The Death Penalty Should be Abolished.

[Definition - Abolished] 1. To do away with; annul. 2. To destroy completely. http://dictionary.reference.com... *Counterarguments* 1. This is such a cliched misconception. There is a defining line between a violent crime and a punishment: the motive and reasoning behind it. Abolitionists such as yourself only see the physical similarities of the death penalty and murders, but fail to see the moral aspect. Would you condemn a father from spanking a child because the child kicked his brother? Of course not, unless the father were to be an abusive or irrational one, we would agree that his treatment was appropriate. There wasn't malignant thoughts of payback in the father's mind, but rather of the wish to morally correct his son. Would you connect charging taxes and fines with extortion? In the same way these pairs are distinguished, so is the death penalty and offenders. This is a concept of retributive justice: let the punishment fit the crime. Yet, I would argue for a mix of utilitarian reasoning. Not only is it a means of justice that looks backward, to psychological and emotional benefits for the victims, but looks forward such as future social benefits. 2. This argument would work assuming that life without parole would be morally equated or more justified than the death penalty. As a proponent of the death penalty, I am not arguing the death penalty should be kept because of economic reasons purely. The common mistake for abolitionists is that they equate all LWOP (life without parole) cases with all DP (death penalty) cases. It is only valid of the same category of offense is committed, which is not always the case. The February 7th ,1994 issue of Times magazine showed average cell costs to be around the $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. The majority of DP case costs are based on appeals, as are LWOP. A significant cost difference should not be seen. Even if DP cases DO cost more, reducing many useless and costly appeal cases that delay trials rather than decide whether one is innocent or not could be beneficial. There are many other benefits also, in terms of "cost". Not only monetarily, but the incentive of pleading guilty and testifying against others, etc. can be very beneficial if a DP were to be in the scenario. 3. There are many things to take into mind when dealing with such statistics. "The homicidal rate in states without capital punishment has remained consistently lower than states with instated capital punishment." -The test for deterrence is not whether executions produce lower murder rates, but that executions produce fewer murders than if the death penalty did not exist. Now about deference and statistics. -The Thuggees were one of the worst gangs in history. They plagued Indian villages and merchants for hundreds of years. When the British empire came into power, they instated fast arrested and executions. Stemming from so many hangings, the Thuggees were eventually suppressed and eliminated with, deterring many new incomers. This is historical evidence for the deterrence power of a DP. -During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. [2] As you can see, this deterrence effect is valid since it shows the difference when DP was instated and when it was not. -There is the deterrence in the fact that the murderer or rapist will never do his crime again. There have been a plethora of cases of escaped or released convicts from LWOP, and whom have continued their killing spree until being caught once again. DP would save many potential innocent lives. -In prisons, there are many murders and crimes that go on inside as well, prison guards are the unsung heroes. Executing dangerous criminals would prevent murders, and even the formation of gangs by their influence. -There is one major obstacle for both you and me when dealing with deterrence statistics, correlation doesn't imply causation. Even if this were to dismiss all our statistics, the fact that executing dangerous criminals saves potential innocent lives is not disputed. 4. This is a void argument. The flaw in this would not be on the DP, but on our imperfect law system. Even with LWOP instated, or any other kind of case, it well known that those who are rich and can higher better lawyers will do better than the poor one who will at most get a court appointed attorney. Ways to solve this is to increase the court appointed attorney's salary. *Conclusion* The death penalty is an effective and moral tool for use on dangerous criminals. It is economically sound, and "singling out poor people" isn't a problem of DP, but of the law system. This is why I an urge a vote for Con. ---References--- 1. Stuart Banner, "The Death Penalty: An American History", Harvard Univ Pr, March 2002 2. Robert Tanner, "Studies Claim Death Penalty is a Deterrent", Democrat and Chronicle, June 12, 2007