Rehabilitation is more important than punishment

Point of order: You do not generate the win condition of a debate, that is left to verisimilitude and those who created the least flaws and fallacies. Rebuttal 1: Deterrence - You argument starts with your main theory: "The evidence indicates the exact opposite." which ideally would be a conclusion from the evidence and thus come after it, this would follow scientific method, and this claim is not supported by the evidence. - "Murder rates are far higher in the US states that execute murderers than those that do not" This is a cause an effect confusion fallacy. Does the execution cause high crime or does the high crime warrant the execution? You have yet to describe a method by which this would work. Most likely you would have to show statistics from before 1990 to compare, but this would also be of limited use. Rebuttal 2: Criminalisation - Your statement appears to say that we should essentially make the sentence more proportionate to the crime so that the more comparatively honest or vulnerable will not be forced into contact with the more hardened criminals. If you'll forgive my interpretation, that should mean that more hardened criminals receive harder sentences, the hardest of all would of course be the death sentence. - You suggest that community sentences may stop re-offence. You may be correct, however this does detract from the fact that some people will inevitably earn themselves the death penalty, either by 3 strikes, or one heinous act. Rebuttal 3: Economy - "Community sentences and rehab are invariably far cheaper than prison sentences." You appear to be conducting a cost/benefit analysis of the two options. Again, you may be correct, if your sources were more reliable. However this is not simply a question of going for the cheapest option, for that would probably be gassing every criminal, similar to Hitlers Germany. Instead it is about a proportionate response, and that will be the line of my argument. - You will forgive me if I point out that your argument no longer seems to be about execution, but is now the merits of community sentences. [1] After analysis of the first time line in your source, I concluded: - This is a second hand source, and thus its credibility is called into question. - The murder rate is superfluously represented as a number per 100,000 and percentage in an attempt to conceal the real number of people dieing for some reason. This is particularly prominent for states which have a massive difference in population, such as Delaware's 864,764 scoring 4.3 and Texas's 23million scoring 5.6 - The source data is said to come from official sources, but it actually comes from davecoop.net, indicating it is actually a 3rd hand source. - Kansas is missing from some of the 1990 statistics. - 1996 saw the largest increase in difference, by roughly 17%, and this continued thereafter. A quick google search reveals that 1996 saw the bombing of the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia. And this is a state which uses the death penalty. Indicating that this is a possible reason for the sudden increase in disparity. - The total murder rate number for the death penalty states in 1996 is 7.72 but in 1990 it is 9.5. By 2009 it has dropped to 5.26, Indicating that the total has actually decreased significantly from that at the start in execution states, but not as quickly as that in non execution states, which causes the widening disparity. A possible reason for this is that incarceration has increased, as it is more lucrative to private prisons to keep them alive. I think your source [2], may attest to this, and it is credible because it comes from the beuro of justice statistics. - Every state saw a decrease between 1990 and 2007, except Ohio which saw an increase. [3], [4], The new york times and USA today, are not highly credible sources. It has issues with all of the CRAVEN criteria of credibility; Reputation, Ability to See, Vested Interest, Expertise, Neutrality. None of these news papers appear to offer the sources of their information for cross analysis (am I wrong?) - In relation to source [2] It is possible for prison crime to be expected to increase along with increased number of those being incarcerated. The source does not appear to say anywhere: "reoffending is higher amongst criminals who are locked up than do community sentences--with 74% of ex-inmates at one prison convicted again within a year." [5] There is no citation to source [10] within the second paragraph. [6] This source is subject to the same flaws as both [3] and [4], except the government statistics which it supposedly links to are also missing. Hypothesis A: Punishment In order to continue I must clarify the meaning of punishment. I will not go into legal terms as these are inherently biased and an appeal to authority. The original term penalty stems from the Latin poena, meaning pain. That which must be paid as part of the punishment. Thus, all punishments have an element of pain in them. This pain creates a sort of Pavlovian conditioning, reinforcing certain societal rules and standards, and this is what imprisonment hopes to achieve as part of rehabilitation. It is very much like using the stick instead of the carrot, and hoping that the animal in question considers the absence of the stick, or the restriction of the carrot to be a driving force to change their behaviour. Humans are more complex and adaptable creatures than this hypothesizes suggests. But without this poena, it is hard to imagine how else they can be held accountable. Hypothesis B: Control They are also capable of self control. When someone fails to control themselves, or simply chooses not to, because it will result in a bigger reward, they should be punished. Many of those on death row have claimed either insanity or biological abnormalities such as a large adrenal gland, which make them violent and cause their loss of control. But ultimately the first diagnosis should have been from them, and if they could not help themselves then they should have found someone who could. The fact that they did not do this or chose not to results means that through inaction they chose a path which would lead them to conflict with the law. In essence the law provides a pseudo self control for those it deems as having none. Although weather it is correct or simply making a power play is another matter. Hypothesis C: Evolution As creatures evolve to fit their surroundings it is somewhat inevitable that there will be a human well adapted to criminal behaviour, the abnormally sized adrenal gland might be a symptom of this. So it is by punishment, that the dominant society regulates this evolution, so as to not end up with a situation where humans are predated by these others. They do this by limiting their economic activities, their ability to find suitable mates, and to generally remove them from vulnerable communities. They attempt to guarantee that action be met with consequences. In evolution, the fittest survives. A part of this process means it is necessary for some to die to prevent mutation, or at least to control their adaptation, making sure it is the most beneficial. It may transpire that these adaptations are viewed as positive. As for the question as to whom would be best positioned to judge this, the answer would most likely be Scientists, rather than the law or government.