Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Removed

Thanks.My opponent makes a series of observations. Let's take a look at these:1. My opponent criticizes my use of lex talionis to support capital punishment. using the old adage that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Nonwithstanding the fact that he didnt offer a system of justice himself, the problem with this as an argument is that capital punishment is not really an eye for an eye, not any more than imprisoning a kidnapper is an eye for an eye. A retributive death at the hand of the justice system is not the same as the murder of an innocent, as John Stewart Mills put it: "Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live". Moreover, to support his continual violence argument he needs to show a case where the family of the executed attempted vengeance, or else you ignore it. He asks what benefit prisoners get in prison. Evidently, prisoners themselves find a benefit to living, as ~95% of them consistently fight their death sentences, as opposed to volunteering[1][2] (2011: 43 executions, 2 volunteers. 2012: 23 exectuions, 1 volunteer). Moreover, to force the victims (society and the family) to pay the upkeep of the prisoner is an act of moral perversion and a mockery of justice. 2. He argues that someone could be innocent. First, this doesnt link in with capital punishment, it is an argument to increase the standards of evidence. Second TURN: An innocent condemned to die has a significantly greater chance of walking free than an innocent sentenced to life without parole. Since organizations like the innocence project have limited resources, they use them on cases which seem more urgent (IE death sentences). Moreover, death sentences have a multitude of appeals, all the way up to the chief executive of the state and the supreme court itself. Innocents condemned to life without parole have no avenue with which to turn, and as such die behind bars. A life destroyed by long term imprisonment is the same morally (perhaps even more cruel) than a life destroyed by the needle. Moreover, the CSI effect[8] shows that the chances of condeming an innocent become significantly less likely as time goes on.3. He argues that the state shouldn't have responsibility for people, but we have to make the assumption that it should be. Nothing less significant than the legitimacy of the modern state rests on this assumption, and since this is a debate about an individual issue not statism, its imprudent to debate the merits of government here. He argues that shame and dissapointment will be effective against cold hearted killing machines, and even if you buy this the empirical evidence proves it false, refer to the volunteer issue. 4. The legal system is indeed in need of reform. We agree here. 1. Crime deterrence. My opponent cites Canada's decreased murder rate as a proof against deterrence. First, this violates ceteris paribus. Second, since the 1970s in Canada: adult usage of drugs has declined[3], incarceration rates have increased[4] , the inflation rate has decreased significantly[5], and crime in general has declined[3] The fact is that there are many factors going into a crime rate, which is why you need to prefer the logic (which he entirely dropped). Moreover, his only response to my empirical evidence is an ad-hom against Westley Lowe, but the fact is that Lowe could be a simple author and still be RIGHT. Lowe didnt conduct some advanced study, he made statistical observations going down to a COUNTY SPECIFIC level (compare this to my opponents rebuttal which is country-wide). He also dropped the studies I mentioned arguing that CP does decrease crime. Third, TURN: The decline in Canadas murder rate is less than the decline in the US when they re-implemented the DP, and significantly less than the decline in the Texas murder rate. He is correct that states with the DP generally have higher murder rates, but this violates ceteris paribus. Consider state level assessments, which show significant deterrent effect (assessments he's dropped). His criminology card is just an appeal to authority, they could be right but he must demonstrate so. He gives no sample size, and not even a link into the study so really it needs to just be ignored compared with the heaps of evidence he dropped. He also states my sources are ambigious because they include manslaughter, but the kind of manslaughter mentioned is the "crime of passion" kind[6], so his rebuttal about accidental deaths really makes no sense at all. He brings up a good point that many people have illnesses and dont think of the consequences of their actions. I agree with this, but for every person with consequence obscuring illnesses, there are dozens more without them. Sure, deterrence, and the fear of death, is only going to have an affect on those with a rational mind, but it still has the potential, and the facts show that it does deter. He argues again that non-CP states have less crime, but this DOES violate ceteris paribus. Anyone who's visited the United States knows that each state has a significantly different populace and culture than the others. Compare this to my county specific data. 2. RecidivismHe almost entirely drops this. His response is basically "oh well CP kills people too". I've already addressed this point. Further, Tafero was obviously guilty[9], and was a rapist besides. I'll concede to deluna, meaning the death penalty has a failure rate of less than .1%, a rate that will only decline. Compare this to the failure rate of imprisonment, in some cases upwards to 5% as shown in my case. You can extend the lives saved by deterring recidivism (dropped), and that many death row inmates would be paroled if the abolition was immediate (dropped). Seriously, this is my biggest point and he drops it entirely.My opponent brings up the entirely irrelevant case of a pedophile who was extrajudicially tortured. Ok? He says that two wrongs doesnt make a right...except for that torture for punishments sake alone is not really a moral issue, it is almost universially rejected. Moreover, if it was known that the pedophile would violate more children without torture (as it is known some criminals will do without death--clarence allen) than implementing torture indeed would be a moral obligation. Further, theres no evidence that killing a killer is inherently wrong like torutre probably is, just as imprisoning a kidnapper is not wrong. My impacts outweigh regardless. Torture is the needless infliction of suffering, where as death is the end of all earthy suffering in order to save more lives. Not the same thing.Death is not the worst thing one can face, no one argued that. The argument is that the death penalty is the safest and most just penalty.3. Justice Essentially dropped and therefore conceded. He makes no response to either of my scenarios, and gives no answer as to what we should do to a dangerous crime leader or war criminal. At this point you negate by default. He makes the argument that CP is unconstitutional. SCOTUS has upheld the DP over and over again[7], and he gives no warrant on how it's cruel and unusual, other than one judge thinking so. His UN evidence suffers the same issue since he fails to define what is inhumane/degrading/cruel. Moreover, even if his counter holds true, this shows that we must abolish the death penalty, not that we should. My opponent needs to give an objective metric as to what is cruel/degrading, and then show the death penalty to meet those standards of cruelty.The resolution is negated. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...