text:
Deep into the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA), past the main exhibit hall, past the special exhibit of Impressionists, beyond the famous armour court, Chief Registrar Mary Suzor inspects a diminutive statue. Hunched over an antique mahogany desk, Suzor works in the shadow of a series of huge oak file cabinets that line the back wall of her office. More than 100 drawers across, the cabinet contains nearly 45,000 fading index cards with information about every item the museum has owned since it opened in 1916.
Collections managers of yesterday referred to these cards 20 to 30 times a day, constantly updating information by hand as it became available. Today, however, the catalogue is more of a museum relic, thanks to a new, Windows-based collections management system and museumwide strides in information technology. The system, named after the Greek painter Apelles, enables Suzor to manage data--details about a work's provenance, its artist and materials used--about every museum object electronically, with some keystrokes and a few clicks of her mouse.
"My job has changed dramatically over the last few years," she says with a hint of nostalgia and a touch of relief. "Technology is responsible for it all."
IT is transforming the museum experience around the country, from the venerable CMA to the Experience Music Project, a new music museum in Seattle. Once remarkably low-tech institutions, these nonprofits are turning to IT in record numbers to streamline processes and cut costs across the board. At most museums, IT efforts are led by someone in the finance department or by a technologist who reports to a vice president. Yet at the CMA, IT falls under the auspices of CIO Leonard Steinbach, a frenetic, fast-talking, ponytail-wearing transplant from, as he says, "big, bad Noo Yawk."
Fresh off a three-year stint at his hometown's Guggenheim Museum, Steinbach is regarded by many industry bigwigs as a champion of IT in the nonprofit world. One year into his tenure at the CMA, he's proven himself with innovative initiatives that include a spanking new website, a highly regarded distance education curriculum and a grandiose effort to digitise every object in the museum's collection. Though the 48-year-old insists that technology isn't essential for museums to survive, he sees IT as a catalyst for moving museums into the 21st century and beyond.
"Art, not technology, is a museum's core competency," he states dryly. In his view, museums should use technology to make art accessible to everyone. "IT is an enabler, something we can use to bring people and art closer together. Can a museum exist without technology? Sure, most of them have done it for years. But how can a museum use technology to play more of a role in people's lives? That is the question I'm here to solve."
Steinbach's basement office at the CMA is a museum in and of itself; he displays more gadgets and gizmos than a child obsessed with Pokemon. There's a pair of TOMY hoppers, a model 1964 Chrysler Turbine, a plastic pinball machine and, of course, some Star Wars figurines. These items have followed Steinbach everywhere in the past decade, and as recently as last September, they lined his shelves at the Guggenheim, where he was hired in 1996 after two years as the National League of Nursing's vice president for IT.
Back then, the Guggenheim's IT infrastructure consisted of disparate local area networks running off DOS computers. As Steinbach remembers today, the institution was so behind the times that its "fax machines didn't even work right." During the next three years, he converted the museum from DOS to Windows, consolidated a half-dozen LANs into a wide-area network and partnered with Novell to establish a virtual private network that bridged the Guggenheim with its sister institution in Bilbao, Spain.
Across the industry, these accomplishments did not go unnoticed. In the spring of 1999, CMA officials approached Steinbach to come to work for them. The museum had never employed a CIO, but after rewriting their strategic goals that winter, museum officials and other members of the board of directors were eager to establish the position for the future. According to Assistant Director Stephanie Stebich, museum officials knew exactly what they wanted their CIO to do, and they knew they wanted Steinbach to do it.
"We decided technology is a tool and a vehicle for us, that it wasn't just about bits and bytes, but instead about getting our message out and bringing people closer to art," Stebich explains. "In order to do that, in order to do it right, we needed an equal partner who would be working on technology full time. We needed Len."
Steinbach was flattered but sceptical at first. Despite the museum's reputation as one of the foremost encyclopaedic institutions in the world, he questioned the organisation's commitment to technology and wondered aloud whether he, a die-hard New Yorker, could "stomach" a move to Cleveland. Finally, after Stebich and her colleagues institutionalised the museum's goal "to become a national leader in the use of new and emerging technologies," Steinbach climbed aboard. On a bright but chilly day last September, he packed up his trinkets and moved from Forest Hills, N.Y., to Cleveland Heights, Ohio. It was time to start anew.
Never one to ease into anything, Steinbach launched himself into his new digs immediately. With an IT budget of just over $900,000, he knew he'd have to be creative if he wanted to accomplish big changes quickly. By the end of his first month, he had performed an exhaustive analysis of the museum's IT infrastructure and recommended minor improvements to many of the basic business systems, such as the applications used to organise membership and business development. He tinkered with Apelles, installed a new credit card processing network and replaced the museum's telephones. Then he turned his gaze on a larger project: the website (www.cma-oh.org).
Back then, the CMA's site was nothing spectacular--a few images here, a little text there, and some static information about hours and membership. But Steinbach had big plans, and he hired Boston-based Keane to help turn them into reality. Keane consultants came in, interviewed museum representatives about what they wanted in a website, then worked with website designers at Columbus, Ohio-based Motivo to redesign the site from top to bottom. They added content and digitised more than 350 of the museum's most popular objects for a virtual gallery to exist only in cyberspace. When the site relaunched this spring, industry experts hailed it as one of the most sophisticated of its kind.
"Theirs is one of the most well-designed sites I've seen," says Leslie Johnston, editor of eSpectra, the monthly newsletter of the Museum Computer Network. "For those people who might not be able to pass through Cleveland to see the art in person, it provides a wealth of images and information. Other museums do this, but few of them offer as many images as [the CMA]."
Impressed with the overwhelmingly positive response to the digital images, Steinbach decided to take the project a step further and in March announced plans to digitise every object in the museum's collection. He dubbed the effort the Digital Imaging Initiative and outlined a five-year plan to create digital facsimiles of more than 40,000 objects and 450,000 slides. He commissioned museum technologists to begin the effort right away. By Aug. 1, they had digitised more than 2,000 objects.
Believe it or not, creating digital images of these items is as easy as it sounds. Curators in the museum's conservation department photograph the objects with sophisticated digital cameras, tinker with the images in Adobe Photoshop, and upload them to a Sybase database for storage and easy access on the Web. Over the next few months, Steinbach says, the process will only get more complex: Technologists will soon go beneath the surface of many objects, using spectography and X-rays, to create a living record of how the object has deteriorated over the years.
Throughout the museum, news of the initiative has art fiends giggling like schoolchildren. Stebich and other officials are touting the project as "the next big thing," and board members are already sizing up a marketing plan. Bruce Christman, the CMA's chief conservator, says the digital images should make his job easier, greatly prolonging the life of every object the museum owns. "If you have a good digital image, it cuts down on everyone's need to handle it," he says. "From my perspective, that's great news."
Still, with so many digital images, the CMA runs the risk of inadvertently altering an object's natural colours. Experts such as Johnston warn that the digitising process dulls colours to the point where a trained eye cannot match them to those on the original. To eliminate the possibility of colour or image distortion, Steinbach has signed a partnership with E-Color, a San Francisco-based company that uses electronic cookies' to produce color-corrected images so that objects appear exactly the same from one computer to the next. While Steinbach says this technology does not reproduce the experience of viewing art in person, he notes that it can make "quite a difference" while viewing art online.
Listening to Steinbach talk about E-Color and his Digital Imaging Initiative is like listening to a teenager talk about his first love. Steinbach considers digitising the CMA's collection his "pet project," and never being one for modesty, he rarely passes on an opportunity to discuss it. Still, he is equally animated when outlining some of the other IT projects on tap for the future--further improvements to the website, exhaustive systems integration, expanded distance learning and trailblazing research in the area of cognitive science.
The first of these efforts is the next step in a constant plan to improve the CMA's presence online. Already, Steinbach has created a special New Media Initiatives division within the IT department. And in September, the museum was scheduled to broadcast its first live Web event, a series of lectures at a memorial conference for former CMA Director Robert Bergman. Later this fall, technologists plan to launch a special section, which Steinbach says will take Web visitors on a virtual tour of behind-the-scenes hot spots such as the restoration room, the conservation department and collections, where Suzor and her colleagues rely on the Apelles system to catalogue information about objects themselves.
"To the casual eye, we have a bunch of hooks with paintings on the wall," says Steinbach. "In reality, there's much more to a museum we feel people should know."
Once the website changes have been made, Steinbach vows to focus on other efforts. Within the next year, he hopes to integrate the museum's retail, finance and ticketing systems. By early 2001, he plans to revamp the museum's distance education program, expanding its videoconferencing curriculum for students who cannot visit the museum.
Last, Steinbach boasts idealistically about unveiling a new initiative to invest in technologies that attempt to bridge the gap between art and its observers. Everyone sees artwork differently, he says, and eventually technologists should be able to use their craft to customise the museum experience for every visitor. When pressed to explain how this might work, Steinbach is surprisingly at a loss for words; he knows it can be done, but so far, he hasn't figured out how to do it. That, he says, is precisely why he plans to raise awareness through a symposium and other research forums.
"IT gives us so much. Someday we'll have to be able to figure out how to use it to make every person's visit different," he says. "Do I know how to do that? Not yet. But that's the beauty of technology. What we don't know today, we will know three years from now. There was a time when digitising paintings seemed nuts. The fact that that's now in our [stable] of talents is a testament to the kind of role technology will play in the future of museums as a whole."
Matt Villano, a New York City-based freelance writer, prefers Impressionism to Romanticism in art and Romanticism to Impressionism in life. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Museums of every size and stature are using the Web and other IT projects to connect with patrons At New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, former CIO Arthur Tisi used the organisation's website (www.metmuseum.org) to create a virtual tour that allows users to explore more than 3,500 objects such as Vermeer's "Young Woman with Water Jug." To date, experts say this is the largest such collection online.
The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art includes an "espace" online gallery of website art (such as this image from "Post TV," at right). Visitors to an art exhibit slated for early 2001 will be able to use digital eyeglasses to enhance their experience. A tiny computer screen in the view of the eyeglasses wearer will display arrows that guide the viewer's eye to certain areas on an artwork, creating what researchers call an "augmented reality."
The Experience Music Project (www.experience.org), a new music museum in Seattle bankrolled by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, enables visitors to "ride the music" with a digital James Brown, while they use a handheld PC that guides them through exhibits. The museum houses a sculpture of guitars (left).
In Minneapolis, at the Walker Art Center (www.walkerart.org), technologists have put together an online virtual reality modelling language sculpture garden where visitors can use their mouse to climb inside sculptures for a closer look. Steve Dietz, director of New Media Initiatives, notes that the museum also uses an advanced digital random access detection system that prompts audio guides to tell visitors where they are and what they will see.
Leslie Johnston, editor of eSpectra, the newsletter of the Museum Computer Network, says that recently, museums' IT investments have taken on a patron-centric focus. "Many museum officials are recognising that technology isn't just great on its own, but that it really can enhance the overall visitor experience," she says. "That's an important paradigm shift because it means investments in IT are now functional. Technology isn't just for show anymore; it's now part of the museum."


