The US should abolish the death penalty

C1) Deterrence The rational choice theory, also termed rational action theory, is a framework for understanding and modeling social and economic behavior [1]. It has been studied by economists and criminologists to see if criminals act as rationally as standard social humans. The theory has its beginnings in 1968 with the work of Gary Becker. He claimed that criminals are rational. They, like law abiding citizens, respond to costs and benefits. He argues that crime also occurs due to rationality--a cost-benefit analysis by criminals themselves [2]. According to economist John Lott, “[C]riminals as a group tend to behave rationally--when crime becomes more difficult, less crime is committed.” [3] Thus, if criminals act rationally, if crime has greater costs than benefits, they likely won’t commit it. Even irrational actors can be deterred. Juveniles, who were once considered undeterrable, have actually been found to respond to arrest rates. For example, with a rise in teenage unemployment rates, they commit more thefts or other crimes. When violent crime arrests increase, juvenile violent crime rates drop [4]. The death penalty does deter crime. Economists have started to spearhead death penalty research, and are increasingly taking part in the debate, since deterrence is primarily a socioeconomic factor. Economist Naci Mocan says, “Science does draw a conclusion. There is no question about it. The conclusion is [the death penalty has] a deterrent effect.” [5] Joanna Shepard, an economist at Clemson University, uses state data from 1977 to 1999. According to her study, each death row sentence deterred, on average, 4.5 murders; each execution deterred 3 murders; one murder is deterred for every 2.75 years reduction in time spent on death row [6]. FCC economist Paul Zimmerman published two studies using state-level data, one with data from 1978 to 1997 [7], and one with data extended till 2000 [8]. There is a fairly strong consensus in econometric literature that the DP deters homicides. 17 studies show a deterrent effect of the death penalty, while only 5 dissent [9]. Of those five dissenting, Katz, Levitt and Shustorovich (2003) actually shows a deterrent effect [10], where the DP deters homicide rates. The reason no deterrence was found was because the study focused on the relation between the death penalty and overall crime rates, but the DP won’t deter non-homicide crimes significantly since it does not apply to assault, burglary, etc. Donohue and Wolfers published a dissenting study that is flawed since it assumes that executions happen the same year a sentence occurred [11], which is flawed since the average wait is 15 years. The below graph shows the rate of homicides in New York State compared with the rise in homicide rates (with data collected from the source) [14]: Murray Rothbard, a libertarian economist, argues “it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty. Sometimes the liberal argument comes perilously close to maintaining that no punishment deters any crime — a manifestly absurd view that could easily be tested by removing all legal penalties for nonpayment of income tax and seeing if there is any reduction in the taxes paid … the murderer himself is certainly "deterred" from any repetition of his crime.” [18] The study Pro presents against deterrence is made by people with background in law and criminology--but the Rational Choice Theory is primarily an economic theory, therefore requires an analysis of economists. Homicide rates in New York State and other states confirm deterrence. C2) Prevention of recidivism There have been many instances in the American justice system when criminals have reoffended. A study from the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed that of prisoners released in 1994, 1.2% of those convicted of homicide were arrested for another homicide within three years of release [12]. In 2009, 8.6% of those on death row had a prior homicide conviction, and over 5% of those on death row committed their capital crime while in custody or during an escape [13]. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, recidivism rates for homicides are actually fairly high, despite journalistic claims to the contrary. 12.5% of those whose greatest offense was homicide were arrested in 6 months, and, over 5 years, 51.2% had been arrested *again*. Of those whose only offense was homicide, the rate was 0.9% [15]. So the worst criminals have extremely high recidivism rates, of up to 51.2%, while those who only murder have a recidivism rate of 0.9%. While the latter number may seem small, it is fairly significant because of the number of murders. An example of this is seen in Kenneth McDuff, who was placed in death row for three murders. The sentence was then commuted to life imprisonment, and was later released. Following his release, he killed 9 more people, and was then executed for this. Lee Andrew Taylor is another example--he was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing two people--he then killed another inmate in prison. The death penalty ensures a 0% rate of recidivism, since committing a crime ‘after death’ is completely incoherent. Thus, the death penalty would prevent more deaths. C3) DP is just The death penalty upholds justice. G.W.F. Hegel notes that autonomy separates humans from other entities. A table cannot be blamed for immoral acts since it has no autonomy to distinguish ‘immoral’ from ‘moral’. But the power of autonomy, and ability to distinguish between these poles, gives humans dignity. “At the heart of [human dignity] is a twofold intuition about human beings: namely, that all, just by being human, are of equal dignity and worth, no matter where they are situated in society, and that the primary source of this worth is a power of moral choice within them, a power that consists in the ability to plan a life in accordance with one's own evaluation of ends.” [16] Human dignity demands unconditional respect to individuals--which means humans can’t be reduced to mere tools, and equality and justice must be upheld with a sense of individual respect. Hegel observes, “[I]n punishment the offender is honored as a rational being, since the punishment is looked on as his right.” [17] The punishment is looked on as a right since it affirms that choices result in consequences--if a person makes a choice knowing it has a negative consequence, putting forth that consequence upholds justice. When I freely choose to do something, I simultaneously acquiesce to any predictable consequences that might arise therefrom. Consider a situation in a school, where students have been warned not to write on the chalkboard--if they do, they are informed that they shall be punished with a 5-minute time out. If a student does write on the chalkboard, it is reasonable they are given that five-minute time out. Similarly, the criminal who commits a horrendous crime, e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing, or mass-murders, acquiesces to the consequence automatically--a reasonable consequence that results in deterrence and retribution. While this may be seen as vengeance rather than justice, note that it isn’t vengeance so much as just retribution. You forfeit the right violated by you--that’s the basic consequence. Human autonomy is the ability to make a choice, and if a criminal has such an ability to make a choice such as murder, he elicits a certain consequence depending on the severity of the choice. If the death penalty is unjust, no punishment is just and the concept of punishment becomes an intrinsically unjust concept, but punishment is the consequence elicited by a choice, and, as such, upholds justice. Edward Feser writes, “[T]he aims of punishment are threefold: retribution, or inflicting on a wrongdoer a harm he has come to deserve because of his offense; correction, or chastising the wrongdoer for the sake of getting him to change his ways; and deterrence, discouraging others from committing the same offense.” [19] He notes, “We can’t correct someone who doesn’t deserve correction.” So, retribution and deterrence are the only options. The resolution is resoundingly negated. Over to Pro. 1. http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com... 2. http://www.nber.org... 3. John R. Lott. More Guns, Less Crime, p. 20. 4. http://www.nber.org... 5. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu... 8. http://papers.ssrn.com... 9. http://www.cjlf.org... 10. http://aler.oxfordjournals.org... 11. http://economics.emory.edu... 12. http://www.bjs.gov... 13. http://www.bjs.gov... 14. Rafael Di Tella, Sebastian Edwards, and Ernesto Schargrodsky. The Economics of Crime, p. 396. 15. http://www.bjs.gov... 16. http://tibormachan.rationalreview.com... 17. Martin Perlmutter. “Desert and Capital Punishment.” Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy. 1981. 139-146. 18. https://mises.org... 19. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...