Question: Should Capital Punishment Be Permitted?

Capital Punishment
The death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. In fact, it may even encourage more people to commit crimes, as they seek to test the limits of the law. It's more appropriate to have prisons, not the clean and comfortable ones we have now, but rather harsh and austere ones. It's more just to let a criminal suffer for their actions over time than to grant them a swift and easy death.

6% of murderers repeat their crime. If they are executed, then they can't repeat their crime." --> 6% of murderers repeat their crime? What of the 94% who don't repeat their crime? Clearly, the majority of killers do not make the same mistake again and therefore have a chance to repent and reform. "Statistics show that every execution prevents 8 murders....Read this: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... " --> Every execution prevents 8 murders? Doesn't that contradict your previous statement which says that only 6% of murderers repeat their crime? "Generally murder is considered bad. I don't know about you, but I think murder is pretty immoral. Also, I'm looking at this from a utilitarian point of view. I am causing more good by executing this person, because I am saving innocent lives." --> Indeed murder is bad. That, however, doesn't justify executing the murderer because the act of execution is also considered murder. More good is also not caused by executing the murderer because it is in human nature that we, as people, are able to change and be reformed. "The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty numerous times. It is not cruel and it is not unusual. It is a legal punishment." --> Legal does not equal just. The Supreme Court's decisions are based on human judgement which is fallible. Taking away a HUMAN life sounds pretty cruel to me. The accused person could be someone's parent or someone's children. Tearing families apart is very heartless thing to do. "The odds of an innocent being executed are minuscule. Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person." --> The chances of an innocent being executed may be small, but yet the risk is still there. 25 people have been wrongfully executed since the start of this century. The reason for you supporting the death penalty is to protect the lives of the innocent and prevent their murder. How is this possible when innocents are being executed? Therefore, it is nothing like Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person. Innocent people have ALREADY been killed. "6% of murderers let out on parole repeat their crime. Face it, some things never change." --> Indeed, SOME people (the 6%) will never change. But what of the 94% who do change? They deserve the chance to change. Executing them will prevent that from happening. "Saving lives is most certainly just, and that's what execution does, it saves lives. It is not wrong to kill an evil person. Even if we look at it from a deontological perspective, we are justified in killing them, because we are still treating them as an end, albeit a bad one." --> Saving lives is just, but not when it occurs at the expense of others' lives. No one person is truly evil and nor is one person completely good. People can change and preventing that from happening is the true evil. The death penalty is an unjust form of punishment. An eye for an eye and the world will be blind.

Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment. Definitions: Death Penalty: The execution of a criminal for a capital crime. Just: Giving each their due Punishment: the infliction of a negative for the breaking of the law or for a right violation. Contentions: I. The Death Penalty is the only true proportionate punishment for killers. Killers take away the greatest right, the right to life. When this is violated, no earthly punishment is great enough to "balance the scale of justice" according to Kant. The only way to keep the scale equal is to kill the killer. You can also use Kant's universality argument, in that if the killer universalizes his action of killing, then the state is giving him what he wants and deserves, death. The killer must be held to equal worth the the victim. By letting him live, you are placing the life of the criminal over that of the victim. What type of society is that?? II. The Death Penalty is utilitarian. A) Deterrence. The death penalty deters, meaning it stops future crimes. You are protecting more innocents. According to a Harvard Study, the death penalty saves 7-8 innocent people per year. The obligation of the state is to p[protect society, and they can do this by the death Penalty. So, society as well as the criminal is getting its due. B) Incapacitation. The Death Penalty makes sure the same criminal does not commit the same crime, either in-jail or out of jail. Again, more people are protected. III. Self-Defense Theory. The State is the embodiment of society. An individual has the right to kill an attacker to protect his/her own life. The State has the same right. It's justified in killing a criminal to protect itself from harm. Easy enough -- Self-Defense.

YOUR ARGUMENTS As long as the death penalty is in use, there is always the risk of killing innocentsFor this argument, you provide the following link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...It is true that there have been cases where an innocent man was wrongfully convicted. But with our modern advancements in technology and science, our crime solving techniques have also gotten better. With more and more advancements, the risk of convicting an innocent man will become lower and lower.If you view the facts posted on that link, it states that between 1973 and 1999, there was an average of 3.1 exonerations a year for death penalty cases. From 2000 to 2007, there was an average of 5 exonerations per year.It is true that these numbers show that innocent people are sometimes convicted. But it also reveals something far more subtle, but very significant. It is well-known that evidence for guilt or innocence is strongest and best when the case is new. As time goes on, details become more convoluted. The exonerations are for "cold" cases. These are cases for crimes that have taken place a long time ago.And our modern advancements have gotten to the point where we are now able to clear innocent men on these old cases. The jump in average exonerations means that we are getting better and better at knowing when someone was innocent. Furthermore, if we are now at the point where we can show innocence on a case from years past, we clearly have the capabilities to show innocence on a new case. What was considered overwhelming evidence in past decades is far different from what we consider overwhelming evidence today.The risk of convicting an innocent person is constantly diminishing, and therefore the conviction of innocents in years past does not imply that the death penalty cannot be used nowadays and in the future.You state: "With life imprisonment there is zero chance of killing an innocent man."This is not true. This link (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...) shows various stories of people that were released after being sentenced to life without parole. In some of these cases, the person killed again after being released. In other cases, the person escaped.The main point is that with life in prison, the person can get out. And when that happens, there is a very serious risk of an innocent man (or woman, or child) being killed. Not by the state, but by the same murderer that apparently was too good of a guy to get the death penalty.The law books are sometimes filled with various legal loopholes. As strange as it may seem, life without parole does NOT necessarily mean that the individual will remain in prison for life. And thanks to the taxpayers dollars, all prisons have fully stocked libraries. These libraries contain all sorts of law books, so a murderer with a life sentence can study at his leisure to search for a loophole.The death penalty is barbaric form of punishment that needs to be abolished in order for the United states to progress as a societyMurdering innocent people is also barbaric. The death penalty may be viewed by some as "an eye for an eye" but that misses the point. In cases where there is overwhelming evidence, there is no sense in keeping a ruthless murderer alive.You say that we cannot progress without getting rid of the death penalty. I say that we cannot progress if we go soft on people that commit such abominable acts. There are people that have shown that they clearly cannot fit in to our society. Not only are they completely useless to society, they are outright harmful to society. You say that "it teaches revenge and is wrong." But revenge is actually needed. We know from game theory that tit for tat is one of the most highly effective strategies. Allowing someone to get away with murder is what is wrong.And when you think about it, it is not even "an eye for an eye." The murderer killed an innocent person. Killing the murderer is killing an extremely guilty person. A society where we go easy on murderers is not one that I would call progressive.Those executed cannot be be reformed, or rehabilitatedHere you state: "Two murderers, Van Houten and Krenwinkel, were sentenced to life imprisonment, but latter expressed remorse at their actions. If they had been sentenced to death they would never have had the chance to repent.Watson and Atkins, two other murderers, became Christian Fundamentalists after being given a life sentence."When we view your corresponding link (http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu...), we find out that these four individuals were vicious murderers that were part of the Manson family!!Two of them became Christian Fundamentalists after killing a bunch of people. This may sound cold-hearted, but honestly, I don't give a sh*t that these horrible human beings have found religion.I am no conservative. But when you start talking about reforming and rehabilitating the Manson family, I think you are taking bleeding heart liberalism to an extreme.I agree that if you kill a vicious murderer, that murderer cannot become reformed or rehabilitated. But the person is a vicious murderer! Why would you want to reform or rehabilitate them? The time wasted on such a task is clearly not worth it.With the other two from the Manson family, you say that if they were sentenced to death they wouldn't have had the chance to repent. If they were killed, I think very few people would care that such low life murdering individuals didn't have the chance to repent. I know I certainly wouldn't care. And I know that it is making me sound uncaring, but we have to put things in perspective here. These are people from the Manson family! Talking about reforming, rehabilitating, and the rest is simply taking liberalism to an extreme. Trying to rehabilitate such people is a VERY warped view.Death Penalty costs moreActually, the opposite is true. Life in prison costs more.http://deathpenalty.procon.org...The problem we have is that people that oppose the death penalty skew the numbers. The cost of trials for death penalty cases in the biased studies total the costs of all of the appeal cases as well (as they rightfully should). Unfortunately, people that are sentenced to life in prison also go to court numerous times to appeal the decision. But these costs are not counted (when they should be).From the link, we can see that the death penalty is actually less of a burden on the taxpayers. And when it comes to trial costs, "U.S. states that repeal death penalty laws do not see a significant savings in trial costs." Why? Because when the death penalty is a possibility, many defendants plea bargain and plea guilty for a life sentence. This ends the case quickly and saves a lot of money in trial costs.On the other hand, when life in prison is the most severe penalty, a person facing a charge that leads to life in prison has nothing to lose. There is no plea bargain, and the trial is dragged out leading to more trial costs.The death penalty is cheaper than paying for someone to be in prison for the rest of his or her life. MY ARGUMENTSYou claim that the death penalty devalues life. In prison, the inmates get cable tv, watch new releases in the movies, have an outdoor area for recreation, a gym, a full library, and the ability to learn a trade or get a college degree.I think that allowing a vicious murderer all of these perks devalues the life of the victims.Life in prison is the real waste of taxpayers' money. Such dispicable human beings should not be reformed or rehabilitated. Allowing them to live in prison is what is truly unjust.In certain cases, (e.g. your friends in the Manson family), the death penalty is more just than life in prison.The legal loopholes for life sentences shows that life in prison is what is truly risky. When the evidence is overwhelming, the death penalty is the best choice.