text:
June Wayne: Paintings, Prints, and Tapestries
Painter, printmaker, and feminist activist, June Wayne made a significant contribution to the art of the twentieth century. Best known for The Dorothy Series—the groundbreaking print biography of her Russian immigrant mother—and for single-handedly revitalizing lithography in the United States through the founding of the Tamarind Lithography Workshop, Wayne's interests and contributions were extraordinarily varied over her more than seventy-five year career. The artist socialized with poets, movie stars, and rocket scientists, often mining their innovations and contributions to fuel her own work. This exhibition charts the high points of Wayne's pioneering oeuvre, featuring works from each of her major periods, from her early Social Realist paintings through her lithographs responding to the literary works of Franz Kafka and John Donne, to The Dorothy Series, through her tapestries and innovative light-reflective paintings, to her late digital prints. The exhibition also includes three videos, one of which is a short compilation of the artist speaking about her life and art.
Curated by art historians Betty Ann Brown, Ph.D., and Jay Belloli, the exhibition is accompanied by a catalogue featuring essays by the two curators and an introduction by artist-educator Ruth Weisberg.
This exhibition is supported, in part, by the Pasadena Art Alliance, the Southern California Committee of the National Museum of Women in the Arts, Elaine Mitchell Attias, and Paula Holt.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
From Our Editors
The Holiday Inn Birmingham Airport offers accommodation, as well as a restaurant and bar. The on-site health and fitness centre features a swimming pool, steam room, and gym. The art deco-style Grill Room Restaurant serves up speciality dishes, while the Flight Bar boasts an open fire during the chillier months. Conference spaces are also available for up to 500 people, with 14 meeting rooms, wireless Internet and catering facilities.


text:
While tensions with Hamas and other Gaza-based terrorists continue to rise, Israel also faces constant threats from other enemies. JNS reports that Israeli authorities thwarted a Hezbollah plot when they arrested six terrorists for smuggling explosives from Lebanon with the intention of planting them in the city of Haifa:
Six Arab Israeli citizens were indicted Thursday for smuggling explosives from Lebanon into Israel in cooperation with a Hezbollah plot to plant bombs in the Haifa area, the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) said.
The Shin Bet, Israel Police and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) arrested in September several residents of the Alawite village of Ghajar, on the Israeli-Lebanon border, for assisting the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah in a terror plot by using drug smuggling routes to transfer explosives.
After discovering explosives hid near the Lebanon border, an investigation revealed that village residents, led by Diab Sa'ad Jamil Kahamuz, were in contact with Hezbollah and assisted them in smuggling and gathering intelligence in Israel...


text:
Membership Benefits
We have no restrictions as to business category. Competition is welcome! However we do have some limitations:
MLM independent associates: We are accepting one representative from each MLM company so please check our members directory to see if there is already an independent representative of the same MLM company. Independent representatives from competing companies are welcome to join us.
Real Estate, Insurance, Financial Services: One representative from each company is welcome. Agents from competing companies are welcome to join!
We have MANY business categories that are not represented at all in our network and we would be thrilled to have you join us.
We welcome and invite all guests to attend up to two events to see if our network is a good fit for you and your business.
We have two events per month with the exception of the summer months and December when we only have one event.
Network Events are held the first Wednesday morning at 7:30 and the 4th Friday afternoon at 12:00 noon in Hamilton. Every month we have either round table discussions or mini workshops designed to help the members learn how to be more effective in business. Occasionally through the year we hold a fundraiser to help organizations in need in the city.
Membership is $40 per year including tax. This includes:
- Your admission to all network events (you pay for food, beverage and gratuities only)
- Your business directory listing on our website.
- The ability to post any events, blogs or promotions on the Facebook group page (embedded on the front page of our website)
- Learning videos on how to do things like post and share to Facebook and other business related items.
Joining is easy! Click here to pay and complete the member application form.


text:
A FINAL public meeting will be held for members of a Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust forum.
The Patient and Public Forum will hold the meeting on February 4, at 1.30pm in The Family Life Centre, Ash Street, Southport.
Forum members are local people, independent of the NHS with the power to influence change.
On April 1, the forums will be changed by Local Involvement Networks(LINks) which will monitor both health and social care services.
For more information call Belinda Lovett on 0151 285 4050 or email email@example.com


text:
I was surprised by MATÉRIEL by Aleksandre Akhalkatsishvili Autumn season collection. It's full of heavy outerwear designs colored in black, grey and pops of white colors. Collection is inspired by personality split. Designer mostly used wool, cotton and silk fabrics. Aleksandre keeps his silhouettes relaxed and slightly exaggerated.
The belted tailored wrap coat looks great styled with pleated floor-sweeping pants. Totally black outfit.
He is a talented designer, who has his own vision, what helps his creating such amazing outfits. I felt in love with every single coat from this lookbook. The straight, regular-fit toppers ideally match wide-leg floor-sweeping trousers. The cuts, shapes and details make these outfits so must-have! Anyway, let's have a closer look at these marvelous essentials:
This black colored belted coat comes with cut-out details on shoulders.
Double layer blouse with cropped top has a kind of tailored tunic look.
We see a shoulder cut asymmetrical black maxi dress with cut-out details.
A belted crispy white coat is an ideal choice for evening events.
Belted, sleeveless robe-dress is a must-try piece. You can wear it at home parties and Lazy Sundays.
I am so in love with this look. We see a sleeveless long blazer paired with wide-leg trousers. A comfy choice for designers.
Double layer belted maxi dress looks like from the Adams Family!
Another pretty robe style topper, what can be used anywhere you want.
Grey regular-fit slightly exaggerated coat is a terrific choice for those who are in love with simplicity.
A must-have belted coat! It really looks awesome!
How many likes for this cape-blazer paired with matching color midi skirt.
Gosh! This black colored cape-coat looks sophisticated and ideal for special nights.


