AAN Tournament : This house endorses Death Penalty

Thanks to Pro for some interesting arguments and rebuttals. Below are my rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. RebuttalsDeterrencePro begins with, "Punishment is a method adopted by the society to discourage prospective and potential criminals from committing unlawful action." While Pro is correct in that punishments are often used to deter crime, this has been shown to not work well with the death penalty. In fact, "The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990."[1]. While the death penalty may seem to be a strong deterrence of crime in theory, the statistics of the practice of the death penalty say the opposite.Pro continues on to list examples of punishments meant to deter crime in other countries. Pro's emphasis is on the desired effect, which he says is to "dissuade civilians from committing crime". However, desired effect is irrelevant when it conflicts with the actual effect.Pro also brings up that "It is the highest interest of the society to prevent intended homicides and it is only logical to use the highest form of punishment for the same." By this logic, the punishment should be even more severe than Pro is arguing for. Surely death by stoning, a punishment Pro admits to not advocate, is a higher form of punishment than the death penalty that Pro does advocate. If Pro truly believed that the highest form of punishment should be used to to prevent intended homicides, he would support death by stoning or other horrible punishments. However, Pro does not appear to truly believe what he has said. Pro claims that the death penalty is a more formidable prospect than a life sentence, making it a better deterrent of crime. Pro gives no reason to believe this is true other than his certainty that the death penalty is a more formidable prospect. I find it hard to realistically imagine a situation where a would-be criminal would think "Hey, I shouldn't do this. I might get the death penalty." and not be just as deterred by the thought of "Hey, I shouldn't do this. I might get life without parole."Pro's figures of 3-18 murders being prevented per inmate put to death are questionable. The link Pro provides as the source for this claim also says that "The studies have been the subject of sharp criticism, much of it from legal scholars who say that the theories of economists do not apply to the violent world of crime and punishment. Critics of the studies say they are based on faulty premises, insufficient data and flawed methodologies.", as well as, "A single capital litigation can cost more than $1 million. It is at least possible that devoting that money to crime prevention would prevent more murders than whatever number, if any, an execution would deter."[2]If the desired effect of a punishment is, as Pro said, to dissuade civilians from committing crime, and if the death penalty is being used as a punishment, then it's ineffective.Justified CircumstancesPro argues that "Some crimes are just so heinous that it is more than vindicatory for the criminal minds who committed the crime to deserve the death penalty." I argue that the law should exist to protect the innocent, not to punish the guilty. If the innocent are able to be protected without death as a punishment, and they are, then death as a punishment is not an acceptable course of action. Pro uses the words "deserve the death penalty.", which seems to be a claim relying on emotion. As I argued in my first rebuttal, the death penalty has been less effective at deterring crime than not having the death penalty, so that can't be the reason it's deserved. Life in prison would keep the general public as safe as if the criminal were killed, so that also can't be the reason it's deserved. The reason people claim that the death penalty is deserved for some criminals is because some criminals do things that create strong emotions in the general public. The reason some say the death penalty is deserved is because a criminal paying for a crime with their life serves to calm the range of emotions caused by the crime that was committed.Prevention of Further CrimeThis is really a subcategory of deterrence, but I'll address it separately as Pro did. Pro argues, "Death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape into the outside world". Pro criticizes life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty by pointing out that crimes still happen in prison and that prisoners might escape. This is not a problem with life in prison, but rather a problem with the way prisons are managed. Pro is taking the problem of prisoner escapes and prison fights and coming to the conclusion that the best solution is to kill the dangerous prisoners. The conclusion Pro should be coming to is that we need to fix the way prisons are managed.Wrongful ConvictionsPro's syllogism requires extra words to represent my point. It should look like this:P1: Any unnecessary punishment that has a chance of taking away the lives of innocent civilians should be abolished.P2: The death penalty is an unnecessary punishment that has a chance of taking away the lives of innocent civilians.C: The death penalty should be abolished. Pro's argument against his version of P1 has the same problem as his Prevention of Further Crime arguments. Suicide and unnatural death in prison should take Pro to the conclusion that the prison system needs changes. Also, the difference between a wrongful conviction leading to time in prison and a wrongful conviction leading to an execution is that after the wrongful conviction sentence leading to time in prison is finished or after being proved innocent, you're free again.Pro's argument against P2 doesn't stand as well with the syllogism I've provided. When the risk is unnecessary, as I've been arguing it is, the choice to not take the risk is the obvious choice.Counter-RebuttalsDeath Penalty CostI've already argued the point of justice under Justified Circumstances. Intensive and thorough procedures and investigations or not, innocent people still get through, as I argued in my opening argument. As I've also argued, the death penalty is unnecessary. The extreme cost involved is just one more reason to abolish the death penalty.ReformationRehabilitation not working on an individual is not an acceptable reason to kill them.You ask the question, "What if a killer spared from a death penalty serving life sentence decides to seriously hurt or kill again? What would we say to his possible future victims if we allow him to live?"I would not blame the lack of the death penalty, but rather the way our prison systems are managed. The same question could be asked about the victims wrongfully executed under the death penalty.Revenge Styled JusticeI've already re-argued my point on this subject under Justified Circumstances.ReferencesThe majority of my arguments were philosophical or moral, so few sources were needed.[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...;