C1. Self-ResponsibilityWhose fault is it for doing the crime? The criminal for doing the action of causing a threat towards society. He or she is the one responsible for their own actions, and should suffer the consequences. My opponent could argue about the potential mistakes about the Death Penalty, but stated under "US death row study: 4% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent", it states that only 4.1% of defendants, that are executed, are actually innocent. That is, in fact, a small percentage compared to the prison population in the US. And, I admit, that it is sad that a "mistake" happens with the killing of an innocent individual, but why was that individual in prison in the first place? Following the argument of self-responsibility, it was his or her mistake to be in prison in the first place; otherwise their death would not come.C2. Deters Crime This is a common argument used on both sides of whether or not the Death Penalty does or doesn't deter crime, but I will prove that it does deter crime within society. Supported evidence, from the article titled: "The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives", it says: "Criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals rationally maximize their own self-interest (utility) subject to constraints (prices, incomes) that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere. Individuals make their decisions based on the net costs and benefits of each alternative. Thus, deterrence theory provides a basis for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates. Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates. In fact, studies done in recent years, using sophisticated panel data methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents". To even further support the given evidence, state under another article titled: "Do more executions mean fewer murders", it states that each execution would help prevent at least 18 murders of innocent civilians. And also claims that the reason why it seems like the idea does not deter crime is because of how slow the executions take to get into effect. The article claims that if one murderer is executed instantly, it would prevent at least 1 murder of any civilian. So technically, the Death Penalty does deter crime; but the issue is how long it takes for the Death Penalty to take effect. In reality, the Death Penalty should be an instant action, instead of a long drawn out session when the final decision was made.C3. Economically Beneficial For this argument, let me please review the costs of the methods used within the Death Penalty. The cost for a Lethal Injection, stated under "Methods of Execution", is about $86.06. That is much cheaper than the most common method of the Electric Chair, which runs about $265,000. And as we know, technology is advancing within our society; and other methods for killing are being introduced. One example is that in a recent article from Ohio, a state that approves the Death Penalty, they are inventing new methods for it. The given example is the "Robotic Arm", where it decapitates the Criminal quickly and pain free. It also plays calming music so the Criminal is not suffering as much as compared with other methods. The pricing for the Robotic Arm would be expensive, but would be a one time buy. Some changes in machinery would be needed, but that is actually more economically beneficial than the other methods presented. As well as if we look at the costs, while a criminal is on Death Row, it shows that it is the result of costing more money, than actually saving money. Stated under "Costs of the Death Penalty", it states that the reason why people claim the Death Penalty is expensive is because of how long the execution takes. The prices, for trials and such, reach up to about 1 billion dollars. That is a lot, just to prove the "innocence" of a murderer!C4. The Bible Agrees with the Death Penalty Stated under both the Old Testament and New, God agrees that the Death Penalty should be used as punishment for ones crimes. From Genesis 9:6, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man". This quote is simply referring to how many people put a focus more on human rights, than God himself; or if we do not want to get into a Religious argument, the consequence for a criminals action. Self responsibilty, or an "Eye for an eye". And to even further this argument, from Revelation 13:10, "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints". Which simply means that if we have it, we should use it to bring justice amongst society.C5. The Death Penalty Brings Justice: For this argument, I wish to present the definition of "justice". Justice is defined as:"Just behavior or treatment". Basicvally, bringing a balance a good feeling towards society. The Death Penalty fulfills this burden by murdering the person, for taking another innocent civilians life. Stated under "A Just Society Requires the Death Penalty for the Taking of Another Life", it says: "When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind". Simple enough concept, but many argue about human rights,insteadof arguing about the fact of a criminal taking accountability for his or her own actions. C6. Promotes a Better Environment in Prisons Imagine the feeling of being a prison guard, going through the cells and possibly being murdered. It is a scary feeling, and as a society, we need to bring safety to the guards environment. How? By the usage of the Death Penalty, which eliminates all the threats of murders within the prison. Quoted from the New York Times article "The Death Penalty can Create a Better Prison Environment", it says: "Surely the men and women who guard our prisons deserve society's respect, support and protection. The death penalty for certain crimes inside of prisons is one way of protecting them from being murdered on the job. The sooner we give them this, the sooner their ranks will grow to include more compassionate, better educated people truly able to reform the system at all levels". Are we at the point of neglecting the safety of the innocent, to the criminals because of the Death Penalty being horrid? The Death Penalty would prevent the possible murders within the prisons environment. Under the document "Mortality in Local Jails and State Prisons, 2000–2012 - Statistical Tables", it states that in 2012 we had an 8% increase in murders within prisons, and is increasing as the years pass by. And most of these murders have occured within inmates who are on Death Row, and Mentally Ill Inmates. The percentage totaling up to 67%, which is a lot for an inmate about to get the Death Penalty. So once more, instead of taking the time to commence the Death Penalty; just do it when it is sentenced.C7. Prevents Overpopulation within Prisons Stated under the article, "The United States Has The Largest Prison Population In The World " And It"s Growing", it states that within our country 1.57 million inmates are occupying any sort of cell. The most common crime, taken in 2013, involve physical harm. Stated under "Criminal Victimization", the highest number of crimes involve mostly any physical harm to the victim. Examples being rape, assault, or even murder; and the scary part is that at least 1/3 of the inmates are involved in this sort of crime. This is a high number for prisoners and needs to be reduced, hence the reasoning of why the Death Penalty should be used. The Death Penalty will lower the overpopulation of inmates, and actually have room for inmates that deserve to be in prison for drug abuse, and or other charges. As well as protect the more "innocent" of the inmates from the aggression of these violent criminals actions or influence. And also bring along more protection for the public. with the Death Penalty, we can lower the numbers of prison population!Given the arguments, we can see that the Death Penalty has its benefits towards our society.Sources: htp://www.biblebelievers.com......http://www.theguardian.com......http://www.washingtonpost.com......http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org......http://www.nytimes.com....../www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mljsp0012st.pdfhttp://www.bjs.gov......http://thinkprogress.org......http://www.heritage.org......http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu......http://www.vice.com......http://www.theonion.com......http://www.seattletimes.com......