text:
• Arlington Events
• Atlanta Events
• Baltimore Events
• Boston Events
• Chicago Events
• Cincinnati Events
• Cleveland Events
• Denver Events
• Detroit Events
• Houston Events
• Kansas City Events
• Los Angeles Events
• Miami Events
• Milwaukee Events
• Minneapolis Events
• New York Events
• Oakland Events
• Philadelphia Events
• Phoenix Events
• Pittsburgh Events
• San Diego Events
• San Francisco Events
• Seattle Events
• St. Louis Events
• Tampa Events
• Toronto Events
• Washington DC Events
» Arlington Tickets
» Atlanta Tickets
» Baltimore Tickets
» Boston Tickets
» Chicago Tickets
» Cincinnati Tickets
» Cleveland Tickets
» Denver Tickets
» Detroit Tickets
» Houston Tickets
» Kansas City Tickets
» Los Angeles Tickets
» Miami Tickets
» Milwaukee Tickets
» Minneapolis Tickets
» New York Tickets
» Oakland Tickets
» Philadelphia Tickets
» Phoenix Tickets
» Pittsburgh Tickets
» San Diego Tickets
» San Francisco Tickets
» Seattle Tickets
» St. Louis Tickets
» Tampa Tickets
» Toronto Tickets
» Washington DC Tickets
Nebraska Cornhuskers NCAA Football Tickets
Ticket America is your premier source for all of your University of Nebraska football seating. We carry home as well as away games and specialize in giving our customers the most selection at the best prices. We carry NCAA football tickets for all cities and can get you seats for any and all bowl games. Be there for all this year's action filled games, as this may become one of the most exciting seasons in recent years!
Ticket America is a ticket reseller that promises outstanding service. If you have any questions or would just prefer to order over the phone please let one of our sales staff assist you in your buying experience by calling 1-800-842-9750.
2012 Cornhuskers Football
The Nebraska Cornhuskers of the Big Ten finished the 2011 season with a solid 9-4 record, closing the season with a tough loss to then #9 South Carolina in the Capital One Bowl. Nebraska took third place in the Big Ten's Legends Division, with a 5-3 conference record. Highlights of the 2011 campaign included big wins against Ohio State, then #11 Michigan State and then #12 Penn State.
Among the key returning players for the Cornhuskers are quarterback Taylor Martinez, running back Rex Burkhead, wide receiver Kenny Bell, running back/kick returner Ameer Abdullah, kicker Brett Maher, linebacker Will Compton, safety Daimion Stafford and defensive end Cameron Meredith.
Nebraska has several quality recruits joining the team this coming season, including linebacker Michael Rose (Missouri), offensive tackle Paul Thurston (Colorado), linebacker Jared Afalava (Utah), running back Imani Cross (Georgia) and defensive tackle Vincent Valentine (Illinois).
The 2012 Nebraska schedule features a number of great matchups, among them are tough games to begin the season against Southern Miss and UCLA, as well as an equally tough Big Ten schedule that features many of the conference's elite programs. Come on out and enjoy an afternoon or evening of college football at Nebraska's Memorial Stadium in Lincoln, Nebraska. Get your tickets today!
|Nebraska Cornhuskers Red-white Spring Game
|Apr 13, 2019
Sat TBA
|Memorial Stadium - NE
Lincoln, NE
|Nebraska Cornhuskers vs. South Alabama Jaguars
|Aug 31, 2019
Sat TBA
|Memorial Stadium - NE
Lincoln, NE
|Colorado Buffaloes vs. Nebraska Cornhuskers
|Sep 7, 2019
Sat TBA
|Folsom Field
Boulder, CO
|Nebraska Cornhuskers vs. Northern Illinois Huskies
|Sep 14, 2019
Sat TBA
|Memorial Stadium - NE
Lincoln, NE
|Illinois Fighting Illini vs. Nebraska Cornhuskers
|Sep 21, 2019
Sat TBA
|Memorial Stadium - IL
Champaign, IL
|Nebraska Cornhuskers vs. Ohio State Buckeyes
|Sep 28, 2019
Sat TBA
|Memorial Stadium - NE
Lincoln, NE
|Nebraska Cornhuskers vs. Northwestern Wildcats
|Oct 5, 2019
Sat TBA
|Memorial Stadium - NE
Lincoln, NE
|Minnesota Golden Gophers vs. Nebraska Cornhuskers
|Oct 12, 2019
Sat TBA
|TCF Bank Stadium
Minneapolis, MN
|Nebraska Cornhuskers vs. Indiana Hoosiers
|Oct 26, 2019
Sat TBA
|Memorial Stadium - NE
Lincoln, NE
|Purdue Boilermakers vs. Nebraska Cornhuskers
|Nov 2, 2019
Sat TBA
|Ross-ade Stadium
West Lafayette, IN
|Nebraska Cornhuskers vs. Wisconsin Badgers
|Nov 16, 2019
Sat TBA
|Memorial Stadium - NE
Lincoln, NE
|Maryland Terrapins vs. Nebraska Cornhuskers
|Nov 23, 2019
Sat TBA
|Maryland Stadium
College Park, MD
|Nebraska Cornhuskers vs. Iowa Hawkeyes
|Nov 29, 2019
Fri TBA
|Memorial Stadium - NE
Lincoln, NE
The 2011 Cornhuskers Team
The Cornhuskers first season in the Big Ten was a season of inconsistency especially on defense. Nebraska gave up 48 points to Wisconsin and 45 to Michigan both losses and then held Michigan State to 3 and shut Ohio State down in the second half in victories. Nebraska's lack of athleticism in certain areas was exposed in the Capital One Bowl loss to South Carolina. There were few problems on offense as the duo of quarterback Taylor Martinez and running back Rex Burkhead led the Cornhusker attack. Martinez passed for 2,089 yards and 13 touchdowns and he also rushed for 874 yards and nine scores. Burkhead led Nebraska in rushing with 1,357 yards and scored 15 touchdowns.
Defense will be the key for Nebraska in 2012 seven starters return but they have to replace their three best defensive players defensive lineman Jared Crick, linebacker Lamonte David, and cornerback Alfonzo Dennard. If the Corhnuskers can improve the defense a little a Big Ten title game appearance is possible because there is plenty of offensive punch with Burkhead and Martinez.


text:
There is an accessible calendar bootstrap module at http://whatsock.com/bootstrap which can be restyled to look like whatever you want, and reconfigured to return any type of date string. It's also available as a jQuery module package, if you are using jQuery. ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Hudson To: 'W3C WAI ig' Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 2:48 PM Subject: accessible date input Hi I am looking for an accessible way to input dates that allow the user to either enter the date via the keyboard in a text field or enter the date from an accessible datepicker calendar. This is to be used with a site using HTML 4.01 Strict (i.e. not HTML 5). Anyone got any suggestions. Thanks RogerReceived on Sunday, 30 December 2012 02:56:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:47 UTC


text:
Sandy Hook was a national tragedy in which the lives of many children were lost. The fact that those innocent children had to lose their lives in their own school, which they must have considered a safe haven, makes the entire incident even more deplorable. Questioning the authenticity of Sandy Hook is an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives that day.
The idea that the tragedy at Sandy Hook was just a hoax is absolutely absurd. There were real people who lost their lives that day, and there are families who still grieve for the loss of their loved ones. There is no reason to believe it was all made up, and there are many witnesses and loved ones that can attest to the reality of what happened.
Sandy Hook was not a hoax and you are an absolute idiot if you believe that. Ultimately, the shooting was a national tragedy. Did the government just fake the bodies? Or the grief of the families? That was all an elaborate act by the government, that mad e its policies look very bad intentnionally to strip away your guns. Ridiculous notion, if you ask me.
It was real and people need to start accepting that. I feel that is highly irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Innocent lives were lost in this national tragedy and the ultimate tribute to the victims of Sandy Hook would be to finally put substantive work in Congress to make changes to the present gun laws in the United States. Unless this happens, expect more tragedies to take place in thee future.


text:
The mission of the YRP is to promote the vitality of Baltimore City's York Road community as a desirable urban environment in which to live, shop, work and worship.
It was in the summer of 1995 that the York Road Partnership came together. The concerned residents, businesses, organizations, and institutions worked to form what we now call the YRP. Our founders created three Action Groups— Residential, York Road, and Economic Development—as well as a list of short and long-term goals with time frames. Residential issues brought up to be targeted included traffic, crime, drugs, and neighborhood deterioration. Trash, street cleaning, loitering, liquor license violations, and open air markets were among the York Road concerns. Topics under Economic Development were support for local businesses and a proposed study of the York Road Corridor.
Today, these Action Groups have developed into 5 Committees:
- Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
- Business Engagement
- Public Safety
- Youth Development
- Public Space & Greening
Now, more than 20 years later, we are continuing work and making steady progress towards these many goals. We strive each day to make this York Road community a better one in which to live, work, and play.


text:
My Own Estate Agent
A Lancashire property expert approached me in 2010 to talk about his vision for a "for sale by owner" or "how to sell my house myself" website.
His experience in this sector and passion for the idea of using twitter, facebook and the Internet in general to allow people to sell their houses themselves was clear, but I needed facts. I found out that:
- in the US, 'For Sale by Owner' makes up over 10% of property sales, and the average fee charged by Estate Agents (or 'Realtors') is over 7%!
- in the UK, 'Self Sale' is rising every year, but is still less than 1% of all property sales, because Estate Agents, knowing that they're offering less and less for the money, are selling at increasingly desperate prices!
- 10 years ago, your Estate Agent could reach more people, more effectively, about your property, than you could even dream about…
- …in 2012, thanks to social media, mobile Internet, and online advertising, you can reach people more effectively, more frequently, and more personally than any estate agent!
Passion and gut feel are essential for any startup, but without market research, you may as well be trying to sell greasy chips to skinny girls. I asked myself "If we launch an online property advertising service, is anyone actually going to search for it?" It turns out that yes, they are, in droves!
- In 2011, over 20,000 searches are made every month relating to self-sale, for-sale-by-owner and related searches
- Based on Google searches alone, we could achieve thousands of unique viewers every month
- Only a handful of companies in the UK are actively targeting this market
- By 2012, we saw a distinct growth in for-sale-by-owner related Google searches
This was enough to give the idea wings, and we're edging ever closer to the launch of myownestateagent.com, the UK's only dedicated For Sale By Owner company.


text:
Three-piece female band from Sydney, active late-70s.
This is not the 1966 Who hit written by Peter Townshend composition, a different song with the same title (see the Red herring, below).
Clout: five-member South African female group, augmented here by musicians from prog-rock band Circus.
Charts: Released late November 1977, charted from early 1978. Also a hit in Europe, for example in Germany, The Netherlands and Switzerland. Released in USA on Epic: #52 Cashbox, #67 Billboard.
Further reading: At SA Rock List: 1. Classic South African Pop and Rock Songs. 2. Clout discography and commentary. 3. 70s prog-rock band Circus.
Single on Haven label. See label shot at Righteous Brothers Discography. Also on album Sons Of Mrs Righteous.
Haven was owned by Dennis Lambert and Brian Potter:
for more details see Mama's Little Girl.
Thanks to Peter Richmond at Righteous Brothers Discography.
Thanks to Peter Richmond at Righteous Brothers Discography.
Same title but not the same song as 'Substitute' by Peaches.
On 2005 album Make Some Noise.
Thanks to Jim for version alert.
Further reading about Smashing Time's funky Hammond, rocking guitar action, no nonsense harmonica violence and The Hornaphonix brass section at SmashingTime.com.
Corrections or comments? Contact the writer.


