The US should abolish capital punishment

Theory:We're debating policy, and policy debate allows for reform. I'm saying the US should not “abolish” the death penalty. That doesn't mean I defend the status quo. I can defend anything as long as the death penalty is applied to some extent in my counterplan. The counterplan would significantly reduce the amount of innocents killed, so it solves one of Pro's harms. I agree that harms apply to the status quo, but a CP would reduce -- or offset -- those harms, and there's no rule prohibiting the usage of counterplans.1. Capital punishment deters homicide ratesJohn Lott's study was a study. The source involves empirical research done by Lott, regarding the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Even if it wasn't a study, it was empirical research that proved my point, which was entirely dropped. Furthermore, Pro tries to argue that a book cannot be a source. But a source does not need to be directly accessible as long as what was said was mentioned in the book. For instance, in formal debate, there's no direct access to sources. But sources still count as long as they're not miscounted. It wasn’t in peer-review, but it was still there. Lott had another peer-reviewed study with almost identical results as well, published in another book. [3. John R. Lott, More Guns, Less Crime] That study was actually passed through peer-review, and wasn’t in the NRC report. [4. http://tinyurl.com...]I concede that Zimmerman’s 2009 study was included in the report. But the 2004 study was not. I mixed up the sources last round accidentally. So I’ll present the data of Zimmerman’s other studies, not included in the report. In those two studies, Zimmerman uses state data. State-level data is better than county-level ones, since it presents a larger statistical base, allowing for more precise calculation. He published two studies using state-level data, one with data from 1978 to 1997 [5. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu...], and one with data extended till 2000. [6. http://papers.ssrn.com...] Both found a deterrent effect of 14 murders deterred per execution.The NRC report doesn’t have the most accurate data. There are many reasons to think so. The NRC has no reason for ignoring so many studies. There’s no criticism of multiple studies. These include the study by Zimmerman, Cloninger and Marchesini, etc. The study by Cloninger and Marchesini, which found a deterrent effect, is sourced here. [7. http://www.ingentaconnect.com...] The NRC report did ignore most studies that found a deterrent effect. Therefore, there’s no reason to believe they run into those problems.Now, let me address each of the report’s claims:a) I’m not saying the death penalty is the only reason for the crime rate changes. I’m saying it is a major reason. And there are multiple reasons to think so. The main one is that criminals do behave rationally, and multiple correlations document this. 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. [8. http://www.nber.org...] Lott says, “Criminals as a group tend to behave rationally--when crime becomes more difficult, less crime is committed.” [3] It’s been proven that criminals respond to arrest rates. Many studies not addressed by the NRC report also document correlations regarding the death penalty, such as Lott’s and Zimmerman’s. Lott’s study, in particular, shows that criminal response to the death penalty is greater than criminal response to LWOP and other non-capital punishment. [3]b) As seen above, there is a good reason to believe criminals do respond to the death penalty. Lott concluded that the death penalty is responsible for more crime drop than the LWOP, and results in a significant reduction of homicide rates. His study confirms that criminals respond to the risk of death much more than they do to other arrest rates. They weigh the chance of death to the benefits to the crime, and the chance of death on many first-degree murders is high. They respond. Lott also found that certain kinds of application also give greater responses. Ultimately, the cause is the death penalty. [3]c) All the supposed false assumptions made by the studies aren’t really made by the studies. First, I never claimed that the death penalty was the sole cause of the correlation. I’ve already addressed the first assumption in point (b). The second point is virtually the same as the first one -- and the observed correlation is also analyzed with other factors by Lott’s studies [1, 3], and the death penalty has been proven to significanlty influence homicide rates. I agree that the effects of the death penalty aren’t the same for all states and years, but that merely is because of the amount of applications and changes in the criminals’ way of thinking. It doesn’t prove my point wrong. The fourth point also is about factors that influence the correlation, and that’s also addressed by Lott’s study.I’m winning deterrence for multiple reasons. Lott’s study is dropped, and both of his studies have similar results: the death penalty is responsible for multiple correlations found. I’ve proven that criminals are inherently rational and respond to incentives -- and that means the death penalty should affect them. Third, Pro concedes the *correlation* established by the Gittings and Mocan study, and only disputes causation; since I’ve addressed causation, presume Con on the correlation research too. I also have many studies not addressed by the NRC report. The NRC report, Pro’s main line of defense against this contention, is seriously flawed because it doesn’t address multiple studies on the issue. The Lott study guarantees both correlation and causation.2. Recidivism rates are reduced by the death penaltyIt’s impossible to at least dispute that recidivism rates would increase if the death penalty were abolished. Take the case of Darryl Kemp, who was released from death row into life imprisonment with parole, and subsequently raped and murdered another woman, before moving back into death row. [9. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...] This is proof that there are people who would repeat murdering if they weren’t sentenced to death. If some people aren’t executed, they will murder again. Pro misses the point of the argument.The reason I brought up those statistics is that if there is a high recidivism rate in LWOP inmates themselves, then there naturally would be a high recidivism in death row inmates if they were put into LWOP. Those on death row were often put on death row because of recidivism. That means that there are those who would keep repeating in-prison murders if they’re not put on death row. My previous examples also work, because if Christopher Carver had not got a death sentence, he would have murdered again. The death penalty will prevent that.3. The right to life is outweighed by the deterrent effectThe right to life is outweighed by deterrence. I proved in R2 that govt. legislation is based on util, and that means more lives saved is better. Pro drops that even those whose murders would be prevented by a DP have a right to life. The right to life isn’t absolute, because “absolute rights” don’t exist under util, and the appeal to the UDHR is an appeal to authority. My framework means this point is refuted.4. Racism can be reduced by the CP, barely exists, and is outweighed by deterrencePro says I can’t run CP’s. But I can - debate theory dictates that a CP can be run, and the resolution and the rules don’t say I must defend the current system anywhere. The CP I proposed would significantly reduce racism.My death row population argument was actually irrelevant, since Pro doesn’t argue related to that so much as related to who was killed. I misquoted Lott when I used the word “inherently;” I meant the system isn’t inherently racist. That means the death penalty is largely not racist. [10. http://www.nationalreview.com...]Pro drops that deterrence outweighs this. Pro doesn’t even have an impact to weigh in from “racism,” because those allegedly put on death row because of racism are still usually murderers, people who would be convicted and put on death row by the law anyway. That’s compared to the huge impact on deterrence on both costs and number of lives saved.Costs/innocence are outweighed by deterrence.UnderviewI’m winning deterrence. I’ve proven that criminals are inherently rational and respond to incentives, and that the correlation and causation are factored in by Lott’s study. The NRC report doesn’t address many study’s, especially my first line of defense: Lott. That would mean 14 lives saved per execution, which adds up to 395 people annually, plus $6.713 billion earned annually. I’m winning recidivism, because there’s at least some potential repetition of murder prevented.Winning these two points outweighs all other contentions on both probability and magnitude. Costs is outweighed because lives outweigh costs, and costs is also turned on account of the deterrence impact. Innocent death is outweighed because of the number of lives saved. The right to life should be sacrificed for deterrence, since I’ve proven that government legislation is based on utilitarianism. There’s no magnitude to weigh on racism, as opposed to the huge magnitude on deterrence. Vote Con. Conclusion. I have poked numerous holes in Pro’s case, and Pro fails to substantially refute deterrence. Deterrence offsets *all* of their offense, so prefer Con on probability as well as magnitude. Pro had the full burden of proof, and has failed to fulfill it. For all these reasons, vote Con. Pro must waive the next round.