My point is that the death penalty should not just be about money. Additionally, the amount of prisoners sentenced to Life Without Parole is not very high. Only one in ten out of the people sentenced to life in prison can not get parole. People on death row also are treated very poorly, some are in their cell for 23 hours of the day, with little interaction with other people. Maybe instead of putting these killers with mental defects, as you put it, on death row, we should send them to a mental institution. The intent of the DP may not be to teach ethics or prove a point, but that is what it is doing, and it is not working. So many people believe the death penalty is a deterrent, but crime rates have not gone down because of it. And if the only reason we are killing these people is because they are beyond rehabilitation, then what is the harm in a Life Sentence Without Parole.

This is a debate concerning the death penalty and as the side arguing against it, I would like to make the following points: 1. The death penalty is costly When I say costly, I mean that according to NBC it costs about 1.7 million dollars to execute someone. New Jersey got rid of the death penalty because it costed 4 million dollars per inmate and they hadn't executed anyone since 1963. Plus, inmates staring into the face of the death penalty are entitled to two lawyers which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars alone. 2. What if they're innocent The fact that the risk of ending the life of an innocent person should not be permitted, Killing an innocent person is morally reprehensible, so why should our justice system allow that possibility to exist? By eliminating the death penalty we eliminate any chance of this happening. 3. Does the death penalty deter crime "There's no credible evidence of deterrence," concludes John Blume, a law professor with the Cornell Death Penalty Project. (Excerpt from the Denver Post). There's no way to tell if a murderer was aware of a state's death-penalty status when the crime was deliberated, or what impact the knowledge had. (also from the same article). In, conclusion I believe I have shown the death penalty to be more of a hindrance than a help There's my argument(s) and I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.

My oppenent is a worthy foe and i respect whoever they are but The death penalty needs to stay.Yes i will admit that innocent people have been executed but Since 1973, 151 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.ONE IN 25 SENTENCED TO DEATH IN THE U.S. IS INNOCENT, Factors leading to wrongful convictions include: Inadequate legal representation Police and prosecutorial misconduct Perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony Racial prejudice Jailhouse "snitch" testimony Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence Community/political pressure to solve a case List of Pros of Death Penalty 1. Death penalty costs the government less as opposed to life imprisonment without parole. Proponents say despite expenses incurred by the government from imposing capital punishment, death penalty is still cheaper compared to the costs of life without parole. Although there is no contention that the cost of the former is high, life imprisonment is accumulatively higher given the expenses for food, health care and other costs of sustaining the lives of incarcerated individuals serving life. 2. It deters would-be criminals to commit felonies. Advocates of death penalty cite examples on how imposing the death sentence or abolishing it have affected crime rate. According to a study conducted in the late 1960"s, there was a 7% crime rate increase on the years when this law was abolished. On the other hand, fewer crimes were committed with the increase in number of inmates in the death row who were executed each year. Proponents say that these figures clearly indicate the efficacy of capital punishment on deterring crimes. 3. The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increase. As reported by time magazine, an estimated 2,000,000 people in the United States have been victims of crimes, from assault to murder. With insufficient laws to address this problem or the lack of teeth in these laws, criminals become careless and bolder to commit heinous crimes because of the leniency in punishments and loop holes in the justice system. For these reason, there is a need for death penalty. 4. It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight Amendment which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. Advocates of death penalty say that the pain associated with the execution of a death row inmate is not improbable. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Eight Amendment challenge which stated that the drug used to render the criminal coma-like unconscious before injecting the lethal drug is not capable to do so completely. The Supreme Court was firm on its stand that any method of execution definitely will inflict some pain and states with capital punishment have already adopted more humane methods to carry out executions. 5. Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes committed against the rights to life, freedom and safety of victims. It is the right of an individual to live peacefully and be free from harm. Unfortunately, crimes like murder, rape and assault are committed by perpetrators who have no regard for life and property of others. Since they violate other people"s lives, it is but fair that they are brought to justice and suffer the fate they rightfully deserve. People who are for capital punishment also talk about free will wherein an individual is given the right to do things in his or her own volition and he or she is responsible for his or her own fate. http://greengarageblog.org... http://www.amnestyusa.org...