text:
Choose Your Support
Customer Support
Questions about your order or about the website?
Choose from the following:
Local Support
Questions about a product or a service you see on our site?
Choose from the following:
ULTRA-SPEED Dental Film DF-58 – Size 2, Periapical, Super Poly-Soft Packets, 150/Pkg - Carestream Dental
DF-58 Ultra-Speed dental film is a D-speed film that generates the high-quality, detailed X-ray images you need to make accurate diagnoses. Ideal for both manual and automated processing methods, Ultra-Speed film is a versatile and easy-to-use solution for your practice.
- 1-5/8" x 1-1/4"
- White/Light Green


text:
BachÆs Goldberg Variations is a throwback to a culture light-years removed from our present age of constant and immediate gratification. The same could be said for this rarefied, magisterial performance. Glenn Gould and Wanda Landowska, arguably the primary Bach specialists of our century, took between 39 and 51 minutes in their recordings; Tureck allots 94! Only part of the difference arises from repeats; the rest lies in the deliberate unfolding of a multi-layered masterpiece whose marvels deserve and repay careful scrutiny. The wondrous result is that each variation serves not only as a brick in the overall structure and a stepping-stone toward the conclusion, but establishes its own identity and emerges as an experience unto itself. And when that breath-taking conclusion does arrive û an unadorned repeat of the simple wisp of a theme that began the piece and generated such a universe of creativity û it carries the added weight of an entire evening of development. This is unique and distinctive Bach playing, magnificent in its own right and a worthy complement to the legacies of Gould and Landowska.
[NOTE: I believe this is the same performance on a Decca LP for which you already have one review]


text:
Try to contain your excitement. :p
Even as a wee tyke, this show bored me so much. Maybe that's because I had no interest watching other kids play. *shrug* The only thing worth watching was the segment at the end where she (whoever was hosting your particular version) would say the different names. I did like the theme song, too, it should be noted, for posterity and whatnot.
There's another Romper Room record in the middle. ("another" meaning the same one)


text:
Teachers have all the time used video games of some type to motivate learning and increase retention of subject matter for students. What this service truly does is that it re-routes your website request via the proxy server that the service supplier has put in at a remote location. Habbo Hotel is a free online social avatar sport like It Girl where players gown up their private avatars with the most recent stylish fashions after which discover rooms full of different gamers and play games. Club Cooee has been on-line for a number of years and has shortly grown to be the most well-liked social hangout for older demographics.
With financial savings starting from a number of dollars off to purchase one and get a second merchandise totally free there is something for everybody on this printable coupon web site. Thanks for sharing the cream of the crop social media websites we in all probability should deal with if you already know what I imply. Browsing anonymously is safe and doesn't require further software or applications to be installed.
Social media facilitates political change: Online networks give social movements a fast, low-cost method of disseminating data and mobilizing people. Many faculties have carried out on-line alumni directories which serve as makeshift social networks that present and former college students can turn to for profession recommendation. Twitter is right here for the lengthy haul, fb is only a popular website in the mean time.
Now a days most people use Facebook and twitter so you're going to get your focused individuals from these sites. Even although social networking sites are a good way to speak with mates, it's also a way to be targeted for id theft. Other methods embody social bookmarking, constructing an email checklist, link exchanges and many more. Most of the security policies this site advertises are customary ones all through social media but these corporations that run these websites don't always have the last phrase in the matter. All social networking sites need a social networking policy that you've created.


text:
Hogan Lovells Publications
The future of the LIBOR benchmark rate Banking and International Arbitration Alert
26 November 2018
Representing world's largest turbine supplier in arbitration and bankruptcy proceedings related to a US$2bn power generation facility in the U.S.
Acting in an LCIA arbitration on behalf of Ukrainian oligarch in multibillion dollar dispute against two other oligarchs.
A multinational energy company came to us for representation in an LCIA arbitration in London relating to the construction of an energy sector facility.
A German-based automotive manufacturing company turned to us for an ICC supply chain dispute related to electronic components.
Representing a global technology company in a US$4bn ICC arbitration arising out of an IT-services agreement with a telecommunications company.
Our team acted for a multinational plc in the mining/energy sectors in relation to enforcement of an LCIA Award in China.
Our team is acting on behalf of a leading construction and engineering company in defense of allegations brought by shareholders regarding stock price inflation.
Successfully represented an engineering conglomerate over a joint venture dispute with a contractor who abandoned a transmission line project in Brazil and Chile.
Defending a Central American country in investment treaty arbitration related to the expropriation of real estate assets for an ecotourism project.
Representing a South American government entity in an ICC dispute related to a long-term water supply and collateral services concession contract.
Represented shareholders of a Saudi joint venture company in contractual commercial dispute regarding sale of oil country tubular goods in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Defending the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in two ICSID arbitrations relating to the alleged expropriation of companies in the coffee and fertilizer industries.
Advising the Government of Vietnam in an investment treaty arbitration brought by a French company under the Bilateral Investment Treaty between Vietnam and France.
Acting for the Slovak Republic against a financial services company in a challenge of an award on the basis of the Netherlands-Slovak Republic BIT.
Government of Mongolia and MonAtom turned to us for an UNCITRAL arbitration concerning an alleged expropriation of licenses for uranium exploration and exploitation.
Representing Edenred, a world leader in prepaid corporate services, in ICSID arbitration against Hungary related to Hungarian laws concerning fringe benefits.
Successfully represented a European oil and gas company in ICC arbitration and enforcement proceedings against a North African petroleum company related to supply of LNG.
Successfully represented Statoil (Nigeria) Limited and Texaco Nigeria Outer Shelf Limited in an ad hoc arbitration in Nigeria against relating to a cargo lifting dispute.
Hogan Lovells Publications
26 November 2018
23 July 2018
Further to our overview recently shared with you regarding the Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018, the UAE's first standalone Arbitration Law (the New Law), as promised we are pleased to ...
Hogan Lovells Publications
Corporate Citizenship, one of the core values of Hogan Lovells, is comprised of seven seven pillars.
Hogan Lovells Publications
17 June 2018
Press Releases
31 May 2018
Miami, May 31, 2018 – Hogan Lovells counsel Juan Garcia has been named among "40 Under 40" in International Arbitration (IA). Garcia was selected as a winner by editor...


