The Instigator
FieryNyan
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
SocialDemocrat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The United States should Abolish the Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
FieryNyan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 400 times Debate No: 88878
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

FieryNyan

Con

I'm formally extending this invitation to SocialDemocrat after watching his debate with Queencop. It was a fun debate to spectate, and I would like a slice of the cake :)

According to Merriam-Webster, death penalty is defined as "execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense." Today, 32 states, and even the Federal government uses death penalty.

My stand: Death Penalty should be maintained as part of the US System of Justice
SocialDemocrat's stand: The death penalty should be abolished

My arguments will be that death penalty should be maintained, but limited to use for only the most atrocious crimes, and that the receiver should be ensured to be well-represented by a legal counsel.

First Round is for acceptance, definitions and clarification only. Opposition may not bring up any new arguments in the last round, as I will not have any rounds left to rebut them.

I'm looking forward to your acceptance :)
SocialDemocrat

Pro

The death penalty is counter productive because in a criminal justice system like the United States people are bound to slip through the cracks who did not commit a crime, and be executed for a crime they didn't commit.

Legal experts and statisticians from Michigan and Pennsylvania used the latest techniques to produce a PEER REVIEWED (that is very important for validity) study that showed that at least 4.1% of people who were given the death penalty since the 1970's were later proven as well as anything can be proven to be innocent. This is an impressive figure, because what this shows that, if the point of the death penalty is retribution for families of victims of murder, the death penalty is counter productive when people innocent of that crime are executed.

Keep in mind, if you are pro death penalty you are accepting that some people who were innocent will slip through the cracks. Article:http://www.theguardian.com...

Study the article was based on: http://www.pnas.org...

On top of the counter productivity, I have heard the argument that the death penalty actually costs less than a life sentence, but this is false on every front.

1) Until some one is finally executed the regular prison price is being paid while they are on death row, meaning a death penalty does not get rid of the prison cost.

2)It costs $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 in tax revenue for each death penalty case for trials and appeals, while for an entire 40 years in prison it costs $1,000,000-$1,250,000. So the death penalty is much more expensive than a life sentence.
http://okcadp.org...
Debate Round No. 1
FieryNyan

Con

SocialDemocrat, once again, glad to have a debate with you. I love debating with you, as the challenge you offer is amazing! I will refrain from rebutting the points you have stated in Round 1 to allow you to elaborate on it. Without further ado, I will now present my points.


I. Deterrent

First off, let me start by saying this: It is proven that death penalty has deterred many people from commiting crimes."The Rational Choice Theory" by Gary Becker is a great example on this. He states that criminals are rational. They, like us law abiding citizens, respond to costs and benefits. If something is more expensive, people would tend to use less of the product because the benefits are severely less. Similarly, crime works the same way. If the severity and certainty of a punishment increases, Crime will naturally decrease.

Before the changes, being a cop is a very dangerous cop. Murder rates of police officers are 1:5600, including both accidental and intentional deaths. This made police deterred; They wear bulletproof vests, receive trainings on shooting situations, and learn many specific technics to approach different situations. They change their behavior due to the threat. From a statistics done in 2015, execution rate for murderers was 1:278. A murderer has a 20 times chance of dying compared to a police officer being shot. If police officers changed their behaviors over a significantly smaller risk compared to murderers, it would be stupid if criminals would not change their behaviors while having a 20 times larger risk than police's.

From a case study regarding the act of deterrence (link:http://www.nber.org...), we can see that when arrests on violent crimes increase, juvenile crimes across the board decreases.

Joanna Shepard used data from 1977 - 1999 to study the effect of death penalty. For every death row sentence, 4.5 murders are deterred. Each execution deterred 3 murders, and one murder is deterred for every 2.75 years reduction spent on death row. These results stands even after robustness checks, and also takes into account other variables.

Emory University released a paper regarding this. Instead of using state data, Emory used the data of the whole country. Each execution deterred 18 murders.


In the above picture, you can see deterrent in effect. I can go on if you are not convinced. Just call me out and I'll present more evidence.

II. Death Penalty isn't evil.

In fact, it might be considered just.Why are punishments given? (1) deterrence (2) retribution (3) rehabilitation.As I've shown above, death penalty has an effective method of deterrence. However, punishments involve 2 more goals. The two remaining goal is (2) let them receive an equivalent to their offense, (3) Fix the person. To many people, including Edward Feser, the most important goal of a punishment is retribution. We shouldn't correct someone who does not deserve correction. Crimes like stealing, or drug abuse, deserve correction. Murderers do not.