First, I will refute kohai's arguments. If I have characters remaining, I will defend my own.=The Resolution=Kohai has defined (and I agree with), abolish to mean to do away with. So if I can show that in general, we ought not abolish the death penalty, you vote Con. If I give even a single example where the DP is the ideal form of punishment, you also vote Con because that shows we should not completely do away with it. Now, onto refutation!C1. InhumanityKohai begins by trying to show the current methods of execution to be cruel. While I will refute this, and show how I outwiegh, this is also non-topical. Why? Simply because Kohai did NOT set the framework of this debate to be over the status quo. Rather it is over the DP in general. Now, since this has been established I would like to indroduce a new method, as advocated by U.K. politician Michael Portillo.[1] Nitrogen asphyxiation. This is a completely painless, and seemingly botch-proof method. Here's a description of it: "When humans breathe in pure nitrogen, they exhale carbon dioxide without resupplying oxygen. Nitrogen is a colorless, odorless and tasteless gas that constitutes approximately 78 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. As such, the subject would detect no abnormal sensation. This leads to asphyxiation without the painful and traumatic feeling of suffocation."So painless is this death, that often times individuals die from this...without even noticing that they are dying.This is a better and more humane method of execution, and it's up to kohai to find the flaw in it. Otherwise, his entire first contention is gone. ECKohai's attempted to show the EC as painful. Firstly, the EC is a method of execution that has fallen out of favor, for the very reasons he has elaborated on. Secondly, are we really to concern ourselves with this? Yes, if we must take a life I would prefer to do it in the least painful way possible, but given the momumental benefits brought forth by the DP as elaborated in my case, the prisoners suffering has to be the least of our worries. The DP keeps killers from striking again, and as such the only possible way Kohai could outweigh this is to show moe innocents killed via execution than via re-offense, which he has not done (more on that later.) Honestly, I find it quite ironic that many DP opposers focus so much on the pain of the offender, yet so little focus is given to what truly matters, innocent life. Please judges, do the humane thing and realize that while we should try to minimize suffering, said suffering must be our last priority.LIKohai says that the anesthetic drug wears off in 7-10 minutes. I see no reason to dispute that. However that does not constitute inhumanity from Lethal Injection. Indeed, death usually occurs for those given lethal drugs within 7 minutes.[2] For the cases in which it DOESNT kill them that fast, it is a botched execution which I will discuss later. However Kohai has not proven LI, when used properly, to be inhumane. Also when the constitutionality of this method came into question, it was upheld[3]. Surely the Supreme Court and the attorneys involved in the case know volumes more about LI than Kohai or I ever will.BotchedKohai has given some examples of botched executions. First off, he has argued no impact. Yes it is unfortunate that this has to happen, but to claim that this constitutes the DP to be cruel and unusual is to claim that life w/o parole is cruel and unusual because of things that are not supposed to happen such as prison rape, sadistic guards, ect. Kohai is trying to get us to do away with the ultimate penalty based on a rare exception to the rule, which is foolish. Furthermore, I have given a better method of execution that will by-pass this entire contention.C2. InnocenceKohai shows us that "21" innocents have been executed in the past 18 years. Umm, no. Not a single one of those people have been pardoned by a court after death. Kohai wants us to take death penalty information center's opinion over the guilty verdict of the court supported by the judge, governer of the state, district court, board of paroles and pardons, and the Supreme Court itself. I will take the veridict from people who actually know about the case over some writings on the internet ANY day. I brought this up with him during cross examination in the comments section, and he continually dodged the question. As such, we can presume that this is extremely harmful to his contention and until he gives an actual, court reecognized, example of an innocent this point simply falls.=Defense=C1SPAkohai says that since thieves re-offend at a higher rate than murderers, we should execute all thieves. I understand that this is a debate, and that it's his job to poke holes in my logic, but I truly do hope that Kohai has the moral insight to distinguish theft from murder. Theft is not as destructive to society, and to the family of the victim as murder, and thus does not deserve the same punishment. Conversly, how are we to take murder as a crime seriously, if the punishment is not equally as serious?He also says "killing the speeders will surely save more lives!" .....ok. Let's think about that for a second. Killing a speeder results in a death unjust by any standards, and it would also end more innocent lives than it would save because speeding does not warrant an execution.SPBKohai gives an example that 87% of criminologists believe the DP does not deter. Yet 13% of them DO. Obviously, this shows that there is room for debate on deterrence. As such, if there is a chance the DP deters than we have a moral obligation to perform it. If we execute and the DP does not deter, we have a bunch of dead murderers. If we fail to execute, and the DP DOES deter, we have the blood of innocents on our hands. Surely the just action would be to risk the former, and not the latter. Furthermore, I have given statistical evidence, studies, and logical analysis. Kohais appeal to authority cannot outwiegh this.He claims " According to this, states without the DP decreased in homicide, while states with the DP increased in homicide."Looking at his source, that is quite simply false. In both types of states, homicide has decreased. I believe that Kohai was trying to imply that states w/o the DP have lower murder rates. unfortunately, this is not comparing apples to apples, to use the common phrase. When assessing the use of the DP as a deterrent, it can only be observed by an individual state comparison. If we really want to compare two different things, I will point out the fact that Saudi Arabia, which has a swift and certain DP has a much lower crime rate than the US.Also TURN: Kohai's graph shows a significant decrease in homicide since 1994 in DP states. Since the passing of the DP act of 1994, implementation of the DP has been much swifter and simpler.Lastly he says that the "simple fact" is that killers do not think of the consequences. I would like the judges to consider the phrase pre-meditated murder when considering this objection. Logic tells us that if there was no penalty for murder, murder rates would be higher. So it would stand to reason that the harsher a penalty for a certain crime is, the less likely it is to be committed.C2.This was essentially dropped, and thus I extend it. Kohai contends that SPA is a slippery slope fallacy. It isn't exactly a fallacy if the slope exists. I have given evidence for this, which he has dropped. He also argues that sometimes there is no reason to keep someone in prison at times.TURN: This proves that the mentality for abolition of life w/o parole exists. The McDuff evidence tells us that parole boards often make mistakes and killers strike again. I will link an entire list of 50+ paroled murderers who struck again. [4]. I strongly urge a Con vote.Sources:1. http://bitURL.net... 2. http://bitURL.net... 3. http://bitURL.net... 4. http://bitURL.net...

Thank you for posting your next argument. That question comes up in a death penalty debate about 99% of the time. It is something to be considered. Tell me, how many people have died on death row who were proved innocent? What lots of people fail to relies is that judges do not just sentence anyone they want to death row. There are many hours put into making sure that the person is guilty. Saying we should abolish a punishment because me might punish the wrong person is not a good idea. We could say the same thing about prison. Should we get rid of the prisons all together just because we might lock up someone by accident? If Iran attacked the United States on American ground, there would most likely be innocent people there who were drafted by their country. Should the US not fight back because of that risk? I look forward to your response.

Thank you, Sam, for this interesting topic. The death penalty is barbaric at best and hypocritical at worst. I will bring religious and logical reasoning. 1) How can the jury possibly be able to convict someone to death? How can they possibly know all the facts? What if in a year from now new evidence will come to light that the accused is innocent? What shall we do, bring him back to life?! While if that person were incarcerated, he would be freed and allowed to live out his life. 2) If the government were to start executing people, then citizens will start taking the law into their own hands and kill people that had supposedly commited murder. 3) If the government were to start executing people, it would justify the actions of the KKK, Hamas and other barbaric, murderous groups-they would claim that just like America kills for crimes against humanity, so too those groups kill for their alleged crimes against humanity (being African-American, Jewish etc.). 4) Taking a life as justification is barbaric, and if America initiates that punishment, then America is barbaric. Resolution negated.