text:
Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Abolished
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|3 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|4,539 times
|Debate No:
Death Penalty: "Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime." -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Although this debate is about the US, examples from other countries can be used, all dat cool stuff.
== Structure ==
R1: Pro can either accept or write his arguments.
R2: Arguments (or rebuttals depending as to how Pro wants to go)
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Rebuttals and closing. If Pro argues in R1, he just writes "no round as agreed" or can post Sabaton lyrics.
I accept and look forward to this discussion.
State your case.
I thank my opponent for accepting the debate.
C1) The Death Penalty is a Deterrent
The assumption that the death penalty deters crime is not something new. Economists study how humans work. They study how they react to incentives and punishments. In their research they have determined higher prices reduce consumption, and lower prices increase consumption. In other words, humans are rational creatures. Economists like Gary Becker have found the same applies to criminals as early as the 1960s. Becker argued his models of crime showed how criminals are rational actors, and will change their behavior based upon the cost—punishments—and the benefits [1]. Murray Rothbard agrees with these conclusions, noting "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." [12]. Thus, we see the theoretical reasons suggest that the death penalty would likely deter *some* crime.
With this in mind, it follows more extreme punishments will decrease crime as criminals fear death. Thus, the death penalty would act as a strong deterrent to crime. But is there any evidence for this?
Early research was conducted by Issac Ehrlich in the 1970s. His work demonstrated a strong deterrent effect in relation to the death penalty. Most arguments against the death penalty—either morally or in relation to its efficacy—fail to take into account the death penalty's (DP) strong deterrent effect. Ehrlich's study found each execution prevents 1 – 8 murders [2].
Recent evidence corroborates these previous conclusions. A strong consensus amongst modern research finds that the DP reduces the rates of homicide. There are at least 17 studies indicating the DP reduces the occurrence of murder, whereas only 5 contest these results. Two are inconclusive—and it must be noted of the studies claiming it is inconclusive, one found a deterrent effect, though waived it as weak [3].
Death penalty opponents have even concluded the DP reduces murder rates. They describe their findings as merely "a scientific finding which demonstrates that people react to incentives" [4]. Thus, these authors actively waive their opinions and conclude the death penalty reduces homicide. Authors who have a vested ideological interest against the DP provide the strongest argument for its existence.
The vast majority of evidence suggests the death penalty saves lives. Unless my opponent can prove the harms of the death penalty outweigh its strong deterrent effects, he loses the debate.
C2) The Death Penalty Prevents Recidivism
According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), recidivism rates for homicide are actually fairly high. Although basic google searches show you liberal journalists claiming the recidivism rate for murderers are zero, this is blatantly incorrect. 12.5% of those whose greatest offense was homicide were arrested within 6 months. Over 5 years, 51.2% had been arrested again. Of those whose only offence was homicide, the rate was 0.9% [5]. So the worst criminals (say, you robbed, then raped, and then murdered the victim) had extremely high recidivism rates of 51.2%--and that demographic is the most likely to be executed. Of those who only murder, it is about 1%. Although the second number may seem small, it is fairly significant. In New York alone, 230 murderers and sexual predators have been released [6]. This means, using the low 0.9% number, 2 people would have been murdered due to recidivism.
Assuming California and Texas are the only ones with comparable numbers (~200), and the rest only released one, we would have about 677 murderers released each year. This would be about 6 murders due to released murders each year. And this is a low estimate! In California, there have been 1400 murderers in prison for life released over a short 3 year period (466 per year) [7]. As we can see, the amount of people released from prison is actually fairly high and may lead to dozens of unwanted murders from those who repeat their crimes. Even those who were in prison for 'life' have been released and inflicting harm on innocent people. One of the most efficient ways to do this is execution.
An anti-death penalty article admits although murders committed by those serving a life without parole sentence is rare, the rate is about 4.1/100,000 (personal calculation based upon their cross-sectional comparisons) [10]. In 2013 there were around 50,000 prisoners serving life without parole sentences [11]. This means every year there are 3 murders committed by those serving life without parole sentences in prison. Although the anti-DP article claims DP would increase these with their cross-sectional data, a conclusion makes no sense—something I would respond to if my opponent chooses to bring it up. But based on this, if more murderers are executed (or even all), 2-3 murders would be prevented each year.
C3) Justice
How our society punishes those who harm other people should be proportional as to what crime is committed. A more extreme punishment (e.g. death) should be given to someone who commits atrocious crimes. An example of where the death penalty would be appropriate would be the murder of Kelly Anne Bates. Bates was tortured for four weeks prior to her death. Here eyes were gouged out 3 weeks before her death—being drowned in a bathtub. The autopsy found 150 separate injuries on her body. She suffered burns, a hot iron was applied to her thigh, her warm was broken, she was partially scalped, she was stabbed, and parts of her body was mutilated—including her ears and genitals [8]. The perpetrator was only sentenced to life in prison and would serve at least 20 years—meaning he could potentially be released. I ask my opponent to justify not executing criminals such as this.
Indeed, there is at least some point where execution—which involves taking away the life of a person—would be justified in the case of an atrocity such as this. Should the murderer only serve 20 years in prison, while being fed, clothed, kept warm, and in some cases even obtain companionship? Taking the life away of a person—even criminals—must be treated with great care. However, there are cases where the death penalty is required in order to facilitate justice. Once dead, it is the only guaranteed way they can never kill again. They will have no chance of killing other inmates, people if paroled because they are 'rehabilitated', etc. The death penalty is the only sure way to make sure (1) they are harshly punished and (2) the punishment is permanent.
Rothbard, a libertarian cited above, expands this argument. He claims the murderer forfeits his right to life after he commits his crime. He then argues—from a rights perspective—that the victim (or, in this case, those related to the victim) should have the choice as to whether or not the death penalty should be used. The victim had no choice. But he argues the victim or his relatives should have the right to select the punishment—and to deny that right would be to subvert the rights of those involved in the case [13]. Rothbard also suggests people should put how they want a potential murderer to be treated in their will. Thus, liberals can say they do not want executions, and extremists like me can write statements in a blunt manner, "string him up!" Thus, the death penalty is morally justified from a libertarian perspective—one which is meant to ensure rights to all people. And this means, at least in some cases, the death penalty would help promote the rights of the victim.
What also must be noted is that this is a corollary to C1. C1 proves death acts as a deterrent. If my opponent wishes to contest this point or make any moral arguments, he must first prove the harms of the death penalty outweigh the tremendous amount of lives saved. As the Heritage Foundation explains, "If each execution is saving lives, the harms of capital punishment would have to be very great to justify its abolition" [9].
The DP is morally justified and often is required in order to ensure justice prevails.
2. http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
10. https://death.rdsecure.org...
11. http://www.businessinsider.com...
My opponent begins with the age old argument that the death penalty deters crime. This has been the most used argument by supporters of the DP for years and he is right, in the 1970's Issac Ehrlich did conduct research on the effects of the death penalty in terms of deterring crime. For a while this was good news for people who supported the DP. Unfortunately for Con as years pass more evidence is made available, much of it contradicting his 1970 studies. Nobel Laureate Lawrence Klein chaired a panel set up by the National Academy of Sciences where most of Ehrlich's research was discredited and considered unfit to shape public policy. [1]
Aside from this Michael Radelet and Ronald Akers conducted a survey receiving complete questionnaires from 67 out of 71 of former presidents of the three leading professional criminology associations in the United States: American Society of Criminology, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association. The consensus from these questionnaires was that the death penalty could do little to reduce the rate of violent crime. This survey was done in 1996. A similar survey of the most recent members was done in 2008 with identical results. [1] The criminology experts agree that it is not a deterrent.
Jeffery Fagan of Colombia Law school also determined that much of the data used in studies such as the ones con cited had used flawed data. An excerpt from the article shows his analysis on deterrence, " Execution would have to occur with sufficient frequency and with widespread knowledge among would-be murderers to create a credible threat considering the types of murders that might be eligible for execution. There is no sign of that, nor does it seem likely. For example, there were 16,137 murders in 2004, according to the FBI, but only 125 death sentences were handed out, and 59 persons—most of whom were convicted a decade earlier—were executed. There are no direct tests of deterrence among murderers, nor are there studies showing their awareness of executions in their own state, much less in faraway states. There is no evidence that if aware of the possibility of execution, a potential murderer would rationally decide to forgo homicide and use less lethal forms of violence". [4]
I would beg the question, why is it that over the years the rate of murders has gone down in states where this is no death penalty, equally or faster than in states with the death penalty? Statistics from the FBI violent crime page shows that the averages for homicide are higher in states with the death penalty than with out. Overall violent crime is down although if Con was correct in his assumption that the DP deters crime, why isn't the crime rate declining faster in states that have the DP? [2]
Even if Cons data is true in regards to recidivism, this could easily be used in favor of a mandatory sentence of life without parole. It is not specific to the death penalty. Criminals who can leave jail can commit crimes again. Life behind bars and the DP both prevent this. I understand that Con will bring up the fact the life sentences are released from prison sometimes. So are people on death row. It happens. An argument can be made with your statistics for either side and so for each side I see it as moot.
Con makes the case that in terms of justice the DP is the only just punishment for murder. He gives the example of a gruesome murder to appeal to our emotions and gain our sympathy. Most people who support the death penalty will tout similar stories. I'm more interested in reason and not emotion. We all must remember that the money used to kill these inmates is money from all our pockets. I wouldn't call it justice that a state may kill in the name of and with the money of millions who are against the action. Even though Americans have generally favored the DP there are millions of us who do not. It is not fair that peoples money is used to do something they find abhorrent and immoral. Even if you argue that the other side is being forced to pay for that persons meals and so forth, you are also paying for their detention. You are paying for the feeling they will have every morning when they wake up and realize they will never feel the outside world because of what they did. After death people do not know consequence, they do not know right or wrong. They are relieved of their conscience and of their past. If a family who suffered from a violent crime pays for life without parole, the criminal will face that punishment for a lifetime. I'm not going to justify murderers being released because I don't believe any cold blooded killer should be. Life without the possibility of parole is what I advocate in place of the DP.
The DP is also far more expensive to the tax payer. An average death penalty case runs the state up to 470,000 dollars in additional cost for public defenders and prosecutors although depending on the state cases can run into the millions. This does not even account for court costs. Death Row inmates are double the cost of life in prison inmates in terms of housing them. Taking into account how long people stay on the death row the numbers add up. The appeals process adds even more to the cost and there is no way to slow down that process with our justice system today. [5]
