words, even if we were to abolish capital punishment and go with his solution (to make life sentences the highest penalty), we’d still possess an equally corrupt system. Minorities would spend their entire lives in a lawless violent institution getting raped, assaulted and killed. 2)He fails to address the alternative theory I provided. Once more, the culture conflict theory suggests that these crimes aren’t committed because of racism, but because of cultural confliction. As we live in a society that embraces multiculturalism, it’s clear that multiculturalism and its affects are what in need of observation. 3)He fails to demonstrate why the current amount of legislation is insufficient to address any and all disadvantages to the defense. The prosecution has an extraordinarily high burden and must jump through all sorts of hoops to successfully win a death penalty case. As a result of that, there have been less than 10,000 inmates sentenced to death row since the 70s [7]. Once more, we have over 14 times that amount facing life sentences [8]. The system is not even remotely unfair to defendants PRO is correct in his assessment that humans are flawed and biased. Indeed, it is a tragic miscarriage of justice when even one innocent person receives ANY kind of sentence. Nonetheless, we must consider the alternative. Pro says that because of the mere possibility that one innocent could be sentenced to death, we should abolish capital punishment entirely. Why not abolish the entire system? If the entire system is guided by biased/flawed humans, doesn't this line reason justify such an approach? Lots of innocent people have been sentenced for crimes they did not commit. The issue of human flaws/bias is an issue throughout the entire system. There’s going to be room for human error no matter what system we’re dealing with. No system is perfect nor will there ever be a perfect system. This is because humans aren’t perfect. Unless PRO is insisting that we abolish all systems on this basis, his claims are inconsistent. Re: Sustaining: Capital Punishment Fails as a Deterrent: Extend. Re: Sustaining: Capital Punishment is Overly Expensive: As I’ve demonstrated, pursuant to any one of the criminal justice theories, capital punishment is well worth the expenses needed for it. To add, the expenses serve the very to counteract the very criticisms PRO has made of this beneficial institution. In granting the prosecution a high burden to fulfill in its capital cases, the chance of convicting an innocent is greatly reduced. Sources: https://docs.google.com...