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital Punishment
An individual who brings about death should anticipate consequences. Indeed, the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous criminals, like Charles Manson. These individuals have inflicted immense pain on families, and it would be comforting to have a resolution. While capital punishment isn't the answer to all problems, the erratic and disturbing behavior of Charles Manson, who has been in prison for over four decades, is truly exasperating. He deliberately attends parole hearings just to display his insanity, and it would be preferable to see this issue resolved.

Yes, the death penalty is a punishment for a crime. I must argue however, that the majority of the people receiving the death penalty, are psychopaths and sociopaths who were most likely abused during their childhood. They didn't know any better. They were sick. And they needed help. And judging by the amount of executions that have been carried out in the U.S, the death penalty does not scare these people. If they really want to, they will kill anyways. Psychopaths and sociopaths do not feel fear the way people without these mental disorders do. It is also possible for a murderer to frame someone else, if they are crafty enough. Just think about that. It is possible for a person to kill someone, and blame you. If you were found guilty and got the death penalty, the government would be putting you, an innocent man to death. Doesn't that scare you? There have been many cases where an innocent man was executed. I got this story from the death penalty information center. "Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993 A two-part investigative series by the Houston Chronicle cast serious doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed in 1993. Ruben Cantu had persistently proclaimed his innocence and was only 17 when he was charged with capital murder for the shooting death of a San Antonio man during an attempted robbery. Now, the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about the case. Moreover, both a key eyewitness in the state's case against Cantu and Cantu's co-defendant have come forward to say that Texas executed an innocent man. Juan Moreno, who was wounded during the attempted robbery and was a key eyewitness in the case against Cantu, now says that it was not Cantu who shot him and that he only identified Cantu as the shooter because he felt pressured and was afraid of the authorities. Moreno said that he twice told police that Cantu was not his assailant, but that the authorities continued to pressure him to identify Cantu as the shooter after Cantu was involved in an unrelated wounding of a police officer. "The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer. They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified. . . . That was bad to blame someone that was not there," Moreno told the Chronicle. In addition, David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, "Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person." Sam D. Millsap, Jr., the Bexar County District Attorney who charged Cantu with capital murder, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu's photo three seperate times. Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the jury's decision was the best they could do based on the information presented during the trial. She noted, "With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information. The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that." (Houston Chronicle, November 20 & 21, 2005 and Associated Press, November 21, 2005)." There were about 12 other cases on this website with extremely sad stories. These people were put to death, and afterwards police were either suspicious or they realized that they killed the wrong guy. Here are the names of all the other innocent people listed on this website. Carlos DeLuna Texas Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989 Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995 Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997 David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997 Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998 Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000 Claude Jones Texas Convicted 1989 Executed 2000 Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004 Troy Davis Georgia Convicted 1991 Executed 2011 Lester Bower Texas Convicted 1984 Executed 2015 Brian Terrell Georgia Convicted 1995 Executed 2015 Richard Masterson Texas Convicted 2002 Executed 2016 I must also point out that life imprisonment is absolutely not giving people convicted of murder kudos for killing 10 innocent people. It is keeping a potentially innocent but most likely guilty person off the streets, so that they are unable to kill again.

I will be arguing that the death penalty should not be abolished.

I thank my opponent for the opportunity he has provided me in this debate to show why the death penalty should not remain legal. As to his points: "The average cost per inmate (not on death row) in California costs the state 49,000 multiply that by 680 inmates charged with the crime of murder and you will get 33,320,000 the average cost of medicine per inmate is $6,935 multiply that by 680 you get 4,715,800 add that number with 33,320,000 you get 38,035,800(per year). As you can the price of holding a regular inmate exceeds that number." What about food? Clothes? Costs of keeping them under guard? Septic system costs? Administrative costs? Etc. Keep in mind that people on death row are kept in prison nearly as long as those in for life. On top of the ordinary costs, they also have to have greater supervision, plus costs for execution methods, plus added costs of appeals and heightened innocence investigations. "The fact of the matter is the reason that our current system is as costly as it is, is due to the lack of executions in California not because of them. In 30 years California has only executed 13 out of the hundreds of people on death row." Yes. They have done this because of errors in the system and the need to provide due process. In other words, because they have to in order to keep the death penalty just. "… putting a couple of bullets into the murderers the moment they are convicted of the crime [is] my idea of death penalty reform …" Then you have (hypothetically) just killed this man: http://forejustice.org... More to the point, the immediate application of a penalty without judicial review is a denial of due process, essential to justice, and smacks of radical anti-democratic authoritarianism. This is something the United States should never tolerate if it wishes to keep itself true to its ideals. "… every single person accused of murder gets a fair trial. That is exactly what due process is." This would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. The appeals and review process is a part of due process. It isn't just the right to confront your accusers before they take you out back and shoot you. Also, no, not every person gets a fair trial. See the above example for the unfair results that occur following prosecutorial misconduct. Remember that people run these trials, not God. Justice relies upon the hope that enough people in the mix will prevent anyone from playing God. What you are arguing is neither right, nor just, nor moral. "People who are convicted of murder obviously do not get to enjoy their right to life since they have taken somebody Else's right to life therefore they should be put to death immediately." What of people who are falsely convicted of murder? If you take that person's life, wouldn't that make you a murderer who needs to be immediately shot? Also, rights exist for the benefit of the right bearers … the dead are no longer around to demand justice, so at best we can argue that the social prescription of death for murder is intended to provide effect for the rights of those mourning the aggrieved. Their rights would just as well be served knowing that, for as long as the offender can be kept alive, the offender will suffer a loss as they have. "Yes, every study has a margin of error but how can you look at that graph I cited and not admit that the death penalty is working in some way[?]" Because I can provide any number of other events that occurred in one of the peaks, like 1990; I turned nine, for example. Oops, my bad. This isn't an issue of a margin of error. This is an issue of knowing how to read statistics. "On the national scale the graph I cited above shows that with more executions leads to less murders." No, it showed that a higher number of executions correlate with a lower number of murders. That doesn't mean having more executions results in fewer murders. Perhaps having fewer murders resulted in more executions, because more resources ordinarily devoted to handling new cases can be devoted to finishing the job on the old ones. "I tried reading your source but read nothing about the correlation between drugs and murder." The point was that the spike in murders occurred following the national crackdown on marijuana (check the dates). Using your logic that means the illegality of marijuana resulted in more people acting aggressively and committing murder. "Your source does not say we are killing them it simply states the number of people on death row." I will concede that. We just have more people *lined up* to be killed. That still means that the death penalty isn't deterring. "There is two reasons for that. 1.population increase in the U.S. and 2. there has been a decline in executions in many states such as the example I made with California." 1.If population increase was to blame, but the death penalty worked as a deterrent, we would not see population increases correlating with death row population statistics. 2.If declines in executions deter, then why is it that those states with no executions (less than less – none) have fewer murders than even California? Also – this: http://www.prisonactivist.org... "But, there is immediate threat how about those prison guards who are killed while watching inmates? The threat will always be there until they are rightfully put to death." Only until the next batch rolls in as murder has not been deterred. You're arguing incapacitation now, which is invalid for any number of reasons by itself, not the least of which is that there is no way to know who will reoffend. "Capital punishment is the punishment murderers receive." No, I meant … *groan* … you are comparing apples and oranges when you speak about people not having the ability to defend themselves and not being able to punish. One action is taken to prevent unjustified harm, the other to discourage further unjustified harm. You can not use the rationale for one in place of the other. They meet two entirely different objectives. "Whether that is true or not I am sure you will find that the most heinous crimes you can think of are on the rise. I am sure you can equate that to a moral decline." They are not. There is no ‘moral decline.' If anything, we are on a moral upswing and would be doing very well if not for some stupid economic decisions we've made over the past two decades. "North Carolina banned executions of the mentally ill. Giving people who aren't mentally ill a defense for claiming a illness they do not have." Also, it gives the mentally ill who are really mentally ill the clemency that they deserve. Which is more important: the few unworthy lives spared or the few innocent lives saved? If you're for victims' rights, you have to argue the latter. Yet to support the death penalty, you have to argue the former. That's outright hypocrisy. In conclusion, my opponent failed to show why the current death penalty system should remain. He then argued that there should be a new death penalty system, one that remains as unjustified but is more cost effective because it is unjust. I have argued for the system that is cost effective, just, and justified: life imprisonment. I now strongly urge a vote for Con, so that we citizens of the United States can move beyond this very silly and somewhat tragic moment in our history and move towards a new era of heightened civility and efficiency.

