Capital Punishment

The picture I attempted to post last round didn't work, I apologise. It can be found in my sources, please do look at it as it is key: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...A) Death Penalty as a deterrent rebuttalPro twice describes my argument for this as "extremely weak," I think this description was a little harsh but I do admit that it was a little thin on the ground. This is purely because I thought evidence against Capital Punishment as a deterrent was so vast and conclusive that he would hardly contest it, I was wrong about this and will adjust accordingly.A great portion of Pro's response case to mine consists of complaining that I compared states, offering no other alternative and then comparing states himself. If you are going to condemn a method as "bogus" then don't use it yourself. I do not accept Pro's condemnation of the system of comparing states with and without the death penalty, as it's the only real way to demonstrate the difference with actual statistical evidence, Pro does not get to make evidence disappear simply because he does not like it. The only statistic that Pro did provide was one via a Fox News article stating that after the '68-'76 prohibition of DP, homicides in death penalty states had gone down by 38%. This is completely insignificant as it is not compared with other states and fails to recognise the fact that 1998 had the lowest homicide rate for the entire US for 28 years, with only 16,914! (1) That means that all states would've had a significant reduction! In Pro's argument his only citations are this faulty statistic along with an irrelevant quote by lawyer Joanna Shepard which contributes no facts, just another subjective opinion. I might use Pro's old line back at him and state for the record that his so called 'rebuttal' was extremely weak. Pro observes the fact that I used the NY Times study but does not refute/dispute it, therefore it still stands. Here is further evidence of the utter inaccuracy that is the claim of DP deterrence. “For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9. For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8. For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3.” (2) These statistics, (the data of which was provided by the FBI and US Census) arbitrarily take the three year period of 2008-2010 and demonstrate conclusively with the sound figures provided that states with the death penalty do not have a lower murder rate and therefore it does not work as a deterrent. Even the Fox News article which Pro referred to (3) acknowledges the NY Times findings that “10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average ... while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average.” They conclude this by asserting in a typical Fox News fashion that the 12 states have enjoyed low murder rates unrelated to the death penalty. This is absolutely true, their low murder rates are unrelated to DP and unless DP states have suicidal criminals then these states also have unrelated homicide rates. This is because, be it a life in prison or DP, criminals take the risk regardless. This data that Fox News themselves recognise conclusively proves that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent. Furthermore, a follow-up NY Times article showed “The homicide rate in North Dakota, which does not have the death penalty, was lower than the homicide rate in South Dakota, which does have it, according to F.B.I. statistics for 1998. Massachusetts, which abolished capital punishment in 1984, has a lower rate than Connecticut, which has six people on death row; the homicide rate in West Virginia is 30 percent below that of Virginia, which has one of the highest execution rates in the country.” (6) These facts show neighbouring states with differing capital punishment laws, they are economically similar and comparing them eliminates as many extraneous variables as you're ever going to. So what are their findings? DP states do not have lower murder rates than their non-DP neighbours. Due to the fact that Pro was unable to prove otherwise or negate my evidence, the point stands! B) Innocents Rebuttal Due to the character count I will keep this short and sweet. The basis of Pro's argument is that my list of exonerations is misleading due to the fact that some of the exonerations were not on the basis of actual innocence. This study provided by a University of Law provides a compelling case for 86 exonerated persons, each of which have strong cases for their innocence, complete with a list of reasons behind their wrongful accusations. (4) This means that 61% of the DP exonerated persons were completely innocent and would've been killed by the state for a non-existent crime, a fate which could've been avoided during a prison sentence in which innocence would have time to be proven. Pro goes on to bizarrely state that DP has a 99% accuracy rate. This is an ill-thought out argument as DP is only the conclusion of the conviction and obviously has no part in the actual court process, I'm sure trials which result in prison sentences also have a similar success rate, there's no reason they would not. Therefore this argument is not for DP in any way, it simply shows that the US court system has a very high accuracy rate. If there was no DP then those who were in the unfortunate minority of wrongly accused would not be dead, but would instead be able to prove their innocence during their sentence. Pro's point about recidivism is redundant when you consider the similarly permanent nature of it's alternative, life in prison without parole. When the perpetrator clearly deserves it and presents a significant threat to society then he should get a longer sentence, this I am all for. I know Pro is going to respond with “Life doesn't always mean life.” But most Americans are very poorly informed when it comes to the sentences given out and don't realise that "two-thirds of the states utilize sentences for first degree murder which guarantee that the inmate will never be eligible for release. Most of the remaining states forbid considering parole for at least 25 years." (5) As Harry Connick, Sr., District Attorney in Louisiana said “"When a guy gets to be 60, he's not gonna rip and run a lot. Not like he used to." (5) C) Constitution RebuttalPro clearly misunderstood my point entirely here. If you actually read my post you will see that I was not stating that the constitution forbids DP but that it prohibits “Cruel punishment.” I then went on to show the amount of botched executions which could easily be classed as cruel and their enduring nature due to lack of medical professionals willing to supervise. I also sourced a study which shows a horrendously low anaesthetic level which could also be easily deemed to be cruel. The conclusion I drew, and still continue to draw, is that DP in it's current form is unconstitutional. This point has not been refuted and stands. I'd like to finish my post by asking Pro this, if all murder cases which would usually result in Capital Punishment resulted in a life sentence without parole, would this not be enough? Must the state also lower itself morally by taking petty revenge on those who commit murder and drop to the level of the killer? Sources found in comments.