Death Penalty

Thanks for the response phantom. REBUTTAL, CAUSAL DETERMINISMIn my opponent's first argument, he takes the position that criminals, thanks to the various factors that influenced them in their committing of the crime, should not be held directly responsible for their crimes, and instead of vengeful justice they deserve rehabilitation. Well to start, I'd like to agree with my opponent on certain parts of this contention. As a believer in determinism, I agree that crimes belong to factors, not criminals, and that responsibility is not really on the people themselves in the conventional sense. However, I disagree with my opponent on what to do with this information.The mindset of 'people are ultimately not responsible for their actions', which comes from a deterministic outlook, can be dangerous for society as whole. I say this because having this outlook would change the way we reprimand people. Generally, people get reprimanded if they do something bad that's 'their fault'. Thinking and operating under the assumption that people aren't responsible for their actions would lead us to punish less harshly. The punishing less harshly because of a deterministic outlook is an issue because of the attitude it would give potential criminals. Much of Con's argument for causal determinism and rehabilitative justice talks about factors and influences on criminals. One very important factor to keep in mind are the factors of fear of punishment, and a sense of right and wrong, which go with each other and compliment each other. If we take these factors away, criminals will feel much more justified in their actions. Seeing a law system that doesn't condemn them as bad people, that doesn't punish them as bad people, leaves them thinking they are not, and thus makes them more prone to crime. Taking a deterministic outlook towards crime will eventually lead to a total loss of feelings of accountability.So while I agree that criminals are not truly responsible for the actions they have taken, it would not be in humanity's better interests to act upon this style of thought, as it would lead to a lack of accountability.Now I know all the above was pretty general, focusing broadly on criminals, but what was expressed above can be translated to the more specific cases of the Death Penalty.If we were to apply this 'it's not really your fault' attitude to the act of murder, what do you think that would do to the rate of occurrence of murder? We can logically infer that it would raise it. As I said before, the criminal's actions are influenced by various factors around him/her. If one of those factors is the widely expressed mentality of 'you are responsible for your actions', a potential murderer could be guilted out of the act. If we removed that factor (which I believe is the predominant line of thought today, though a shrinking one) and replaced it with the deterministic view, they would feel less pressure to act in accordance with what is considered good, seeing as the thought is being impressed upon them that they are not inherently responsible for their actions. And after all that is said and done, refer back to the study that proves strong deterrence. Even if the one to die is not responsible from a deterministic view, from a logical view we can see that the death should not be forgone when forgoing that would lead to the death of roughly 74 people.REBUTTAL, COSTMy opponent brings up the fact the Death Penalty costs more money than it does to simply give someone life without parole.The first to mention is deterrence, of course. If 74 people are saved by the execution of man, should we really be getting worked up over a $620,000 case? It is a slippery slope to travel down when we start prioritizing dollars over lives.Aside from that though, I'd like to talk about the two statistics my opponent used. While I won't be refuting that the Death Penalty costs more, I will be showing that these two statistics are out of context, and overall not representative of the costs of the Death Penalty. The worst example is the state of California's system. If you follow the link my opponent used, you'll see that each Death Penalty case costs roughly $10.9 million in California. This cost is far, far away from the usual Death Penalty costs, and speaks more to a reform of their own system, than a need for complete abolition of the Death Penalty. The following are percentages comparing California's Death Penalty case costs to other states'.Kansas, 3.6%[1][2](Kansas Cost/Cali Cost, x100, and same process for the rest below)Maryland, 27.5%[1][2]Nevada, 2.1%[1][2]Indiana, 4.1%[1][2]Oregon, 4%[1][2]Texas, 21.1%[1][2]Federal Government, 5.7%[1][2]As for the second statistic regarding the Feds' extra spending on the Death Penalty, I'd like to put things in perspective by looking at their yearly spending. The latest fiscal plan is to spend $3.9 trillion, leaving the cost of a Federal Death Penalty trial at .00001% of the Federal Budget[3][2]. Though the Death Penalty trial may cost 6 times more than the life without parole trial, we can see that in the long run, it's like a grain of sand on a beach, and doesn't really matter. While we're on the 'big picture' theme, let's look at some other examples. Indiana's Death Penalty cost is .003% of their state spending[1][4][2]. Nevada, .0025%[1][5][2]. Texas, .001%[1][6][2]. Note that Texas was one of the states closer to California in trial costs. I could go on but I think my point has been made clear. I am not arguing that the Death Penalty isn't more expensive, I'm simply showing that the increased price of the Death Penalty is minuscule compared to state and federal budgets, and is an incredibly small issue to take with the use of the Death Penalty.REBUTTAL, DEATH PENALTY IS UNJUSTIn the first paragraph of this argument, my opponent makes the case that the state has no right to take a life. His reasoning: "...there is always a choice--the criminal is safely in the hands of the state--the state has no necessary motive to kill, such as self-defence or preemptive strike. They can easily let the criminal live while also protecting society from him through life without parole, yet they choose to take away his ultimate position, his ultimate right."I would agree with my opponent, if it were not for the fact that the state does have necessary motive to kill, that motive being the strong deterrent effect of execution. He says they can easily let the criminal live while protecting society, but that is not true, at least, there is a 34,000 to 1 chance that is not true.Next my opponent turns to the 'torturous' experience of a death row inmate, claiming that due to the manner of living on death row, it is not as bad being among the murdered, saying that this destroys claims to retributive justice. As I am not interested in nor have made arguments for retributive justice, I'll keep my rebuttal to the people who would die thanks to the lack of implementation of the Death Penalty. So on one hand we've got 12 years on death row, in a constant state of anxiety, fixated on the day of your death. On the other hand we've got potentially 74 lives, and, something that Albert Camus and Fyodor Dostoevsky neglected to mention, the families and friends of the 74. For the families and friends, there will be no swift end to the suffering of losing a loved one. One would be hard pressed to say that the suffering of one man is worse than the unprevented deaths of many more, and the suffering of each of the murdered family and friends. Additionally, the fact that death row inmates have a rough go of it in solitary does not necessarily mean the Death Penalty needs to be abolished. It could just as easily point to reform. Instead of making these dead men walking sit alone with their thoughts for 12 years, they could be allowed a little more free-reign, and activities with which to distract themselves. This would also help to address the unconstitutionality of the Death Penalty. On that note, I'd like to ask, what is more important, preventing rare breaks with the constitution, or saving 74 times as many lives per break in our constitution? Laws are designed to keep as many people as possible safe. When they start getting in the way of that, it would be a good idea to reconsider our actions, and our laws. Thanks for reading.Sources:[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[2] https://www.google.com...[3] https://www.nationalpriorities.org...[4] http://www.in.gov...[5] http://openbudget.nv.gov...[6] https://bivisual.cpa.texas.gov...