Since it is the last round I won't even try to research definitions or create rules. It won't get that complicated. The death penalty is something that is necessary in this society, though it should be restricted to talentedly malevolent criminals who have proven that prisons cannot hold them. For example, Charles Sobhraj, a murderer once wanted in 11 countries, managed to escape 7 jails with such jests as "starting a fire in the back of a police van". People tried to convince the government to make a special-case death sentence, but they refused. That was before he broke out of jail again, killing 11, wounding 38, and giving 14 severe diarrhea before getting shot during a chase. http://www.cracked.com... Rebuttals (1) An executioneer is not a murderer because he is solely carrying out the law and God's commands. (2) Death Sentences, while legalized, should be constrained. Besides, the lack of a death sentence brings more deaths, as shown in Sobhraj's case. (3) Not a point. But, just to clarify, soldiers are too only carrying out the will of the state, and, besides, the Christian Church declared any killing done during wartime as not sinful, as long as you didn't want to do it.

Today I will be arguing against the allegation that the death penalty ought be abolished in the United States.Now, when a person kills another, they obviously cannot live in our society ever again. We can all agree on that. At this point we have to choose one of two options: To sentence them to life in prison, or to sentence them to death. So when we have another option at hand, why are we so keen to kill them? Because of a point my opposition mentioned, it's too expensive. Now while some would have you believe that the death penalty is an expensive process. In context, next to life in prison, the cost of death is cheap. Food, a cell, electricity... all these things go into inmate's survival, with taxpayers losing $1.5 million on average to every single life sentence. Does a lethal dose of drugs cost $1.5 million? Of course not. If drugs (the only way executions are held in the US this day and age) cost too much for your taste, there are other methods of execution to consider. Bullets are only a few cents each, for example.This brings me to my next point. Executions are absolutely, 100% humane. Like I said, executions are only done by lethal injection in the US today, which involves a painless, falling asleep like sensation that ends in death. My opposition mentions gas chambers, hanging, firing squads, and finally the relevant issue of lethal injection. Only the ladder matters to us here in the United States, and it rarely fails as it is explained. I will advocate for firing squads, however, because they are the only provided means of execution that is plausible for use today. There seems to be a misunderstanding in how firing squads work. It is a firing squad, meaning there are multiple shooters. If one of the usually seven men misses, so what? There are six other bullets entering the heart at the same time. You can't not kill the inmate.And while we have so far not seen any decent reasons why the death penalty is bad, we can't dispute over the fact that there are innocent people executed. However, this is not an issue with the death penalty, but the justice system. With modern DNA testing, we can be absolutely sure if the accused is innocent, and absolutely sure if he is guilty. We're targeting the wrong thing with this very pressing issue, even though it is dwindling with technology. I would also like to ask the opposition why he or she compared elementary school students to convicted murderers, which seems to be irrelevant.Finally, I would like to point out that justice is not important. We are doing justice with either one of the two options presented above (life sentence or death sentence), although one seems to some not to be so. If we are worried about the economy, the death penalty is best. If we are worried about being humane, death penalty (in specific forms) is best. It seems to me that my opposition is seeking death penalty reform to ensure indisputable evidence is presented for it to be used, and humane methods to be used (the best of which being firing squads). Abolishing the death penalty won't solve these problems, just fill our prisons and damage our economy. I would even argue death is more humane in some cases than being locked up forever in a prison, which can cause physiological problems.The death penalty is an affordable, sensible, and humane means of justice. Life sentencing hurts our wallets, their mind, and all of our prisons capacities. Is it really so wrong to humanely and peacefully bring someone's life to an end, when they have likely brutally murdered another? In many ways, we're doing ourselves a favor. We're doing them a favor.

