Death Penalty

Rebuttal 1: Rights My opponent has claimed that the Declaration of Independence has stated that every man has the right to life. However, this was written at a time when there could not have been forethought onto how criminals would be punished. Not only this, but according to our current legal system it is just in cases, and it is up to the State to determine when it should apply. Moreover, my opponent has already agreed to my framework as discussed in my last response. “Before we begin, let us realize that this debate should be weighed by lives and economics. Furthermore, if I convince you that the death penalty saves lives and is economically sound, I win the debate. With this in mind, I will begin.” This was one of the first things I have stated, which could be considered the terms if you will. My opponent’s response is as follows: “I agree with the terms he set up. Here's my rebuttal of his arguments.” These were my terms and my opponent has accepted them. Regardless of the moral repercussions of today’s debate, we need statistical analysis and understanding of the actual costs onto the system. Besides there are many moral systems that value the death penalty, such as deontology. “Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.” http://www.britannica.com... Moral systems are all considered equal, as all depend on what school of thought one subscribes to. After all, who is to say Christianity is a better moral indicator than deontology, or the thinkers behind the Declaration of Independence? That is an entirely different debate for a different time. Rebuttal 2: Costs True, the cost of the death penalty is considered huge. However, this does not point toward a con vote, it simply means that it is a necessary cost of the system. Not only this, but with the plea bargain we see huge decreases in the actual cost of the death penalty itself. Also, keep in mind that under the current system in the US, my opponent would be right. However, we are not debating the current system, we are debating “the death penalty” in general, and since reforms in sentencing can be used to change the amount of money spent on the system, we don’t need to take this into account. Finally, we can simply end the appeal process for over three times. Remember, it is the amount of complexity in the judicial system which adds to the majority of the costs. By eliminating the appeals system after three times for those on death row we would see decreases in price and more for the government to spend on constituents. Not only this, but eliminating harsh rules on those committed with minor drug offenses would also mean less money wasted, and more that could go to a smoother, more proficient judicial system. In fact, according to Pew Charitable Trusts, the federal prison system spends over 6 billion USD on the federal prison system. http://www.pewtrusts.org... Given the amount of people in prison for minor drug offenses, we can clearly see how much we could save on the prison system in another way, and that we don’t need to abolish the death penalty to save money. Rebuttal 3: Innocents My opponent has brought up the innocents executed under the current system. Again we are looking toward the death penalty in general as there is no specific model we are debating according to the rules, we are simply debating whether the death penalty should be utilized. Not only this, but I have proven a deterrent effect that prevents criminals from murdering others, thus preventing the loss of life. My opponent has stated that there are exonerations for those on the death penalty that have been accused of a crime before that would warrant the sentence, and we need to see that with less death penalty sentences in the status quo, we would already be seeing less people getting killed for crimes that are not committed. Rebuttal 4: Racial prejudice My opponent has claimed that racial prejudice is common in the system. However, if we were to look toward the Heritage Foundation, we would get a different story. “When first looking at the raw data without controlling for case characteristics, RAND found that large race effects with the decision to seek the death penalty are more likely to occur when the defendants are white and when the victims are white.[4] However, these disparities disappeared in each of the three studies when the heinousness of the crimes was taken into account.[5] The RAND study concludes that the findings support the view that decisions to seek the death penalty are driven by characteristics of crimes rather than by race. RAND's findings are very compelling because three independent research teams, using the same data but different methodologies, reached the same conclusions.” http://www.heritage.org... This is the RAND study which was mentioned. Which concluded the following “However, all three teams found that controlling for case characteristics eliminated race effects. This finding supports the view that seek decisions were driven by heinousness of crimes rather than race.” http://www.rand.org... With this in mind, we can clearly see that there is no race bias within the death penalty. We look at the heinousness of the crime as opposed to this, and my opponent’s arguments fall. This is especially certain since all three groups studying this came back with the same conclusion. Even if there was, we are still not debating the current system. We are debating whether the death penalty in general is good. Vote pro. Rebuttal 5: Closure My opponent has brought up whether the families involved get closure over the death penalty. However, we can still have the death penalty while providing mental and psychological support to the family while deterring crime and protecting people. My argument of deterrence outweighs the moral argument proposed here. Also, see the argument above where I state my opponent has agreed to my terms about weighing the lives and cost involved over everything else. Keep this in mind.