Ok, before my opposition badgers this point, I'd like to say that I'm not implying that all murderers should be sentenced to death. I'm just saying that this might be a preferable course of action. Let's give a scenario. A little girl, the age of 9 is murdered by her father. Not only was she murdered, she had signs of being beaten, starved, whipped, and even had evidence that her father raped her. The Death Penalty may or may not be the best option for the murderer, her father, but no one would have a moral objection against this. In fact, many would prefer to execute him. It is for cases like this, where the acts of the criminal is indisputable and heinous.

Before my opposition tries to mention that "Who is the government to take away lives as they warrant", I'd say they do. That's why cops are armed with firearms and not just tazers or tranquilizers. Furthermore, the army kills people every single day.
SocialDemocrat

Pro

"He states that criminals are rational. They, like us law abiding citizens, respond to costs and benefits. If something is more expensive, people would tend to use less of the product because the benefits are severely less. Similarly, crime works the same way. If the severity and certainty of a punishment increases, crime will naturally, decrease."

A. Okay, but this is a bare assertion right now.

"...we can see that when arrests on violent crime increase juvenile crimes across the board decreases."

A. Okay, however arrests on violent crime are different from the death penalty. Having the death penalty or not does not mean violent criminals are arrested more.

"For every death row sentence, 4.5 murders are deterred. Each execution deterred 3 murders, and one murder is deterred for every 2.75 years reduction spent on death row. These results stands even after robustness checks, and she takes into account other variables."

A. Problem with this, con doesn't have a source that we can examine so we can ignore this until next round when they present a source.

(graph)

A. Murder rates did decrease, but it is not because of the death penalty. Murder rates have been decreasing in both states with and without the death penalty since the 1980's. What we can conclude from this is that the we can not give the decrease in murder rates to the death penalty.

B. A graph on the website for the death penalty shows that at least since 1990, states with no death penalty have had lower murder rates. In 1990, states without the death penalty averaged at a murder rate of 9.16, while states with the death penalty at a 9.50. The trend has continued since then, as in 2014 states without the death penalty averaged at a rate of 3.70, while states with the death penalty averaged with 4.75. As you can see, the rates both ways have consistently decreased, while states without the death penalty always have higher murder rates, so we can not contribute the decreasing murder rates to the death penalty, but other factors. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

"deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation."

A. 1 deterrent doesn't work. retribution does not justify the lives of innocent people."

"Fix the person. TO many people, including Edward fester, the most important goal of a punishment is retribution."

A. But if innocent people are dying, that goes out the window, and as I showed, sometimes they do. Giving them a life sentence isn't to correct them, but to contain them, because if they are proven innocent which has happened multiple times before, you can't justify killing them.

"A little girl, the age of 9 is murdered by her father. Not only was she murdered, she had signs of being being, starved, whipped, and even had evidence that her father raped her."

A. But imagine this scenario, they execute the father. 5 years later, new evidence turns up, they have enough evidence now to definitively say, the father did not murder her. Is it really justice now? This happens 4.1% of the time. Why take the chance of killing innocents, it removed the purpose?

Listen, for some one guilty I don't feel a moral obligation to keep them alive, however when there is a chance they are innocent, and the death penalty costs up to 5 times more, is it really worth it?
Debate Round No. 2
FieryNyan

Con

"A. Okay, but this is a bare assertion right now."

Is it really just bare assertions? Is that not how philosophy works? Look up Descartes philosophy on the Evil Demon. This is how philosophers think and come up with conclusions. If you want to just go shooting everything down for being bare assertion, it's up to the voters to see if it makes sense.

"A. Okay, however arrests on violent crime are different from the death penalty. Having the death penalty or not does not mean violent criminals are arrested more."

Okay, now I know that I'll have to explain every single thing to you because you just take stuff out of context without reading. I'm showing the effect of deterrence. If just jail time deters people, what more would Death Penalty?

"A. Problem with this, con doesn't have a source that we can examine so we can ignore this until next round when they present a source.

The problem with this is Pro just ignores my quotes. I literally wrote the writer's name, and the data she sourced it from. If you want exact quotations, I'll do so from now on. I didn't give the exact link to save words, as I assumed Pro would be reasonable. Apparently not. Well here's the link, considering that you wouldn't even give it a look, and you're just doing this to find something to rebut: http://deathpenalty.procon.org...

Also, since Pro did not rebut anything regarding the "Precautions of Cops" example, I'll take it that he agrees that Gary Becker's "The rational choice theory" affects the cop, and in turn would also affect possible criminals.

" Murder rates did decrease, but it is not because of the death penalty. Murder rates have been decreasing in both states with and without the death penalty since the 1980's. "

Do you have evidence of so? If you are allowed to ask for evidence, then I should be allowed to, too. Also, if such evidences are available, I'd liek to refute your second part, which is :

"What we can conclude from this is that the we can not give the decrease in murder rates to the death penalty."

False. If evidences are available, then we're can't give ALL the credits to death penalty, but we can still give partial credits to death penalty. The fact is Murder rates did decrease coincidentally after death penalty was introduced.

"A graph on the website for the death penalty shows that at least since 1990, states with no death penalty have had lower murder rates"

But from the graph, you can see that Death Penalty did drop! It had lower rates because it always had lower rates. I'm not trying to prove that death penalties are the best deterrant; I'm saying that it is an effective method of deterrant.

"A. 1 deterrent doesn't work. retribution does not justify the lives of innocent people.""

Deterrent does work. Obviously you did not read anything I typed, even when I had a huge Header which says "I. Deterrent." It deters others from carrying out crimes.

As for retribution not justifying the lives of innocent people, I'd like to use your own words against you: "A. Okay, but this is a bare assertion right now."

"A. But if innocent people are dying, that goes out the window, and as I showed, sometimes they do. Giving them a life sentence isn't to correct them, but to contain them, because if they are proven innocent which has happened multiple times before, you can't justify killing them."

Don't worry, I'll create a special Header later, a whole section on this topic, so please do read it. In fact, every argument you have regarding "Accidentally executing innocent people" will be rebutted in a whole different header.

"Listen, for some one guilty I don't feel a moral obligation to keep them alive, however when there is a chance they are innocent, and the death penalty costs up to 5 times more, is it really worth it?"

How does it cost more? Where does the cost go to? Why does it cost more? I said to elaborate more on why it cost more at the beginning of my Round: "I will refrain from rebutting the points you have stated in Round 1 to allow you to elaborate on it." Without any evidence, all I can say is saying that death penalty costs u to 5 times more is, to once again quote from you, "...his is a bare assertion right now."


Furthermore, Pro has failed to rebut my point on how the state has the right to take away lives, it would mean that he doesn't oppose this idea.



Let me now officially start my new point! (Was supposed to be points as in plural, but Pro didn't elaborate on costs :( )

As I've promised...

I. Innocent People


This is always the argument used by anti-DP (Death penalty. I'll shorten it from now on). They seem to always want to put people in jail for life, without the possibility of parole. Since Leave Without Pay cases get a lot less scrutiny, the alternative means many will die in prison... so much for protecting innocent people.

Assume that 20 people were actually executed. It is nothing compared to the 180 - 800 lives saved each year (at least) from deterrence (Oh don't you go asking for citations. I already did). A basic life-life tradeoff actually shows that the DP is just. Even assuming all of these people are innocent, if the DP deters crime, “a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment.

Also, a simpler evidence is that we may examine and judge a death sentence trial with much more scrutiny, as I've already mentioned in the previous round.



I'll once again end with this statement to reinforce my points. DP is not a evil. It is, in fact, deterring others from commiting such acts. Thank you.

SocialDemocrat

Pro

"Is it really just bare assertions? IS that not how philosophy woks?"

A. You made a claim the death penalty works to deter crime using a quote, but didn't cite a source so we could review the study, therefore we can disregard that, since you did not give us a chance to check its validity.

"If just a jail time deters people, what more would death penalty?"

A. I have no clue what you really mean there, but you were making a point that having the death penalty increases the rate at which violent criminals are found and arrested which is completely asinine itself and then gave no evidence for this.

Well your source is 46 pages long, I won't bother. However, I think my evidence that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent is enough.

"...affects the cop, and in turn would also affect possible criminals. I do not agree with the rational choice theory because if it was true, then the evidence would show that states with the death penalty have lower homicide rates.

"Do you have evidence of so? If you are allowed to ask for evidence, then I should be allowed to, too. Also, if such evidences are available, I'd like to refute your second part."

A. I did give you evidence, I gave you a graph (or a link to it) that shows states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates every year for the last 25 years, so clearly it has not been very effective as a deterrent, but I could give you more.

The opinions of top criminologists: A study conducted by Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock surveyed some top criminologists in the country, criminologists who won the Sutherland award at the American Society of Criminology, and and presidents of the society since 1997. The study found that when asked if they believe the death penalty is a deterrent, 88% of them said no, while only 5% said yes, with 7% being indifferent. What we can conclude from this is some of the best criminologists in the country actually believe the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. But it gets worse, when asked if they thought there was good empirical evidence to support it is a deterrent... 94% said no, so even many criminologists who believe the death penalty works as a deterrent agree there is not much evidence to support that claim. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

The opinions of police chiefs: In a 2009 study, police chiefs in the country were surveyed on if they believe the death penalty works as a deterrent, 37% said yes, while 48% said no. So both criminologists and police chiefs agree, no it does not work as a deterrent. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

North Carolina empirical evidence: No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006, and the last death penalty sentence was given in 2012. However, since execution has stopped, state murder rates have declined. If cons argument was true then murder rates would have went up. Also, another comment on the rational theory thing earlier, most people given the death penalty do it "...in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness." So the idea that all people considering homicide think rationally is asinine. http://nccadp.org...

I could have even more at the request of con.

"False. If evidences are available, then we're can't give all the credits to the death penalty, but we can still give partial credits to death penalty. The fact is murder rates did decrease coincidentally after death penalty was introduced."

A. No but come on man, if that was true, states with the death penalty would have decreased in homicide rates, while states without it would have remained stagnant. But this just isn't true. Since all states declined, and states without the death penalty actually declined at a faster rate, we know this is false. If the death penalty deterred homicide, then those states would have decreased at a faster rate, but they decreased at a slower rate.

"But from the graph, you can see that death penalty did drop! It had lower rates because it always had lower rates."

A. But pal if what your saying had any validity, then since the death penalty deters crime better than life sentences, than those states would have dropped faster, but they dropped slower, and the margin of higher homicide in those states actually grew. What we understand from this is that whatever caused crimes to decrease was not the death penalty, as that would have led to a very high decrease with your logic, but it was actually a slower rate than states without the death penalty.

"As for retribution not justifying the lives of innocent people, I'd like to use your own words against you."

A. Me making that point was mostly me just saying that if it is for retribution but sometimes innocent people get killed it is clearly counter productive. If you are trying to say that innocent people getting killed with the death penalty, then it's wrong, I gave evidence for that.

"Accidentally executing innocent people will be rebutted in a whole different header."

A. OOoohhhhhhh scary. To clarify there has been about 23 people that have been proven to be innocent, but there is most likely much more that slipped through the cracks, as hundreds have been exonerated.

"How does it cost more? Where does the cost go to? Why does it cost more? I said to elaborate more on why it cost more the beginning of my round... Without any evidence all I can say is saying the death penalty costs u to 5 times more."

A. Here they pretend like I gave no evidence that the death penalty costs more, which is 100% inaccurate. But I will do it again.

First let me explain why a capital punishment case costs more, in a capital punishment case: two attorneys are required paid at a higher price and a team of legal experts, extra payments to jurors, the expense of appeals and sentencing hearings, and the cost to house people convicted, where prisoners much actually stay in special units that cost more for extra security, some times for decades. So this is why the death penalty costs more, now the numbers again. http://nccadp.org...

The death penalty costs between $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 in tax revenue for each death penalty case, for the reasons I stated, while an average life sentence of 40 years in prison costs $1,000,000-$1,250,000. http://okcadp.org...

So yes it does cost more.

"Furthermore, pro has failed to rebut my point on how the state has the right to take away lives, it would mean that he doesn't oppose this idea."

A. Well if the death penalty is in practice, (which I don't agree with) then it should be at a state level. However this is irrelevant because we are arguing over is the death penalty a good idea as it is practiced in the U.S today.

Look I already gave you empirical and logical evidence as to why murder rates go down with our without the death penalty, and recent history shows they actually decrease much faster without the death penalty, as the margin between states with the death penalty homicide rates and ones without has actually grew larger from 1990 to 2014. So what my opponent says at the end is fundamentally flawed, as his evidence is simply when the death penalty started murder rates decreased in those states, but from the fact that this trend went on in states with and without the death penalty we can conclude this was not due to the death penalty.

Whether the death penalty is evil or not is subjective.
Debate Round No. 3
FieryNyan

Con

"A. You made a claim the death penalty works to deter crime using a quote, but didn't cite a source so we could review the study, therefore we can disregard that, since you did not give us a chance to check its validity."

I did, dude. I wrote the philosopher's name, and even the theory's name. One simple google search would've gotten the answer. It's as if you aren't reading any of this.


"A. I have no clue what you really mean there, but you were making a point that having the death penalty increases the rate at which violent criminals are found and arrested which is completely asinine itself and then gave no evidence for this."

What? Now you're just taking and putting words into my mouth. For God's sake, the arrested statistics is to show the power of deterrent; how people are really deters. If the act of arresting already deters people, what more would the death sentence be?

"Well your source is 46 pages long, I won't bother. However, I think my evidence that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent is enough."

That's great. Oh, your whole rebuttal is around 10,000 characters long, so I'll just disregard the whole thing, and put mine on the pedestal. I summarized it for you; you asked for the source. I give you the source, you disregarded it. And proceed to also disregard my whole previous examples and arguments. Voters, please do not read Pro's arguments and rebuttals blindly. As I have shown in a lot of my rebuttals, Pro doesn't read and simply accuse my points as "inaccurate" or "sourceless" even though it is all there. Pro has also taken a lot of my words out of context. This is not a personal attack on Pro; I'm just making a simple observance, and would like to give the voters a discretion.

"A. I did give you evidence, I gave you a graph (or a link to it) that shows states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates every year for the last 25 years, so clearly it has not been very effective as a deterrent, but I could give you more"

I'm talking about evidence that death sentence did not play a part in the states that legalized it.

"The study found that when asked if they believe the death penalty is a deterrent, 88% of them said no, while only 5% said yes, with 7% being indifferent. "

If they "believe". Which is just a, to quote from my adversary, ""A. Okay, but this is a bare assertion right now."". I've presented statistics, and even evidence, but you come up with a survey? A survey with opinions?


" But it gets worse, when asked if they thought there was good empirical evidence to support it is a deterrent... 94% said no, so even many criminologists who believe the death penalty works as a deterrent agree there is not much evidence to support that claim."

First off, still opinion based. I've shown you statistics. Instead of presenting opinions, maybe read through my examples and tell me how deterrent fails. I've shown you how the Theory of "rational Thinking" works. You failed to rebut how police deterred according to the danger. Your source refers to criminologists, who do not have the econometric background to understand the modern research; if you did a survey of economists there would be a different result. A question asks if the DP deters any amount. 100% of those surveyed said yes. Link: http://tinyurl.com...

"However, since execution has stopped, state murder rates have declined. If cons argument was true then murder rates would have went up. "

"No but come on man, if that was true, states with the death penalty would have decreased in homicide rates, while states without it would have remained stagnant. "

"But pal if what your saying had any validity, then since the death penalty deters crime better than life sentences, than those states would have dropped faster"

Cool way of linking two of my arguments. Like I said, DP is not the best source of deterrent, and neither is it the only deterrent, as implied by Pro. DP isn't the best, but it is an effective method of deterrent.

Correlation is always difficult to prove but any reader will see that the strongest evidence in this debate proves a deterrent effect. Even if 1% of crimes are deterrable there are more lives saved than the highest possible number for innocents executed. I provided many reasons why the number may be as high as 5% or more. Of course police are important, but they are part of certainty. Deterrence also includes severity of punishment which the DP emphasises and thus has a large effect.


Here are more statistics and data to play with.

Two studies by Paul Simmerman found deterrent effects. The first paper, (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu...) uses data from 1978-1997. In the second paper (http://papers.ssrn.com...), he extends the dataset to 2000. In the papers, he found that each execution deters 14 murders.


"A. Me making that point was mostly me just saying that if it is for retribution but sometimes innocent people get killed it is clearly counter productive. If you are trying to say that innocent people getting killed with the death penalty, then it's wrong, I gave evidence for that."

Look, dude. I was describing retribution as one of the purpose of punishment. Never did I say that "These goals are goals that DP is trying to accomplish). Please do read once again before rebutting next time.

"A. Here they pretend like I gave no evidence that the death penalty costs more, which is 100% inaccurate. But I will do it again."

Let the voter come in and check his previous arguments, whether he has stated anything with strong proof and evidence, or even numbers. He made a claim that he has given evidence. Let the voters reread his previous arguments to view his credibility.


As for all money and cost concern, I will rebut it in a section later on.

"So what my opponent says at the end is fundamentally flawed, as his evidence is simply when the death penalty started murder rates decreased in those states"

I already explained this above.



Let's start with the points!