I propose simply that the governments of countries should take measures to keep the death penalty for some crimes. This is not limited to murder but that's potentially for a different round. A life sentence is not the correct punishment to pursue because prision is not even a bad place for prisoners, so it's not much of a punishment. Many people commit crimes just because they enjoy prisons so much. Why wouldn’t they? Some perks of being a prisoner: -They get 3 meals a day. If they don't like the food, then they often make their own. This applies to poor people who would otherwise not necessarily have enough to eat. -This kindof goes with the one above. They get to participate in the Ramen trade(https://www.npr.org......) -Clean clothes -Getting paid for stuff http://dailycaller.com......(A right wing source) https://www.thrillist.com......(I don't know, but an extra site) https://www.huffingtonpost.com......(A left wing source) So, now on to why I believe we should keep the Death penalty (DP) this after defining my policy statement. I will propose three simple and logical rebuttals for why the death rate penalty is good and thus why it follows that we should pursue it's continuance. Firstly, the death penalty is right because it allows for very few innocent people to be murdered by the state. Only 4.1% of convicts for murder are actually innocent. (This is religious) If your executed innocent, since atheist criminals tend to convert out of fear of hell, once they get executed innocently, they would go to heaven. Even if your secular, the innocent inmates would probably be thinking hopeful thoughts at the deathbed. I say this as an atheist, so it's not like I have religious bias. http://www.newsweek.com......... No matter how strong the burden of proof is as claimed by opponents of my position, it is very rare when innocent people are wrongly convicted of serious crime and in certain countries are then murdered by the state for those false crimes. Let's be clear - our criminal justice systems improve every year. If pain and suffering can be endured by both the wrongly accused and their families and friends, then simply don't tell them and they will think that their accused relative was guilty. "Furthermore, considering African Americans make up almost 50% of the American prison population despite being only 13% of the population and that Black people are 7 times more likely to be convicted wrongly of murder than white people this suggests that racism is a major factor causing injustices in legal systems." The reason why Black people tend to be more likely to end up in prison than Caucasians is the same reason why males are more likely to end up in the prison system than females. It is because they are more likely to commit crime and when they do, it tends to be more intense on average. When a state kills somebody for committing a crime, it provides justice for the murderer and prevents him from killing other prisoners, since lifetime imprisonment would make him angry enough to potentially kill someone since he has had practice. Victims feel more of a sense of justice when a criminal faces DP, after all, getting killed is more painful than being in prison for life. To live anyhow is better than to not live at all(with exceptions). There is evidence that killing even guilty people actually acts as a deterrent to further support my claim that it achieves nothing. Japan has the death penalty, South Africa does not and Japan has a far lower homicide rate. There is no guarantee that the murderer would feel sorrow. Dylan Roof wouldn't have felt sorrow when he killed 9 people in a Baptist Church. He hated the people in there. Many murderers want to be known and famous, even if it's famous in a bad way. The death penalty should be justifyingly cruel, and murderers should die by the formula D=PL^3. D means Death method, P means amount of pain caused, and L is the number of lives killed. I would like to point some quotes from my opponent “This is wrong because human suffering is universally wrong.” “This is suitable because they will not be a threat to the public and because they will be deprived of most freedoms and live the rest of their lives in a tough and unpleasant way” Which is it? Do you want criminals to suffer or not? The convict's family won’t be victimized by the execution. Instead they would support it. Adam Lanza’s Dad wished he was never born. Parents tend to hate the murderer as much as society. “human life is in sacred” Apply this to a fetus, and you will be more ideologically consistent. “it extinguishes that individual's ability to contribute to society after they have been reformed in prison.” You want life imprisonment. This makes it impossible for the to do this. Not all murderers become reformed and even if they have a change of heart, they still must endure their punishment. “And, appeasing the fiery emotions of traumatised victims is not essential to the betterment of society.” Really, the pro DP people are the emotional ones. You guys are the ones who cry out for the murderers that you call human beings. That sounds pretty emotional to me. Also, keep in mind that they go through a rational jury and judge before getting executed. These people don’t base their punishments off of feelings. They ase it off of logic and ethics. “Violence is wrong in all cases.” You once again contradicted yourself because above you said it was okay in self defense, but not execution. Violence is sometimes wrong, sometimes right. Moreover, it perverts the notion of justice served by the law and ultimately by our societal notion of universal morality. The reason why non DP states tend to have a lower homicide rate is because they tend to be richer due to urbanization and therefore less likely to have it’s individuals commit crime. “Disturbed individuals are often angered or believe that violence is more acceptable since the most fundamental form of authority (the state) leads by example in murdering criminals and thus these people are more likely to commit murder.” That is not true. The reason why they murder iss because they are sick in the head, because society treated them badly, because they want to make a murderer list, or a combination of the previous reasons. “It is also linked to increased number of police officers murdered.” I will need a citation. In conclusion, the death penalty represents everything that really is justice. It kills only a few innocent people, all on accident, it necessarily deletes lives in rarely horrendously painful ways and worst of all, it does not underpins a notion of acceptable brutality since it punishes murderers justifyingly harshly. “Before Keith Tharpe was sentenced to death one juror called him "a nig**r".” This is an extreme situation that should be cited. This is not mainstream.

"Okay, that's fine argue with statistics that show that you are wrong. .. like the one I just posted. The death penalty deters 8 murders from occurring. " --> These statistics are completely sound. When a criminal planning the murder of someone, the criminal obviously doesn't expect to be caught and therefore would have no regard of the punishment (in this case, capital punishment). However, if the possibility of being caught was increased, there would be a greater chance that the criminal is deterred from committing the crime. Therefore, preventing murders is not done by increasing the harshness of the punishment but by increasing the possibility that the person responsible for the crime will be caught. "Murder, at least in a philosophical sense, is the intentional killing of an innocent, and you brought up a philosophical matter. " --> What is murder if it is not the intentional killing of an innocent? If the intentional killing of an innocent is defined as murder, then I do not see what the fuss is about. Uhh. .. yeah. .. no. The people who rejected Copernicus were uneducated peasants. The Supreme Court is comprised of brilliant men and women. " --> They were not all uneducated. They were humans who carried some prejudices and biased opinions. The same can be said of Supreme Court judges. They are human and are therefore liable to error and the other faults of humans. They may not be extremely biased or prejudiced, but are still a biased to a certain extent. Indeed, this can be proved through the fact that statistics show that two-thirds of any case involving a black or hispanic killing a white result in the death penalty. Overall, a black person is 5 times more likely to get the death penalty. "Life imprisonment, a) does not deter as well, and b) it allows criminals to cause more harm, my mother, a psychologist has treated many prison guards who have faced emotional challenges after injuries resulting from prison breaks. " --> I'll say that life imprisonment deters just as well as the death penalty. Spending a life time in a small cell v. getting a quick death both sound pretty grim to me. The reason for prison breaks is because of the faults with security, not because of the faults with the punishment. Since the death punishment is currently legal, those criminals who caused emotional challenges to guards were not sentenced to death for a reason. Therefore, with or without the death penalty, the same prison breaks that have occurred in the past would still have occurred. "And I already stated that you're wrong, sacrifice is necessary. Life imprisonment won't deter as well. " --> I have also stated that both will deter the same amount. Both life imprisonment and capital punishment are grim consequences. There is no difference. The true way to deter criminals is to increase the possibility of them being caught. "I am saying that the death penalty should only be applied to murder 1, and this was a murder 2 case, and should not have been made a capital offense. I only have to affirm capital punishment, I can choose the conditions. " --> You are saying that only murder 1 should get the death penalty. Yet, in this case, murder 2 also got the death penalty. Therefore, this shows that either a) my opponent's definition of the crimes deserving the death penalty is faulty, or, b) that human fallibility can cause errors when judging and do not always judge both fairly and according to the rules laid out, or, c) both of the above. Therefore, the death penalty is a fallible form of punishment and there are other alternative punishments that would work just as effectively in both preventing murders from happening and assuring the safety of innocents.

Thank you for posting your argument. Killing is not wrong, murdering is, but not killing. Murdering: To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. Saying that the death penalty should not stand is saying that Saddam Hussein, a man who is behind mass murders, should have stayed alive. It is only fair that murders get what they are supposed to. It would not be right to lock a random person in prison. But if a man has stolen from someone then it is fair that they get locked up. Same thing with the death penalty. Read this story. New Orleans (AP) - The attractive wife of a New Orleans business executive died Wednesday of injuries inflicted 12 hours earlier by a robber who rapped and beat her, then shot her in the head. Ms Louis S. Harris, 41, was attacked on the second flood apartment on a quiet Louisiana Avenue Parkway. Her 13-year-old son, Seth, found his mother lying face down on the bed in his bedroom when he returned home from school. She was bound and gagged. Do you believe that this guy should be spared death? I look forward to your next argument. Sources: (1). http://news.google.com...

