Capital Punishment

Deterrence My opponent persists with extremely weak claims, and cherry picks data from my John Lott article. My opponent agrees with the statement comparing states is weak, yet persists with his claims and then claims I am a hypocrite. However, his argument of “you did it too!!” is actually false. My opponent first argues I continued to compare states after I said it was inaccurate, but this is not the case. I never compared the states. The study I cited used data from each state and NEVER compared them. For example, it uses data and trends from Texas and concludes the outcome of deterrence on that state. Then continues to the next state. Then tallies the score. The study found in states with less execution has no effect on crime (this is in states only where DP exists). He finds states, like Texas and Virginia, which have high execution rates, reap an overall benefit from the death penalty. “Thus the result from earlier economics papers: on average, an execution in the United States deters crime.” He later argues a half-baked death penalty does not to the job, and only states with high execution rates save lives. Again, this means more execution not less is needed [1]. My opponent then essentially cherry picks from my source. The source did indicate states without DP had lower crime rates, but my opponent misses the next paragraph (and missing this paragraph like it doesn’t exist is dishonest), “This simple comparison really doesn’t prove anything. The 12 states without the death penalty have long enjoyed relatively low murder rates due to factors unrelated to capital punishment.” In other words, the death penalty is NOT the reason these states have higher/lower crime rates. My source did nothing for your case unless you fail to read the following passages. The source further notes, “When the death penalty was suspended nationwide from 1968 to 1976, the murder rate in these 12 states still was lower than in most other states. What is much more important is that the states that reinstituted the death penalty had about a 38 percent larger drop in murder rates by 1998.” This actually lends credence to the deterrence hypothesis as the DP states have larger drops in crime then those without a DP. And it also lends a rebuttal to your case as even when the DP is abolished they still have lower crime, meaning the DP is not related to this correlation my opponent is using as the bastion for his whole argument [2]. And yes, all states have had a reduction, but the level of the reduction is important. All states had a decrease in crime, correct, however if one state has a larger reduction then another then some other factor is involved. John Lott says guns and the DP are the reason. Merely saying all states have had a reduction is irrelevant. The level of reduction is significant to this debate. My opponent then again starts comparing states, but looks at regional comparisons. However, these articles still prove a deterrence hypothesis. In many of these comparisons, many differences come out. Mainly we see in these northeastern and Virginian states population and urbanization rates are very different. It is still statistically a fact trends are the best way to determine something’s effectiveness. And when using these trends, it is noted the states with the most DP have the largest drop in crime. This is a classic and strong way to determine crime (states with or without trends comparing is an accurate way to look at it). And let me say it again: states with the most DP have the largest drops in crime [3]. And these comparisons, even if regional, are extremely weak. Isaac Ehrlich noted on the study, “a throwback to the vintage 1960s statistical analyses done by criminologists who compared murder rates in neighboring states where capital punishment was either legal or illegal. …The statistics involved in such comparisons have long been recognized as devoid of scientific merit.” He further said the reason these articles cannot be trusted is because no factors are controlled for. For example, the arrest rates, conviction rates, drug usage rates, population rate, urbanization rate, type of legal system (certain laws change things a lot), gun laws, etc. all differ even in neighboring states. As no trends are taken into account nor regression to account for these variables, Ehrlich is right, these comparisons lack any scientific merit [4]. Innocence My opponent’s list is again flawed! 17 of those 86 where let out due to government misconduct (police being cruel, or some other technicality) meaning 69 of those where truly innocent. False confession also has the definition of coming from one who is mentally retarded, ill, or was tortured by the police. In two of those instances, the murderer might have been guilty. Meaning he wasn’t really “innocent”, he was more let out (again) on a technicality. Due to the fact it doesn’t have a good breakdown lets minus 4 of the eight, though it may have been higher or lower, that’s a good mid point. 65 now. And this is a similar number my source reported last round meaning the DP has a 99.6% accuracy rate. About 6000 people have been executed. So really, the amount innocent is miniscule. And the “study” my opponent used was actually one of my rebuttals too [5]. The other innocents saved is worth it for around 65 truly innocents. Yes, the court system has a high accuracy rate. This means the innocent problem is not really a problem, and the lives saved > those lost. I don’t see how this is a rebuttal as it conceded the DP is accurate and all I need to prove is 66 lives have been saved from the DP. This has already been done. I have shown last round nearly 40,000 lives would be saved from recidivism, and thousands more saved from deterrence. Net benefit from the DP. My opponent then argues LWOP is, indeed, LWOP. And sure, a 60 year old man isn’t in the best shape. However it has been shown many of these murderers who have gotten parole in 20 years (it is common) or get pardoned by a governor (common too) have high recidivism rates. Lowe actually shows many examples of old men strangling and killing many teenage women and sometimes children [6]. Further, many of these murderers aren’t in an average. One study noted, “Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives.”[7] In other words, they serve the time and go right back to killing. This older study shows 821 lives saved. The source further indicates extending the time right up to Furman 10,000 people (higher estimate) would have been saved. Using different data then the study just cited, estimations note 28,000 lives saved from recidivism based on the few that escape, get paroled, get pardoned, etc. Even if we use the 821 low estimates, the overall benefit is extremely high [8]. Remember the deterrence value, 35,000 saved. Constitution Ah, thanks, I see. However, the point is flawed. First, many of the cases you cite are electrocution or other methods, which are no longer in use and, therefore, are irrelevant. Second, none of the pain was arbitrary as proper veins are needed for the execution. And cruel and unusual means it must be rejected by [most] of society (in this case the US). It is not rejected. Using the definition of cruel and unusual in the US, it simply doesn’t fit [9]. The state has the right to provide justice to the murderer. It may be ones personal revenge (child wants dad dead for killing grandma for example), however the purpose the state usually uses the DP is to ensure safety by preventing recidivism or by providing deterrence, or justice if the murder was really grotesque (rape, strangling, and burning of a child for example). Why not have an option, even if they rarely use it, to kill a murderer? See comments for sources