The Death Penalty

I appreciate the opportunity to debate such a interesting topic, with an intelligent opponent. For reference, I will be responding to my opponents three main arguments, and then bringing up some points of my own. So let's get to it, shall we?Argument 1: Costs -- CounterI have two main responses to this argument. 1. Costs are offset by plea bargains. The very presence of the death penalty induces defendants to agree to plea bargains that involve non-capital sentencing[1]. This, therefore, bypasses any cost that might be involved. It also must be noted that plea bargains are widely used, so the death penalty is used less often.2. Lives saved by deterrence justify the cost. Now, I can't go deep into this until I respond to my opponents second argument, but I can say that if the death penalty has a deterrent effect, it is deterring something valuable enough for the extra cost. That is to say, if the death penalty saves lives, then the cost is justified.Argument 2: Deterrence -- CounterBefore I talk about deterrence as a whole, I would like to point out something. I noticed that my opponent talked a lot about people with mental illness not being deterred by the death penalty in this argument. I would like everyone to be aware of the insanity plea, in which a defendant can argue insanity to get out of a capitol punishment, so in that effect this argument is invalid. On to the arguments. I have two responses. 1. 1 execution prevents 18 murders. Let me quote from the American Law & Econ Review in 2003[2] "Our results show that capitol punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders. Tests show that results not driven by tougher sentencing laws and are robust to other alternative specifications." This quote clearly says 1 execution prevents 18 murders. Let's go back to cost. Now, I said that if the death penalty saves lives, then cost is justified. If the quote I just posted is true, then more than enough lives are saved to justify the cost. I'm not done though. 2. Empirics My opponent stated that in Iowa there is a lower murder rate than Minnesota, which has capitol punishment. My response is that the population of Iowa is much lower than the population of Minnesota, by about 2 million people, and that this is why murder rate is low -- not because of the death penalty. Plus, my opponent never linked Iowa's low crime rates to an absence of the death penalty, nor did he link Minnesota's high crime rates to the presence of the death penalty. So this argument was vague and incorrect. The Texas Tech University Law Review did a more conclusive study on moratoriums on the death penalty that occurred in Texas and Illinois in 2008. Their research[3] showed that in the five years the death penalty was banned in Illinois, 150 murders that could have been prevented, weren't. In the one year the death penalty was banned in Texas, 221 murders weren't prevented. That's a total of 371 murders. 371 murders that could of, and should of been stopped, but were not. We have a responsibility to keep the death penalty in place for this reason.Argument 3: Innocence -- CounterOnce again -- two responses. 1. Time. That is to say, that the average time between the arrest of a death row inmate and the execution of one, is 28 years. That's 28 years of evidence gathering, and witness interrogation, and plea bargaining, etc. This is plenty of time to come to a watertight conclusion, and if it's not, I would be genuinely surprised.2. No proof. The other response is that there has never any conclusive proof that any of the inmates executed in modern times were innocent[4]. Think about it -- In a thirty year period no has had an absolute exoneration. There are only two reasons this would be so. 1. Widespread evidence tampering, or 2. Death Penalty convictions are correct. I plan to talk about this more in my rebuttals as so my opponent can expound upon this a little more. Now let's talk about the disadvantages with getting rid of the death penalty. Disadvantage 1: Prison Chaos. If we get rid of the death penalty, then I am sure that my opponent and I both agree, that life without parole will be the number 1 way of sentencing violent crime. The problem is, is that life without parole has a serious problem[5]. The criminal convicted with that sentence have nothing to lose. You come to two terrifying scenarios. Either 1: The criminal spends his life planning and scheming so as to escape, or 2: The criminal kills other inmates and guards, because he has nothing else to be threatened with. Both can be potentially threatening to innocents and convicts alike. The only way to make sure the criminal never kills again, is with the death penalty. Disadvantage 2: Lost Plea Bargaining This ties in to my previous argument. As I said, plea bargains are very effective, and serve to incapacitate the criminal, but can only maintain effectiveness if there is something serious to negotiate about. The death penalty is that serious thing. It is an almost definite fact that a criminal will give in when death is on the line. If the death penalty is removed, what do criminals have to fear[6]? We have lost a great tool in keeping criminals behind bars. The only way to ensure this power is with the death penalty. I hope I've shown you a number of things: 1. Plea Bargaining offsets death penalty costs. 2. If the death penalty deters, the cost is justified. 3. The death penalty deters. 4. Innocents rarely, if ever, get the death penalty. 5. Absence of the death penalty causes prison chaos. and 6. Absence of the death penalty makes us lose important plea bargaining power. I look forward to the rounds ahead. :) [1]http://www.cjlf.org... [2]American Law and Econ Review 2003 [3]Texas Tech Law Review 2008 [4]Tulsa Law Review 2006 [5]http://www.scribd.com... [6]http://www.cjlf.org... Links provided where possible.