Thank you with engaging with my arguments although I think that you need to provide some arguments against as well as rebutting my position. I will use this round to support my position by responding to your rebuttal. Clearly, the first main point of contention is the nature of prison. I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously when you argued that prison was "not even a bad place for prisoners". Now, I don't know what kind of prisons that you are talking about but to say that prison is not tough is completely laughable. As you even admitted, there is a risk of violence in prison and therefore there must be some element of toughness in prison. Furthermore, you are completely deprived of so much freedom. You seem to consider prison to be some kind of homogeneous institution that doesn't even punish prisoners. This is completely false. There is immense variation in prison and those convicted of especially horrible crimes would likely be in secure units which are even more tough and unpleasant places. Don't tell me prison is a nice place. It is not. Nobody leaves prison without a sense of happiness or relief. Prison is gruelling and tough. Prison is a tough punishment and therefore is suitable for dealing with horrible crimes. Secondly, you provided me with the response that says that it doesn't matter if a few innocent people die. I believe that if a civilised state kills innocent people then that is a serious offence that should concern everybody very much. Secondly, in order to justify a few innocents dying you have to show me that the benefits of the death penalty are so overwhelming that a few innocents dying are acceptable. You then provided a logically fallacious statistic that only 4.1% of convicts for murder are innocent. I'm not sure how that one is worked out. But surely there must be more since the reason they are convicts is that people think they are guilty so surely those that are innocent are not recorded? Furthermore, 4.1% is unacceptable and considering the incarceration rate of countries like the USA that is a lot of wrongly convicted people (many of whom are probably Black Americans). Furthermore, since the death penalty exists in many states that would mean a lot of those innocents would die. That is absolutely abhorrent and should make any advocate of the death penalty consider their beliefs especially considering that those convicts have families and loved ones too. Our criminal justice systems also do not improve necessarily year upon year. In the UK for instance, a scandal has emerged recently of evidence in rape and murder trials being withheld from the defence and thus resulting in some wrong convictions. In the USA, those people could now be dead. Also, the idea of us lying to families of wrongly executed people is completely immoral and hard to uphold. Next, you provided a very generalising and a verging on the racist argument against my assertion of racial bias in the prison system. I provided you with two accurate stats which suggest bias. Your response was that black people commit more crime. I find this idea of blackness causing more violent crimes completely ridiculous and offensive. There is no evidence that skin colour causes people to commit more violent crimes. It is true that black people are often caught up in more crime but this is to do with socio-economics and certainly not race. Also, considering the vast extent to which black people are more likely to be wrongly convicted literally proves that racism is a genuine cause of overrepresentation of oppressed groups on death row and in prison in general. Of course, the black community has crime problems but the criminal justice system has a race problems too undeniably so. As I explained last time, there are cases of jurors being openly racist during death penalty trials. Racism is a problem and the reality is that Black people face vast injustices which do lead, tragically, to them being murdered at greater rates by the state. Let's not let our racial problems manifest themselves in cases as serious as capital punishment. You then explain that prisoners of such crimes are a risk to others. This is absolutely true. However, we can control them to an extent. We can put them in solitary confinement and protect others instead of taking the lazy option and murdering them. While I argue that we should keep many people alive with the slight risk of them potentially killing others in prison, you argue that we should guarantee killing lots of people in the hope that some people may survive which could be achieved anyway. Your response just doesn't stack up. Also, thanks for admitting that being killed is more painful than life in prison. This reveals that my second argument against the death penalty still stands. Victims may or may not feel more satisfaction when the criminal dies but this is not always what we should base the DP on. You then made a very dubious claim that Japan having the death penalty means it has a lower homicide rate than SA. SA is a much poorer country with immense social and racial problems whereas Japan is richer and has a much more cohesive and safe society. These examples are utterly ridiculous to use to justify your argument of a deterrent. Also although some murderers may never feel sorrow, that doesn't mean that some do. Not everyone on death row is Hannibal Lecter and therefore there will be many who do feel remorse. We can spare their lives and give them the opportunity to apologise to the victim's family and make positive changes. I also believe that they should have opportunities to leave prison if they are no longer a threat and have served a sufficient punishment but obviously not in the cases of really evil criminals (although these are not the majority). Now onto the minor points of clash. Let me clarify my stance: I believe that human suffering in terms of painful suffering is universally wrong. However, causing suffering in order to alleviate more suffering is moral because ultimately less overall suffering would be endured and therefore fits under my stance. Also, I believe that prisoners should not physically suffer rather they should experience boredom and mental suffering within reason because this will actually allow them to change and become reformed people who have the chance to give to the world. My stance is not contradictory and still works. Next, I don't doubt that some families of criminals want them to die. But also many don't and especially considering some are wrongly convicted it makes more sense for the families to not have their loved-ones murdered by the state. Many, unsurprisingly, would rather have their child spend time in prison than be murdered in a painful way. Also, fetuses are absolutely not sentient human beings. This is a separate issue and that is my opinion so let's not bring it in. Apart from that, individuals can have the opportunity to reform. I believe that some will be let out after they have served their time and furthermore, progress can be made in prison. You can learn in prison, you can also confront the victim's family and you can lead a good life in prison. If you kill them, all this is completely extinguished. Moreover, fiery and often political stances and emotion do play a part in convictions. The religion of judges does have an impact on who dies. Furthermore, being sick in the head is often caused by the carrying out of violence just like violence in video games leads to violence in real life. This is still a cause of higher murder rates. And considering the plethora of states this study was done on it is far more reliable for instance certain states which have the death penalty are richer and yet still have higher murder rates. There is a tangible and real link between brutality from an authority leading towards ordinary citizens thinking its okay to be brutal in the same way a holy book encourages violence. I am also an atheist too by the way. Yes, in some cases it can be very extreme but racism exists in many cases and even if it is a minority, considering the severity of the punishment this matters greatly and our racism should not allow us to murder people. So in conclusion, I have shown that our criminal justice system has inherent flaws which still persist and that therefore innocent people die. I have also shown that many innocent people die and this is a serious moral problem for advocates of DP. I have also bolstered my stance that prisons are a real and tough alternative and that threats can be managed. I have further demonstrated that the majority of criminals on death row can change and should have that opportunity to benefit themselves and society and therefore we should not condemn them to a life whose only mantra was crime. Finally, I have supported my claim that brutality at a higher level perverts and corrupts society. For these reasons, my main arguments still stand strong whilst no opposition arguments have yet been made and therefore I continue to urge the voters to say yes to abolishing the DP. Taking a life when an innocent life has already been taking is not justice - it's revenge.

Dear Proby, I am not going to debate this topic with you in a traditional voting style format. You simply asked me why I don't believe in the death penalty, so I will answer your question. I am not going to try to convince the viewers or you what is right, so theres no need in voting. Death as a punishment is very severe, and I am a Christian, so I do not believe in killing people, and I do believe in forgiveness. The best solution is to lock them up and let God deal with them once they die.