Capital punishment is justifiable

After having read and considered his arguments, I find myself thoroughly impressed; his formidably is blatantly evident. Hopefully I can prove to be just as persuasive in my rebuttals. My opponent has asserted that three key issues must be considered when determining the justifiability of capital punishment; namely, its ability to deter crime, its capacity to justly punish criminals which other forms of legal discipline cannot, and the extent to which it is accepted by the general populace. I do not believe these three issues alone are sufficient to establish capital punishment as a justified method of legal discipline; however, seeing as how my position in this debate solely entails debunking the assertions of my opponent, I shall stray no further than that. Rebutting Motion #1: In his first motion, my opponent asserts that capital punishment serves as an effective deterrent for serious offences; however, there exists an abundance of evidence to suggest otherwise. For example, it is a fact that statistical analyses consistently reveal more favorable crime rates for states which do not employ the death penalty [1], as can be seen from the graph below, Exhibit 1.0: Provided by . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org..., However, my opponent has stated that “while researching if capital punishment is successful [as a deterrent], it is important not to just look at the states that endorse the policy and then compare rates with those that don't, a more extensive review is required. ” As evidence of this, he presents us with a graph provided by the Bureau of Criminal Justice that clearly illustrates the alleged ability of capital punishment to deter crime. The graph does such by taking one, individual State and examining its fluctuation in the use of capital punishment to ultimately determine whether or not crime is more prevalent in that State when the death penalty is being more vigorously employed. Despite this, however, studies conducted specifically for the State of California have revealed that the death penalty did not deter crime; rather, it found a significant increase in homicide rates after the death penalty had been reinstated [2], and the same has been demonstrated in Oklahoma: Exhibit 1.1 Moreover, Amnesty International has reported that Canadian homicide rates have dropped a significant 27% since the country abandoned the practice of capital punishment in 1976. [3] In fact, when the US compares itself to any other nation, we see much more desirable crime rates in those countries which have banned the practice of capital punishment: Exhibit 1.2: Consequently, it’s no surprise that the experts tend to disagree with my opponent’s assertions. For example, in 2009, a research study conducted by Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock revealed that out of all of the nation’s most prominent Criminologists, an overwhelming 88% believed that capital punishment did not serve as a successful deterrent. [4] Therefore, considering all of the evidence mentioned above, I assert that capital punishment has not been successfully demonstrated to serve as an effective deterrent, but rather seems to only increase crime through the so-called "brutalization effect. " Rebutting Motion #2:In his second motion, my opponent makes the assertion that because it is too dangerous to place capital offenders among the general population, and unconstitutional to place them in solitary confinement for life, the only alternative option is death. However, such an assertion is based upon a false premise; namely, that capital offenders cannot live peaceably with fellow inmates. A very impressive study was conducted by Dr. Mark Cunningham and Dr. Jon Sorensen entitled, "Improbable Prediction at Capital Sentencing: Contrasting Prison Violence Outcomes. " In this study, it was effectively demonstrated that capital offenders are no more violent among general populations than their fellow inmates. The abstract of the published study states that "during postconviction prison tenures averaging 4.4 years, none of the capital defendants was cited for accomplished serious assaults. .. Ratesof misconduct among the capital offenders were equivalent to those among all inmates. " [5]Therefore, the assertion that capital offenders are too dangerous to place among general population is a demonstrably false assumption; hence, the argument that capital punishment is the only pragmatic and moral solution for heinous, psychopathic, and non-rehabilitative crimes is nullified. Rebutting Motion #3:In his third motion, my opponent states that when the first two motions are established, a general acceptance among the population justifies capital punishment. However, as I believe I've demonstrated, the first two motions aren't established at all; moreover, if I understand the argument correctly, it is an argumentum ad populum, as it asserts that something is true simply because most people, particularly non-experts, believe it. As a result, this motion is invalid. I ask my opponent to correct me if I've misinterpreted this motion. [1] . http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org... [2] (William Bailey, “Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty,” Criminology, 1998; Ernie Thompson, “Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California. ” Homicide Studies, 1999) [3] . http://www.ncadp.org... [4] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5] . http://www.jaapl.org... [6] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...