The DP is not only a primitive form of punishment, it can set a precedent that we do not want. The Federal and numerous state government practice the DP and so can also modify how to earn it. As it stands there are a number of States that already have the death penalty as a charge for counts of child rape. Is the death penalty justified then. It has not been tried in the supreme court but in the 1990s the Federal government changed what actions can warrant the death penalty, one being drug trafficking and the other being Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs. [3]. There are already multiple crimes that warrant the death penalty without there being a murder or anybody dead. I find it unwise that we should keep a policy that is tax payer funded and can be defined differently based on who is elected. If we condone it against one group of people now, we condone it against another group later, violent or non violent.
Finally an possibly the most understandable reason to object to the death penalty is the unintentional death sentence. Those people who were wrongfully accused, convicted, and killed. Samuel R. Gross and a team of researchers used the survival analysis model to determine that 4.1% of death row inmates are wrongfully sentenced. Out of the 1,320 executed they concluded that it is almost certain some of them were innocent. Either they are killed, later released based on evidence, or reduced to life in prison and must wait even longer for the justice system to correct itself. If con is to insist that the death penalty is necessary in these cases, he must also hold true that the few innocents killed are just an unfortunate consequence to the benefits of the DP. All the while this does not eliminate the possibility of more innocents being wrongfully sent to death row and the tax payer covering their wrongful conviction onto the most expensive rap sheet of the criminal justice system. [6]
I ask con to consider that the DP may be more costly, ineffective, and immoral than he had previously thought. Thank you
I thank my opponent for his response.
== Rebuttals ==
R1) Innocence
My opponent's argument contradicts his point under recidivism. If you want life sentences to actually be for life, then the risk of locking up an innocent person in jail would also be prevalent--if not more so--under his system.
Second, the study done by Gross does not prove innocents have been executed, but they have been convicted. The study's sample mainly consisted of people who were exonerated. First, this means any/most innocent people put sentenced to death are let go. And second, they may actually not be innocent. Exonerations occur for many reasons, and innocence is a legal term and not a truth. The evidence may not have been overwhelming, even though it is likely the person was guilty. The reason for a high exoneration rate, as economist John Lott notes, doesn't imply "the defendant was innocent", but rather "because so much effort is put into appeals" [8].
The study itself admits the high exoneration rate means "a substantial proportion of innocent defendants who are sentenced to death are ultimately exonerated, perhaps a majority" [9]. In other words, the study admits most people who are 'innocent' and sentenced to death are actually not executed. Indeed, another analysis finds a rightful conviction rate of 99.72% [10]. Due to the fact life cases have less review--fewer appeals--more innocent people may be harmed if the death penalty is abolished.
R2) Costs
Studies claiming the DP is costly fail to take into account plea bargains. Before plea bargains are accounted for, the DP costs about 2.6 more as LWOP. But when the they are controlled for, the DP is only about 1.5 times as costly [11]. Cost studies also ignore healthcare costs and rely upon small sample sizes. Similarly, data after 1993 is different than prior data as the definition of a life sentence changed. Studies using large sample sizes have actually concluded the death penalty costs about the same as equivalent LWOP cases [12].
What also must be noted is the benefit of deterrence, as well. A new study suggests the cost of each murder is about $17 million, and other estimates center around 24 million. In extreme cases, murder can cost $24 million due to "victim costs, criminal justice
costs, lost offender productivity, and public willingness-to-pay costs." [13] Thus, if the death penalty deters just one murder, it reduces the cost to society by about 17 - 24 million. If each execution deters 3 murders, it saves $51 million. And some estimates suggests each execution deters 18 murders [14], or $306 million saved. Thus, even if we assume a high cost of the death penalty of in excess of $3 million [15], if the DP only prevents one murder (low estimate), $14 million are saved. Thus, if my C1 is proven, this point is also disproven.
Now my opponent claims the DP is bad because it is used for rape. This is unjust, as it would likely increase crime (if the sentence is the same for rape and murder, just murder the victim--no evidence!) But merely because a few states did this does not warrant DP abolition. It means the system should be mended, not ended. Or that it should be administered on a Federal Level equally across the states in order to avoid confusion. This is really a moot point.
== Defense ==
C1) Deterrence
My opponent begins by refuting the study by Issac Ehrlich. He claims the NAS panel has discredited the study. But the panel itself had many issues and failed to refute the methodology of Ehrlich's research. After previous criticisms of his work were refuted, the NAS attempted to conclusively prove Ehrlich as incorrect. But the NAS makes many key concessions, including admitting that the best research supports deterrence theory. As Ehrlich and Randall Mark respond, "not a single practitioner of the economic approach to crime is to be found among the Panel's interdisciplinary roster of members" [1]. In other words, they use people with no expertise in econometrics to criticize econometrics. Ehrlich and Mark clarify they are not trying to insult the authors, rather the NAS panel suffers from many shortcomings which stem from their lack of training in the field of econometrics. Ehrlich also argues the NAS does not dispute his findings due to lack of methodological rigor, but the criticism relies upon "conjectures" [1]. He argues they more focused on philosophical/logical questions of the study, not it's actual methods.
My opponent next cites a survey of criminologists. As noted, criminologists (usually) have little expertise in the field of econometrics--where this debate generally focuses. Regardless, the study still fails to refute the deterrence hypothesis. Even though the criminologists think the DP is a weak deterrent, 100% of the sample actually agreed the DP deterred some [2].
Fagan's analysis is also weak as it seems to fail to control for other variables. The fact the crime rate was low and as was the execution rate is irrelevant, as many other factors reduce crime other than the DP. Further, specifying *when* you were convicted is irrelevant, as the actual execution is often publicized, meaning when they are executed, not convicted, is more important. It also must be noted 59 executions is fairly high (higher than every year from 1976 - 1996), and was higher than everything from 2006 onward [3]. The execution rate peaked around 1999 - 2000 [1], and the greatest increase in the execution rate occurred between 1991 - 2000. At the same time as the massive increase in executions, the fastest decreases in crime occurred--and peaked down in 2000 at the height of the execution rate [4]. Fagan argues after 1998, the correlation breaks (DP falls crime falls). But crime between 1998 - 2008 either increased or stayed the same, so his criticism is incorrect. His strongest criticism is that DP studies fail sensitivity tests (i.e. different variables significantly change the results). However, he must have not been aware of the studies which tried to make the deterrent effect disappear--it did not go away [5]. Thus, the results of these studies are robust and accurate.
My opponent then compares states without death penalties to those with death penalties. These comparisons fail for many reasons, the first and obvious being states are different and not comparable. The second being the endogeneity problem. Those states without the DP had low crime before they abolished the DP--so the fact they have low crime is due to other variables than DP laws. Studies have isolated the effect of the DP, and find when other factors are controlled for, states with the DP had larger decreases in crime and had lower crime rates [6]. See, for example, the following graph.
I am not saying the DP is the main factor in crime rates, I am merely saying it is one in many.
My opponent seems to accept my data, but argue LWOP sentences are sufficient in preventing this. But this criticism falls apart when my evidence included 400 people being released from jail who had life sentences. It also falls apart when there is a fairly long list of criminals--often who murder and rape--who had LWOP sentences but were let free and ended up killing again [7]. The death penalty is the only 100% effective way to prevent recidivism.
My opponent claims I rely upon emotions, but this is untrue. These are real cases which occur. As I argued, the death penalty is justified in those instances. Thus, in those cases, the DP should be sought out--and, therefore, the DP should not be abolished.
He makes an interesting argument--it isn't just to execute people when taxpayers who may oppose the DP have to fund it. But this can be remedied easily. If people oppose the DP, elect electors against it. Abolish it in your state. And this also can be used against him: Why should people like me fund LWOP cases if we support the DP? Many people also complain about funding roads, when it is obviously a public good. Others oppose funding police departments because the police may oppose marijuana usage. But this does not mean the existence of public roads or a police force is immoral.
1. Isaac Ehrlich and Randall Mark. "Fear of Deterrence: A Critical Evaluation of the 'Report of the Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects'", The Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 (1977): 293-316.
2. http://homicidesurvivors.com..../
3. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
7. http://www.wesleylowe.com...
8. http://www.nationalreview.com...
10. http://www.cato-unbound.org...
12. Sorensen, Jonathan R., and Rocky LeAnn Pilgrim. Lethal Injection: Capital Punishment in Texas during the Modern Era. Austin, TX: University of Texas, 2006.
13. http://www.soc.iastate.edu...
I will mostly be addressing cons arguments in this round.
"If you want life sentences to actually be for life, then the risk of locking up an innocent person in jail would also be prevalent if not more so his system
If there is no death penalty, lawyers would be able to focus more time and resources on wrongful convictions for these men who are serving LWOP.
"Second, the study done by Gross does not prove innocents have been executed"
True, but Gross does state he is certain based on the numbers that there have been wrongful executions. Just to give you some examples:
Unfortunately in many cases across the United States the most damming evidence can be witness testimony. In many of the examples this was the main evidence used to wrongfully execute the accused.
"Studies claiming the DP is costly fail to take into account plea bargains. Before plea bargains are accounted for, the DP costs about 2.6 more as LWOP. But when the they are controlled for, the DP is only about 1.5 times as costly"
This report indicates the total costs accounting for multiple variables by year for each state with the death penalty and includes cost comparisons. And like you said, yes it still costs the state much more.
Back to deterrence then. Con did address Fagan in some respects but still can not prove, as Fagan pointed out, that any criminal actually thinks about the death penalty before considering committing crime. There is no observable evidence of this. It is speculative at best. The only thing that can be observed is regret and that is not sufficient enough.
I find it humorous that con cites a criticism of the NAS by the person the NAS was criticizing. But I digress.
Con continues to bring up econometrics as the saving grace for his deterrence argument and insists that this is the only credible research done on the subject. He even says that because the people who discredited his studies were not econometric experts that they were not qualified to make that assesment. Unfortunately for con econometric studies are essentially the only studies that may lead to his conclusion because suprisingly as I have found some of them do not. Cons only proof is one that only is on his side some of the time. The main criticism of econometrics is that "Models that find deterrence effects of capital punishment often rely on rather bizarre specifications. In a rigorous and comprehensive review Cameron (1994, 214) observed that, "What emerges most strongly from this review is that obtaining a significant deterrent effect of executions seems to depend on adding a set of data with no executions to the time series and including an executing/non-executing dummy in the cross-section analysis . . . there is no clear justification for the latter practice." ". [6] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Essentially econometric users have to compensate for the lack of data and it obscures the results. So sometimes the results of these studies are different because of the data that should or shouldn't be left out. On the contrary hundreds of comparisons have been done on the homicide rates in states with and without the DP and have found no deterrence.
[6] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Finally in 2012 the National Research Council of the National Academies released their review of over three decades worth of research involving the sorts of methods con insists are the only credible methods of determining deterrence. They found that the research consistently contained three major flaws.
[8] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
" Even though the criminologists think the DP is a weak deterrent, 100% of the sample actually agreed the DP deterred some [2]. "
