Capital Punishment Should be Abolished

Thanks Pro, onto the final round! I will quote the pertinent parts of my opponent's argument to ensure a focused response. Retribution/Lex Talionis Firstly Pro argues: 'Con’s contention is only true if every murderer is murdered via Capital Punishment, yet this is simply not true.' However, it does not detract from the fact that those who murder are justly murdered In and of themselves: while the ideal would be for every murderer to be justly killed by capital punishment, this has no bearing on whether the death penalty is morally justified as it exists. In other words, The purpose of the argument is to show that those who are killed by capital punishment are justly killed - not, as Pro states, to show that capital punishment as it exists is perfect in every way. One may show that some capital punishment is better than no capital punishment and still argue against the resolution. "We do not punish rapists by raping them, we do not punish arsonists by burning down their houses, we do not punish those guilty of assault by beating them up. This moral philosophy is outdated and not practiced in the justice system." The main thrust of the argument is not necessarily the 'eye for an eye' mentality (although in some cases this is necessary) but rather retribution in proportion to the debt. If someone, as Pro states, rapes another, then we need not rape them but rather punish them proportionally to the damage incurred by rape. Likewise with arson or assault. This is why we can administer the death penalty for crimes other than murder, e.g. War crimes or high treason. As a result, my opponent focuses his response on lex talionis in the strictest sense, while my argument rests more on a general retribution. Moreover, the fact that a certain moral code is "outdated and not practiced" in a certain society has very little bearing on its moral status. It may well be that lex talionis is outdated. But does this mean that it cannot be justified? Unless we resort to conventionalism, then Pro's argument is null. But since conventionalism cannot be assumed true in a debate about (objective) ethics, we should treat my opponent's response with severe suspicion. "In a 2009 study, police chiefs were confronted with the statement ‘murderers think about the range of possible punishments before committing homicides’ only 24% agreed.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...... Pg. 10"..."Concluding that, “The death penalty does little to prevent violent crimes because perpetrators rarely consider the consequences when engaged in violence.”"I have two qualms with this: first, I would question how one should accurately attain such a statistic to begin with - for intention is introspective, thus particular and known only by the criminal, and yet it was the police chiefs who were asked the question. This makes the stat a patent social construction of the police force and their stereotypes concerning criminals, rather than the reality of the situation. Second, I think that the stat is entirely consistent with my own position. For, if only 24% of murderers thought of punishment before perpetrating, then this means that the majority of those who eventually did commit murderer were not affected by deterrents. This is, however, what one should expect from capital punishment: we would have a serious problem for capital punishment if the majority of murderers did think about punishment yet committed anyway: that would mean that it didn't work as a deterrent. However, of those following through with the crime, a small level considering the punishments is what one should expect if it did act as a deterrent. Pro's stat therefore, if anything, detriments his position. Indeed, the point of my argument was not to show that any single punishment can extirpate all crime as a deterrent, but rather that it should significantly reduce crime of certain sorts. "Now referring to Con’s statistic that for every ‘1 execution there were 18 fewer murders’ This statistic is proven to be inaccurate..." "The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation analyzed studies by Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin, and Joanna H. Shepherd (where Con got his statistic) and concluded..." Unfortunately I think here that it is one person's word against another's, and thus would be futile to argue one way or the other - the best I can do is to cite more studies to support the motion but keeping in mind that in such a qualitative topic, it is almost impossible to verify or falsify - thus necessitating theorising. Here are examples of supporting studies: - Professor Shepherd at monthly data from 1977 to 1999, stating that each execution, is associated with three fewer murders - both crimes of passion and murders by intimates. [1] - Professors H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings of the University of Colorado at Denver, using state-level data from 1977 to 1997, found that for each additional execution, on average, about five murders were deterred. [2] - Zimmerman found that each additional execution, on average, results in 14 fewer murders. [3] Though I understand this is merely reiterating the same point, and each is likely to have corresponding critiques, it at least establishes the strength of my position. "States with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than states without the death penalty"... "Con’s claim that Capital Punishment deters crime is not only false, but it seems to represent a negative correlation; Capital Punishment increases crime." The main point I have in response here is that correlation does not imply causation. I have no idea what the statistics are like: although it may well be the case that murder rates are highest in states without the death penalty, there may be other factors other than the deterrent effect which contribute to crime. Indeed, there could be a much higher need for the death penalty where murder rates are higher, leading to such a statistic. In any case, a strong causal relation - not simply correlation - needs to be established. "If Con is right, and that certain death does dissuade criminals, then there would be no difference in how well criminals are dissuaded by the death penalty vs. life in prison. In both cases life is imminent, the difference is that the death penalty is delayed by the appeals system and life in prison is delayed by life expectancy. Life in prison is just as sure a means of ending a life as the death penalty, except there is more time to overturn a false sentence via the presentation of new evidence. Con has to show that the death penalty trumps life imprisonment is the eyes of rational thinking criminals." Finally Pro asks the difference between life incarceration and the death penalty. The difference, I should suspect, lies in the act of being executed, the life being cut short and forced rather than left to natural processes. Indeed, the mere fact of lost years of life seems to be sufficient deterrent for rational thinking criminals. Thus, the death penalty is clearly a greater deterrent than the death penalty. Conclusion I just want to say thanks to hayd for this most entertaining debate! He is truly a good debater, and I wish him the best for the future. Sources: [1] Joanna M. Shepherd: "Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment", Journal of Legal Studies, vol.33 (2004) pp. 283-321 [2] H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings: &Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment", Journal of Law and Economics, vol.46 (2) (2003) pp. 453-478 [3] Zimmerman: "State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder", Journal of Applied Economics, vol. 7 (1) (2004) pp. 163-193