Death penalty should be implemented in our society

1. Deterrence My opponent cites Donahue and Wolfers (DW) and their summary of their weak rebuttal to deterrent papers. Their work relies on Passel and Taylors work. I would first note Passel and Taylor do not in any way criticize Ehrlich’s statistical technique. Ehrlich responded to their criticism. Ehrlich notes how his regression models account for those time periods, and when accounted for a strong deterrent effect exists. Ehrlich gets them in the soft spot: the FBI recalculated their previous results and changes the definitions which had a profound effect on those early crime rates. Ehrlich attempted to correct those variables, Passel and Taylor did not, sufficiently rebutting their overall analysis [1. Isaac Ehrlich. The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Reply. The American Economic Review , Vol. 67, No. 3 (Jun., 1977).] But Ehrlich responds to Yale, “In their efforts to obscure the empirical findings, they [the yale study] have selectively deleted observations, utilized an inferior regression specification, considered irrelevant variables and correlations, and revealed in the process misunderstanding of elementary statistical concepts…” [2. Issac Ehrlich. Deterrence: Evidence and Inference. Yale Law Journal Vol. 85, No. 2 (Dec., 1975).] My opponent then cites a study and testimony by Fagan. Testimony by Joanna Shepard notes “Using improved data and more sophisticated regression techniques, thirteen papers have been written in the economics literature in the past decade. Their conclusion is unanimous: all of the modern papers find a significant deterrent effect.” [3. http://tinyurl.com... DW and Fagan claim deterrent studies failed to make their models robust, meaning they prove nothing. It seems my opponent ignored how I explained last round death penalty OPPONENTS Naci Mocan and Kaj Gittings actually tried to get rid of the deterrent hypothesis; the pesky sucker didn’t go away [4. http://tinyurl.com...] This re-analysis has a few graphs I should include because they make my case ever stronger: My opponent then cites a study by criminologists claiming 88% of criminologists oppose the DP. This result they report is misleading. The study proves my point, “100% (or 77) of the criminologists agree that the death penalty may deter some.” [5. http://tinyurl.com...] Radelet and Lacock’s 88% number comes from the question “significant reduction” in murder rates, but how do you define significant? This then becomes criminologists having to guess. The 88% number is inflated with questions of political ideology which has no relation to deterrence. And THEN 61% of the criminologists said the recent studies do prove the DP's deterrent effect [5]. My opponent finishes off with cross sectional data. I always see this, and it always makes me wonder a bit, is the death penalty info center (sounds non- DP proponents have met this argument on nearly level. (1) Wesley Lowe notes, “every state in the union is different. These differences include the populations, number of cities, and yes, the crime rates. Strongly urbanized states are more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are more rural, such as those that lack capital punishment.” [6. http://tinyurl.com...] (2) Economist and crime expert John Lott writes, “This simple comparison really doesn’t prove anything. The 12 states without the death penalty have long enjoyed relatively low murder rates due to factors unrelated to capital punishment.” [7. http://tinyurl.com...] (3) Wesley Lowe further notes, “The states that have capital punishment are compelled to have it due to their higher crime rates, not the other way around.”[6] Although not perfect, it is better than my opponent’s data. Here’s what happens when other factors are corrected for: [8. http://tinyurl.com...] 2. Morality My opponent made a lot of assertions. Blacks commit 47% of the murders and whites 35%. This is not to say African American’s are intrinsically violent, but this fact merely shows the fact African American’s are execute more often shouldn’t be a surprise [9. http://tinyurl.com...] Poor people are more likely to murder, and they are given public attorneys when they cannot afford one. These public attorneys are often better than private one[10. http://tinyurl.com...] 3. Cost Virginia has very short wait times and nearly everyone on death row will be executed once put there. Virginia’s DP cost is much lower than life without parole [11. http://tinyurl.com...] My opponents data ignores plea bargains. Death penalty has been shown by many studies to affect the plea bargain rates. One report noted, “significantly more defendants plea bargain to a life in states where the death penalty is available.” [12. http://tinyurl.com...] A shorter summary of the study notes, “The most widely cited estimates ignore or minimize an important cost-saving effect of having the death penalty available. … The greater cost of trials where the prosecution does seek the death penalty is offset, at least in part, by the savings from avoiding trial altogether in cases where the defendant pleads guilty.” [13. http://tinyurl.com...] A neutral academic did a literature review on costs. They found every study claiming the DP to cost more is highly flawed. Studies with strong methodology find “the evidence suggests that the costs associated with the death penalty are similar to those associated with life sentences.” [14. Jon Sorensen and Rocky Lean Pilgrim. Lethal Injection: Capital Punishment in Texas during the modern era. University of Texas Press, 2006.] An analysis of a 6 year DP period shows the DP is cheaper than LWOP [15. http://tinyurl.com...] I did my own calculations (my opponent can PM me for them if he would like), to 11 years (average time n death row). For 11 years it is 2.1 DP vs 3 million for LWOP. As stated, the anti-DP studies ignore plea bargains as well as medical care. Medical care is more common on LWOP because you have more prisoners. [16. http://tinyurl.com...] Mend it don't end it 4. Innocents The DPIC list is wrong. Dudley Sharp notes, “it is important to preserve the distinction between acquittal and innocence, which is regularly obfuscated in news media headlines.” [17. http://tinyurl.com...] A longer critique from former AG of California finds the DPIC list pretty weak, and false, to say the least. Ward A Campbell found the same issues as Sharp above. Actually innocent (via DNA) is not the same as legally acquitted, and most on that list are only legally innocent, though usually actually guilty. Botched trials, not overwhelming evidence (like OJ Simpson. Hey, he would be innocent according to the list) would make them not-guilty. But in reality, they are. Campbell found when this is properly accounted for, only 34 of those on the list should be there, meaning less than .5% of those sentenced to death are actually guilty. [18. http://tinyurl.com...] Joshua Marquis found, “a "rightful" conviction rate of 99.72%.” [19. http://tinyurl.com...] Marquis in testimony goes through multiple of the people on the list (who are also famous “innocents”) and finds that, factually, most of these people are actually guilty [20. http://tinyurl.com...] According to the DPIC, there have been 1328 execution since the DP was re-legalized [21. http://tinyurl.com...] Assuming everyone on that list was guilty, 143 were falsely executed, 0.1%. The death penalty has a 99.9 percent success rate. Now, using the number of 50 we get 0.03% false conviction rate, or 99.97 correct conviction rate. CONCLUSION The facts don’t support DP abolition. The DP is cheaper, saves lives, is not racist, nor classist, and does not kill enough innocents to be worthy of a legal change.