"Many people also complain about funding roads, when it is obviously a public good. Others oppose funding police departments because the police may oppose marijuana usage. But this does not mean the existence of public roads or a police force is immoral.
Thank you to Con, I await your response
== Rebuttals ==
R1) Innocence
My opponent argues lawyers could spend more time making sure innocents are not locked up forever if there is no death penalty. But as noted last round, the death penalty leads to more plea bargains. This means in some cases the DP reduces the amount of time a prosecutor is working on a trial. Further, as being locked up in prison is seen as less extreme than execution, the discretion in those trials is likely to be less. Indeed, as the anti-death penalty Innocence Project notes, prosecutors care more about winning than the truth [1]. So really any people put on death row who are innocent would likely locked up for life no questions asked otherwise. At least the death row system has an emphasis on appeals which reduce the chances of executing an innocent person. Our LWOP system has no such safeties.
My opponent essentially argues even though the Gross study does not prove innocent people have been executed, the author thinks people have been executed. This essentially concedes that the claim is mostly hyperbole. My opponent does cite 4 examples, however. It must be noted, though, not one case of someone actually executed has been found innocent via DNA evidence. Indeed, most of the DP exonerations occurred before 1989, and in the 90s is when the DP really became widespread. If anything, this offers support for my position: that very few, if any, people in recent years have been wrongly executed. As Lott notes, the DP error rate is "less than 0.3 percent, and it is actually much lower than that, since many of the exonerations came from convictions that were made before 1989" [2].
The risk of executing an innocent is almost zero.
R2) Costs
Although the first studies I cited noted how the DP costed more (1.5 times more) it shows how plea bargains almost close the gap between DP costs and LWOP costs. And I noted how cost studies ignored multiple variables, used small sample sizes, etc. I cited research from a neutral academic noting the DP costs about the same as LWOP cases. My opponent drops this. Another study finds the cost of the DP to be 1-3 million dollars less costly than equivalent LWOP cases (assuming LWOP lasts 50 years) [3].
My opponent's rebuttal to costs is lacking. I have provided evidence from multiple studies indicating the DP is either less costly or about the same as LWOP. So this argument fails to prove the DP should be abolished. I will put my deterrence arguments under C1 in order to avoid confusion--if I prove deterrence, I win this point.
== Defense ==
C1) Deterrence
Fagan's point--that criminals do not respond to the death penalty--is wrong. A criminal is rational. They feel as though the benefits exceed the costs. And this is proven, in part, as to how criminals operate. Street thieves, for example, primarily kill old women. The weak [4]. There is no reason to assume murderers are different. Many murders occur in the midst of another crime. Thus, a large percentage of murderers have some rational element. It also must be noted some murderers are more intelligent than others. Premeditated murderers--which the DP is used against--tend to be fairly intelligent. As economist Joanna Shepard notes, "My results confirm that … people behave economically, weighing their actionsí costs and benefits." [5] It also must be noted using monthly data you can pinpoint when deterrence occurs. It occurred directly after a person is executed--when it is publicized in newspapers, television, and on social media. This essentially proves the point that criminals--at least some criminals--are aware of their death penalty laws and react rationally in response. In fact, in Illinois, there are many cases of murderers telling reporters how they researched death penalty laws--and they murdered because there were no such laws [6].
My opponent drops the Ehrlich response, saying he finds it 'humorous'. How is a scholar defending his work funny?
My opponent criticizes econometric methods. But what must be noted is the critique occurred in 1996--after the majority of the research I am using was created. It applies only to Ehrlich. However, in 1999, Ehrlich and Liu published a study with totally different methodology. The study continued to find a deterrent effect [7].
Con also cites a lot of research claiming to find no effect. But much of this other research is extremely flawed. As Ehrlich notes, "In their efforts to obscure the empirical findings, they have selectively deleted observations, utilized an inferior regression specification, considered irrelevant variables and correlations, and revealed in the process misunderstanding of elementary statistical concepts" (emphasis added) [8].
Specifically in response to Passel and Taylor, it must be noted their study actually failed to recalculate FBI data. The FBI updated their data in the time frame of their study, and the FBI's recalculations had a profound effect on the crime rate. Ehrlich is one of the only scholars who adjusted for these, his opponents often did not do so. His research more accurately depicts how the death penalty influences the crime rate. These other studies do not [9].
My opponent's Cloninger point really doesn't harm my case. He admits his study is not bulletproof, but does suggest any neutral observer should take into account his findings. That quote fails to take into account the most recent studies. John Lott has actually determined the rise in the usage of the DP is responsible for 12-14% of the large homicide drop in the 90s. As Lott notes, "The vast majority of recent scholarly research confirms this deterrent effect" [10].
Now my opponent cites the NAS panel and cites it as if it is flawless. But the authors were nearly all criminologists--again, who do not understand econometrics--and all oppose the death penalty. And even then, although they claim methodology is lacking, admit there is some evidence of a deterrent effect. It also must be noted the NAS panel excluded 8 peer-reviewed studies for no good reason which found a deterrent effect. It ignored one finding no effect, and it ignored another non-peer reviewed study finding a deterrent effect. Thus, the NAS panel ignored 9 studies showing a deterrent effect! It only ignored one claiming no effect--though that study only looked into mass shootings. As Lott notes, "No explanation is provided for why these studies are excluded" [11]. In other words, the panel unjustly leaves out about half of the evidence proving a deterrent effect and concluded the DP may deter crime, but the evidence is weak. Of course that happens if you ignore the evidence! The NAS study also does not point out the methodological weaknesses in those claiming no effect. It accepts those almost uncritically. Studies claiming no effect often do not measure the execution rate correctly [11]. So this NAS panel really seems to be ideologically driven.
To say 100% said the DP deterred *some* is an accurate conclusion. I did not say it deterred more than LWOP according to the study--merely that it had *some* effect. The article actually provides evidence, however, that the criminologist conclusion that LWOP is a stronger deterrent is false. The first is plea bargains. As criminals plead guilty more often in order to avoid death and instead get life sentences [12], that shows evidence that criminals fear death more than life. The conclusion the study found was (1) The DP deters some, and (2) Although criminologists favor LWOP, actual evidence suggests the DP is a stronger deterrent. And it is the evidence which matters, not expert opinion. And the evidenceshows the DP is a deterrent.
C2) Recidivism
My opponent wishes for an overhaul of the LWOP system. But if he does this, his entire case falls apart. If he can waive arguments by saying 'reform it', then both innocents and costs become a non-issue as we can reform both. So that means he has no arguments for abolition, and loses the debate. And if we do mend LWOP--they're in there forever--the LWOP system is just as bad as the DP. Innocents get locked up forever and no rehabilitation is attempted. His reforms are just a DP system in another name.
C3) Justice
I could respond in the same way: you are paying for his death and he never sees light again. Isn't that great?! The fact is, I don't want to pay for them to be detained, I want them strung up. So his point really is a two way street.
His next response is that roads are not comparable to human life. I never said they were. But the fact is your argument is NOT about life, but about people's pocketbook. So the comparison in this instance is correct. Pro then states more people oppose the DP. If you think taxes are stealing, then robbing from anyone is immoral. So if even one person opposes the police or roadways, then the are immoral. But they are good because they provide a public good--safety and ease of transportation. The DP offers justice to those harmed, and prevents other innocents from dying via deterrence and incapacitation.
My opponent drops my R1 arguments in relation to justice.
== Conclusion ==
Vote Con.
7. Isaac Ehrlich and Zhiqiang Liu. "Sensitivity Analyses of the Deterrence Hypothesis: Let's Keep the Econ in Econometrics." Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 42, No. 1 (1999): 455-87.
8. Issaac Ehrlich. "Deterrence: Evidence and Inference." Yale Law Journal Vol. 85, No. 2 (1975).
9. Isaac Ehrlich. "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Reply." The American Economic Review , Vol. 67, No. 3 (1977).
10. John Lott. Freedomnomics, pp 135.
11. http://goo.gl...
12. http://goo.gl...
Last round focusing on more rebuttals and a few more mentionable points.
"At least the death row system has an emphasis on appeals which reduce the chances of executing an innocent person. Our LWOP system has no such safeties".
My opponent seems to miss the point entirely. If there was no death penalty, lawyers would have more time and resources to review any evidence that appears in a LWOP case. It's a fact. Right now, as pointed out earlier, almost all the time of a defense lawyer is spent on death row cases. This means with a death penalty in place, many more inmates will be unjustly kept in prison.
My opponent does cite 4 examples, however. It must be noted, though, not one case of someone actually executed has been found innocent via DNA evidence. Indeed, most of the DP exoneration's occurred before 1989, and in the 90s is when the DP really became widespread. If anything, this offers support for my position: that very few, if any, people in recent years have been wrongly executed. As Lott notes, the DP error rate is "less than 0.3 percent, and it is actually much lower than that, since many of the exoneration's came from convictions that were made before 1989" [2].
This is just flat out wrong. My opponent mentions that none of them were exonerated. This, in many of the cases, was in spite of the DNA evidence. My opponent seems to forgets who does the exonerating. Of course States that accidentally kill people who are innocent are going to criticize and undermine evidence pointing it out. All the while he is still comfortable with the risk of killing an innocent because he feels its unlikely.
"it shows how plea bargains almost close the gap between DP costs and LWOP costs"
My opponents entire argument for this round has come from a single source which I must believe is estimating costs once again, on very selective amounts of information. In terms of cost, all the numbers present in Cons source are wonderful, but they are generated by a group called Pro Death Penalty .com. Numerous State legislature committees have done cost analysis on their states death penalty cases and overall costs to the state each year. These numbers are up to the year 2014. Each state found on average the death penalty cases cost much more even with plea bargains leading to a different sentencing.
New York since introducing the death penalty has wasted 170 millions dollars on sentencing without executing a single person.
California has spent 4 billion dollars executing 13 people. They spend millions a year to house and legally manage their enormous death row populace of over 700 inmates.
In my home state of Maryland the base cost of the death penalty before an inmates stay in prison is approximately 1.9 million dollars. - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The high cost of capital punishment has literally forced many counties to raise taxes or cut funds to public projects according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. - http://www.nber.org...
I guess human lives have some relation to roads after all.
According to a committee formed by the Indiana state legislature the death penalty costs 38% more than a LWOP sentence.
Consider also the 150 inmates who were exonerated still alive. Take account the average cost of their cases being 1.5 million dollars. 225 million dollars spent to convict innocent people. The average time they spent behind bars was 11 years.
States that have huge death row populations have been able to admit the financial burden based on their own numbers. I'll continue to take their word for it.
"C1) Deterrence"
"agan's point--that criminals do not respond to the death penalty--is wrong. A criminal is rational. They feel as though the benefits exceed the costs. And this is proved, in part, as to how criminals operate."
Con, that right there is a statement. For it to be an argument you must produce evidence or some sort of verifiable support to that statement. Unfortunately for you there is no existing study that has ever determined your statement to be the truth. You cite Shepards remarks on how to tell when deterrence occurred. The reality is that you cannot determine objectively that deterrence occurred. You can determine that in a certain time frame there is less or more crime. To say that deterrence occurred is purely speculative and that's all it can ever be if you rely on arbitrary fluctuating numbers. I might add that those numbers are exactly why people who use your model in finding deterrence end up with different results based on their agenda/bias etc.
