The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

I. Effect on Crime I. a. Deterrence It's easy to imagine that criminals may not commit a murder if the punishment was more severe; most murderers see life in prison as a possible unfortunate side effect of his crime, and will therefore not be deterred from killing his target. On the other hand, murderers may see the death penalty as too much of a consequence to commit his act, and will therefore be deterred from killing his target. This is the principle behind deterrence. A study by Gary Becker proves this theory. He proved that most murderers have a fear of death, just like everybody else, and may not commit a murder with the possibility of future execution - that murderers understand the cost and benefit analysis of their decision. [1] Isaac Ehrlich put this into practice by proving that the death penalty had a deterrent effect on murderers, and that the death penalty helped to slow rising murder rates. [2] I. b. Actual Effect on Crime Looking at crime rates versus executions in the years after WWII, it is easy to see that the death penalty plays some role in the rate of murder. The death penalty was suspended from 1968 to 1976, and in that time, murder rates skyrocketed. Fast forward to the 1990s, we experience a dramatic decrease in murder rates. There are several reasonable explanations, but, ". .. the states that reinstituted the death penalty had about a 38 percent larger drop [than states who did not] in murder rates by 1998. "[3] A recent study concluded that, "Overall, the rise in executions during the 1990s accounts for about 12 to 14 percent of the overall drop in murders. "[3] Using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000, Professors Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd were able to compare the relationship between executions and murder incidents before, during, and after the U. S. Supreme Court's death penalty moratorium. They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders. [4][5] I. c. Saving Lives Obviously, with fewer people willing to commit murders, fewer people will be killed. For one, with the death penalty, there is little chance of parole or escape. If instead a judge sentences a criminal to life imprisonment, the chances of either of those two possibilities happening dramatically increases, and when a criminal is out of jail, he is very likely to commit another crime. The last time the death penalty was abolished in the United States, dozens of inmates were given sentences of life imprisonment and were later paroled, many of whom killed again, over 25 known victims are the result of these post-furman cases, along with dozens more from escaped or paroled murderers[8]. The death penalty prevents this. It has been proven in many studies that the institution of a death penalty saves numerous lives. Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders. [6][5] Two studies by Paul R. Zimmerman, a Federal Communications Commission economist, also support the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Using state-level data from 1978 to 1997, Zimmerman found that each additional execution, on average, results in 14 fewer murders. [7][5] II. Cost I'm not going to cover this much, instead focusing on rebuttals in the next round. I just want to show the results of one study. "There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP [life without parole] cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP. "[9] Again, I will expand more on this in the rebuttal round. Conclusion Overall, the implementation of the death penalty reduces crime rates, saves lives, and saves money. In the words of this article([10]), if each execution is saving lives, the harms of capital punishment would have to be very great to justify its abolition, far greater than most critics have heretofore alleged. [10][5] Sources [1]: Becker, Gary S. , "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. " Journal of Political Economy. (1968) [2]: Ehrlich, Isaac, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death. " American Economic Review. (1975)[3]: . http://www.foxnews.com... [4]: Dezhbakhsh, Hashem and Joanna M. Shepherd, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a 'Judicial Experiment. '" Economic Inquiry. Vol. 44, No. 3 (2006), pp. 512-535. [5]: . http://www.heritage.org... [6]: Dezhbakhsh, Hashem, Paul H. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd, "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data. " American Law and Economics Review. Vol. 5, No. 2 (2003), pp. 344-376. [7]: Zimmerman, Paul R. , "State Executions, Deterrence, and the Incidence of Murder. " Journal of Applied Economics. Vol. 7, No. 1 (May 2004), pp. 163-193. [8]: . http://www.wesleylowe.com... [9]: . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... [10]: Sunstein, Cass R. and Adrian Vermeule, "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs. " AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies - Working Paper No. 05-06, March 2005, p. 42.