1. Cost


Using the methods cost studies use, the DP costs 2.5 times more than LWOP. But in jurisdictions where the DP is much more common, the DP only costs 1.4-1.5 times as much ( http://www.cjlf.org...) This is because of plea bargains. These often avoid the cost of the trial entirely, so cases where there is no cost balance out the cases where trial costs are extremely high due to capital trials.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that carrying out a sentence of life without parole costs less. They overlook the counter-balancing savings of having the death penalty as a bargaining chip by which a guilt plea is obtained in return for taking the death penalty off the table. If the defendant pleads guilty, the cost of a trial and expensive appeals are avoided. Moreover, a serial killer may disclose his other victims in return for life-without-parole. Prosecutors will only accept claims verified by the locations of the bodies. Closing those cases reduces the cost of investigation and provides closure to the families of the victims. Without the death penalty, the only bargaining is reducing life-without-parole to a sentence that allows the possibility of release.

The main reason that it costs so much to prosecute death penalty cases is that judges opposed to the death penalty allow trivial or even ridiculous legal arguments to be used as an excuse to delay carrying out the sentence. Some judges go so far as to violate the law in supporting appeals. Judge Kozinsky explained this in his book.


A method to solve this is to make judicial oath stricter, and to provide an independent panel to censure judges who pursue politics on the bench. The ultimate solution is impeachment by the legislature to restore legislativ power to the proper branch of government.

A remedy is to tighten the judicial oath and to provide an independent panel to censure judges who pursue politics on the bench. The ultimate remedy is impeachment by the legislature to restore legislative power to the proper branch of government.

Some lengthy appeals are generated when the initial counsel did not provide an adequate defense. This happens when a rural locality cannot afford expensive outside counsel to defend the accused. State governments should bear the costs; those costs will be saved later by a shortened appeals process.

Finally, all appeals based upon legal process should be required to be filed within two years of the initial conviction. That would prevent judges from granting delays based upon appeals filed in sequence.

Furthermore, the death penalty will cut down long term costs.

The extra cost of having a death penalty is computed according to

death penalty cost = cost of a capital trial and appeals + extra incarceration cost during trial – cost of a non-capital trial and appeals – savings due to plea bargaining – savings due to shorter incarceration

Using the Federal average cost of incarceration:

death penalty cost = $2.0 million + 15 * $29K – 0.2 *$2 million – 35 * $29K= $1050K

Trial costs will always be more because of extra scrutiny, but states without local obstruction show the extra trial costs can be reduced to $1 million. Virginia has demonstrated an average time from conviction to execution of six years with all the present safeguards. The data from a study of urban areas across the county indicates that plea bargaining can offset the extra prosecution costs if a capital case costs less than 2.4 times a non-capital case, and in two states the ratio is about 1.6. Finally, it's unreasonable to suppose that the cost of incarceration will not rise over a period of fifty years. Using a modest assumption, total costs more than double.

The cost is then

$1 million + 6*$29K – (2.4 /1.6)*$1 million – 44*$29K*2 = - $2.9 million


I have further proof of this in the comment section, if you're interested. If not, this is all I have to say. Death Penalty is just a little more than Jail time, as opposed to how my opponent portrays it.
SocialDemocrat

Pro

SocialDemocrat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FieryNyan 8 months ago
FieryNyan
Posting here if you're interested. Reached maximum word quota:

Studies on the costs tend to underestimate LWOP cost. They fail to account for the fact that prisoners stay in prison longer than those on death row do. If a person spends 50 years in jail--which is reasonable since average conviction age for murder is 227, many analysis calculate it will cost the state 1.5 million dollars, if the state spents 30,000 dollars per year(http://tinyurl.com...). And in different jurisdictions this can be more expsinve. For death penaltym the average time incarcerated is 15 years ( http://tinyurl.com...) So, the cost is only 450k dollars. Apply a trial estime of 2 million more on DP. To make things simply, LWOP has zero trial cost, and DP has 2 million, it has the same effect for calculation. So we are at 1.5 million LWOP vs 2.45 million DP. Take off .4 from Thaxton"s plea estimate, and we get 1.5 vs 2.05. The death penalty is only 30% more expensive using Thaxton"s super low plea estimate.
Posted by queencoop 8 months ago
queencoop
I have so far enjoyed this debate, and challenge Pro to next round give recent proof innocent people are killed. Besides that good argument guys.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 8 months ago
Hayd
FieryNyanSocialDemocratTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This is on behalf of the voters union. If you have an unvoted debate, send it to TUF, tejretics, or Donald keller, and the union will ensure it gets at least 2 votes. RFD found here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DWcM3S1o-OXsT0lZh1bTj0aWXGy_Z_jsVXy0sBuI5ro/edit?usp=sharing