"My opponent criticizes econometric methods. But what must be noted is the critique occurred in 1996--after the majority of the research I am using was created. It applies only to Ehrlich. However, in 1999, Ehrlich and Liu published a study with totally different methodology. The study continued to find a deterrent effect"
I'm sorry con but the most recent study done in 2012 by the National Research Council has also determined the faulty of deterrence models and has stated that the findings done by any econometrician, whether in favor or against the death penalty, should not be used to influence public policy the main faulty in summary being that, "they use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers' perceptions of and response to the capital punishment component of a sanction regime. In addition, the existing studies use strong and unverifiable assumptions to identify the effects of capital punishment on homicides."
Let me remind the voters that the NRC was disappointed with these findings stating that, "The committee was disappointed to reach the conclusion that research conducted in the 30 years since the earlier NRC report has not sufficiently advanced knowledge to allow a conclusion, however qualified, about the effect of the death penalty on homicide rates."
Essentially they are saying based on the evidence available we cant claim there is any deterrence effect. They also claim that using similar models to the ones con has provided we cannot determine there is not effect. It is as I have said, indeterminable.
"My opponent wishes for an overhaul of the LWOP system. But if he does this, his entire case falls apart. If he can waive arguments by saying 'reform it', then both innocents and costs become a non-issue as we can reform both. So that means he has no arguments for abolition, and loses the debate. And if we do mend LWOP--they're in there forever--the LWOP system is just as bad as the DP. Innocents get locked up forever and no rehabilitation is attempted. His reforms are just a DP system in another name."
No con, my intention is not to "waive" the argument. My intention is to point out that just as reforms can be made to the death penalty to prevent wrongful convictions or execution, reforms can be made to LWOP to ensure no possibility of recidivism for those convicted. I'm saying its just as possible as the death penalty being a perfect sentencing.
" I could respond in the same way: you are paying for his death and he never sees light again. Isn't that great?! The fact is, I don't want to pay for them to be detained, I want them strung up. So his point really is a two way street. "
Con claims that my point is a two way street because he can word his reasoning similar to mine. This is a fundamentally flawed argument because it assumes wording is what makes the argument substantive. My point firstly being that a lifetime of never knowing freedom is better than only a decade of not knowing freedom based on how long it takes to be executed (in some of the faster circumstances). Con I was making the point that once they die, all the consequence they know is gone. As long as they are conscious they can experience their punishment and paying for them to rot in jail for a lifetime to regret and to grieve their lost life is a much more appropriate punishment than death. In my eyes death is too merciful a punishment. :)
"Pro then states more people oppose the DP"
I did not say this at all. I said there are millions in the United States who find the execution of a human being immoral and abhorrent.
"My opponent drops my R1 arguments in relation to justice."
Con, when we as a society condone the killing of another human being, we condone the idea perpetuated by murderers which is that there are circumstances in which it is ok to kill a human being who is not an immediate danger to us. The only morally justified harm that can be brought to someone is in defense of your life, liberty, and property. A prisoner cannot take those away from you once they are behind bars.
Con at one point said criminologists don't know enough about the death penalty.
Criminology definition: The scientific study of criminals, criminal behavior, and corrections.
I don't know. I feel like they might actually have some bearing on the subject con.
In Conclusion:
(1) Deterrence has been proved indeterminable by a non partisan group.
(2) DP can (and has)cost states much more money than LWOP and at the very least have disrupted funds necessary for other things in local cities and counties.
(3) Taxpayer dollars have gone to incarcerating and ultimately executing innocent Americans. Cons response to this was that if the government says nuh uh then it didn't happen.
(4) Government shouldn't be given the precedent to kill its citizenry when they don't present an immediate threat.
(5) For these reasons the death penalty should be abolished.
really enjoyed this debate and I want to thank 16Kadams for making a good one!
Have some Creedence:
This would be fun.
Gotta love it.
So, this was a pretty good debate overall. I feel both sides had a number of strong points, and that they were usually well argued. Before I start getting into those arguments, however, I'm going to do a bit of an overview to point out where I see the deficits in this debate, whether from both sides or just one.
Weighing " I think this is a problem with both debaters. The scope of arguments in this debate is pretty broad: cost, justice, and lives. How do I compare those three issues? If one side is winning on costs, and another side is winning on justice, how do I determine the winner? This is a problem I have in judging this debate because there's really no way for me to determine the weight of these points beyond my own basic assumptions. I can see points being made that link lives to costs, so lives do appear to outweigh, but I still can't determine what role justice plays in the debate. Why should I care more about the value of justice to society than I do about basic lives lost? I'm not really given an answer on that front, and the case of both debaters (but especially Con's) are hampered by it.
Formatting " I can't complain about Con's formatting since he compartmentalizes all of the arguments in the debate quite well. I have to speak up about Pro's, though. R2 is just a mess of points, with Pro circling back to several arguments multiple times in order to clarify the full point. Generally, I dislike the system of dashes you put in between points, especially as it's not always clear why they are there to separate points. The problem gets lesser as the rounds continue, since Pro starts to directly quote Con and provide responses, but that just ends up making Pro's responses clear, which is especially strange as he adds new arguments as though they are direct rebuttals. Word to the wise: put your points under united headings, and keep to a specific format. It doesn't have to mirror your opponent's, but it should be as clear as
Points in the final round " Admittedly, there's some uncertainty here. Both sides provide a lot of new sources in the final round, which reveals that you were both much more focused on rebuttals than you were on crystallizing your arguments (something that brought about the weighing problem and generally makes this debate harder to judge), but it's not necessarily providing new arguments, so it's fine as long as each of you is using those sources to shore up previous arguments....
...This isn't always the case. For example, Pro spends a large amount of space specifying costs in numerous states for instituting the death penalty and, at long last, finally putting an impact to this argument (in the point that countries raise taxes or cut funds to public projects). These are all new points. Sure, Pro argued in previous rounds that costs are an issue and gave an overarching argument regarding costs in R2, but all of these pieces to Pro's arguments are new in the final round, leaving no space for Con to rebut them. Admittedly, you are allowed to present new evidence and expand on some arguments in the final round, but placing a brand new impact and modifying the scope of your argument so dramatically after spending literally 2 sentences on cost in R3 concerns me. The problem is more blatant when Pro provides a new rebuttal to Con's justice point in R4, making a point about immediate danger and the lack of justice inherent to killing someone who's not a threat. This argument just gets stricken from my flow because I never see it anywhere else. Be careful " you're already limiting your space by quoting your opponent so much, so don't further reduce the amount you have by making new arguments in the final round.
Alright, with that said, I'm now going to launch into the points themselves. There's really only one key argument that gets the most rebuttal, so I'm going to save deterrence for last and go through the other points first.
1) Innocence
So this point actually breaks down into two arguments. The first of these is that the death penalty kills innocent people, and the second is that the death penalty takes too much time away from lawyers that could be used for the purpose of reviewing evidence. The points are linked, but there's also a delineation made between them, so I'll try to address them separately here.
I'll address the latter point first. The problem I have with this point is that the scenario is somewhat implausible. It makes sense at first blush " if someone isn't executed, then logically their case has more time to be reviewed, and as such can be dismissed if it's found to be faulty. But that's not enough. I need to know that, in LWOP cases, lawyers are really taking the time to further review them rather than simply moving onto other cases. Just because they could be spending more time on the LWOP cases doesn't mean they're going to. In the meantime, I'm getting the point from Con that the appeals system is in place to spend a great deal of time reviewing these cases and analyzing them deeply over the course of a decade. I don't doubt that some cases still slip through the cracks, but I don't see the argument being made clearly by Pro that, in a society where LWOP is the most severe option, the appeals system will be used so extensively, or that the case will even be pursued anywhere near as strongly over the same period of time. I get that Pro's case allows new evidence to come forward for much longer than a decade, but I'm unclear on how often this happens, and all I get is a general "well, it might" and a couple of anecdotes that may or may not actually showcase problems with the current system, since all of them seem somewhat dated.
Even if I do buy those examples, though, I'm left with very few lives lost. Con gives me the majority of the relevant statistics on this, which isn't good for Pro since that leaves me buying that it's a very small number. That matters, but I'm not sure how much. I don't get any real impact analysis on this. I know a general "innocents being killed is bad" isn't necessary here, but I'd have liked to see a discussion on innocent before proven guilty and a government literally doling out death to people whose due process has been violated, in particular with regards to minority communities. Pro really fails to build a solid impact from this argument, and so all I'm left with is a small death toll. It's a win for him, but not one I'm able to give him much credit for.
2) Cost
Not going to spend much time here. This point is a mess, partially because of all the new evidence in Pro's final round, and partially because of his dropping Con's R3 sources on the costs being relatively even or perhaps less. I'm buying the point that any deterrence effect would defeat costs, which I'll get to on deterrence. I'm surprised Con didn't extend that same analysis to recidivism, but that was his choice. What this argument does tell me, though, and what I'm buying, is that deaths tend to involve large costs and that, therefore, I might as well care a whole lot more about them than I do about direct costs of implementation. Pro only gives me a unique reason to prefer direct costs in the final round, so I treat costs as a relatively minimal issue, and it's mainly dependent on how deterrence pans out.
3) Recidivism
I'm surprised that so little time is spent here after Con's R2. This is a big point " a really big point. It might not be as big as deterrence for impact, but Con gives me the numbers pretty clearly, and even on the low end, it's a big deal. Those numbers come up at far larger than the number of innocents killed directly by the death penalty, so if successful, this argument outstrips that quite easily.
Which is why I'm concerned that the only response Pro gives me is a "reform" counter plan without any substance to it. He tells me that we can modify how the LWOP sentence is doled out, and thus ensure that these prisoners aren't released from prison. That's not very specific, though. I'm not given a threshold for which prisoners will get these harsher sentences and I don't have any idea what the appeals system for this would look like.
This leads me to some concerns.
On the one hand, I could look at this reform as remaining rather loose, allowing for the status quo sentencing to continue with only some prisoners getting the harsher sentences if they're obviously dangerous. But that really doesn't erase the recidivism point, it just slightly reduces its impact, and I'm not sure by how much either.
On the other hand, I could look at this reform as being very tight, requiring that a very large proportion of those who get sentenced to life imprisonment don't get any chance of parole. If that's the case, then that seems to turn and supercharge the innocents argument, as Con points out. You're providing them no means by which to escape their punishment, and without any specifics as to the appeals system in place for this, it actually seems worse than the death penalty, providing almost no recourse. This view of the counter plan might deal with recidivism, but at what is perhaps a worse cost.
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded: