Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

The death penalty should be legally sanctioned in the United States. 1-. The expense of implementing the death penalty is substantial, but the costs of life imprisonment without parole are not significantly less. Criminal justice is inherently costly, but citizens believe that justice is worth the expense, especially for serious offenses. Contrary to the belief that life sentences are more cost-effective, the savings are negligible. The extra scrutiny required for death penalty cases is only around 6% of overturned convictions by the Innocence Project, which includes life without parole cases. Moreover, inmates sentenced to life without parole will still appeal their sentences, leading to prolonged legal battles that the government must fund. 2-. The legal challenges to the death penalty itself contribute to the high costs. Many of these costs are due to appeals based on issues like the drugs used for lethal injection. Legislation could address these challenges, reducing the costs. 3-. The primary expense in death penalty cases is the housing of inmates on death row rather than in general maximum security. The assumption that life imprisonment without parole is safer and allows for integration with the general inmate population is unfounded. Inmates on death row have a "free pass" to commit further crimes, including murder, without fear of additional punishment. Extra-high security confinement, which is necessary for these inmates, negates any cost savings claimed from eliminating the death penalty. In states like California, where executions are rare, the high-security costs for death row inmates are substantial. However, states that carry out executions, like Ohio, have lower costs. 1+. Justice requires that the death penalty be an option. The public, through juries, decides when justice demands the death penalty. In a democracy, the public's will should prevail, and two-thirds of states have the death penalty. Even serial killers prefer life imprisonment to the death penalty, demonstrating the severity of the latter. 2+. Executions save innocent lives. There are no confirmed cases of innocent people being executed, but there are documented cases of escaped convicts committing additional murders. Modern technology has not eliminated the risk of escapes, and there are numerous examples of convicted murderers who have escaped and killed again. 3+. Modern forensics have greatly reduced the likelihood of false convictions. DNA evidence has exonerated some wrongly convicted individuals but has also led to the conviction of many others who would have gone free in the past. 4+. Justice should not be compromised by the small risk of error. The death penalty ensures that justice is served, saves lives by preventing further murders, d

This is for Round Two of Weirdman's Winter Tournament. First round for rules/definitions and acceptance. Rules:1. There are no restrictions on argumentative strategy.2. Burden of proof is shared.3. This debate concerns the resolution:RESOLVED: The Death Penalty in the U. S. should be prohibited.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Rules and Definitions in R1 are binding. Substantively violating the R1 agreements will result in loss of both argument and conduct.6. Spelling/Grammer and Conduct will NOT be voted on unless: a) explicitly argued for in the debate round AND b) voting occurs on the grounds argued for in the debate.7. Sources must be posted or linked in the debate round. Voting on Sources should be reserved for extreme discrepancy in quality of sources. Definitions:Death Penalty- sentencing of death as punishment for a crime, as currently implemented by the U. S. legal system. prohibited- formally forbid by law.

Overall I believe the death penalty should be legal for a variety of reasons. A. People may be under the impression that the death penalty is racially bias. But according to the NAACP, 56% of all executions in the US since 1976 are white men and woman. The other 44% is a variety of other ethnicity's. B. Many say that the death penalty is the reason for debt in the US but according to Edwin H. Sutherland, PhD, late President of the American Sociological Society, and Donald R. Cressey, PhD, late Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the 1974 revised edition of their book titled Criminology, wrote: "It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher." Edwin H. Sutherland, PhD, late President of the American Sociological Society, and Donald R. Cressey, PhD, late Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the 1974 revised edition of their book titled Criminology, wrote: "It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher." C. In addition to, many people say it goes against our 8th amendment. "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" This is not considered cruel. According to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... none of the execution methods are cruel. There is no pain involved. LETHAL INJECTION Two needles (one is a back-up) are then inserted into usable veins, usually in the inmates arms. Long tubes connect the needle through a hole in a cement block wall to several intravenous drips. The first is a harmless saline solution that is started immediately. Then, at the warden's signal, a curtain is raised exposing the inmate to the witnesses in an adjoining room. Then, the inmate is injected with sodium thiopental - an anesthetic, which puts the inmate to sleep. Next flows pavulon or pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the entire muscle system and stops the inmate's breathing. Finally, the flow of potassium chloride stops the heart. ELECTROCUTION At postmortem, the body is hot enough to blister if touched, and the autopsy is delayed while the internal organs cool. There are third degree burns with blackening where the electrodes met the skin of the scalp and legs. According to Robert H. Kirschner, the deputy chief medical examiner of Cook County, "The brain appears cooked in most cases." (Weisberg, 1991) THE GAS CHAMBER The gas chamber is no longer an option due to the horrific history of the cruel death of innocent members in Germany, and other countries. FIRING SQUAD The person shot loses consciousness when shock causes a fall in the supply of blood to the brain. HANGING Is now only used in Delaware and Washington, but the rope snaps the second vertebra and "shuts off" the heart SOURCES R. Bohm, "Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States," Anderson Publishing, 1999. W. Ecenbarger, "Perfecting Death: When the state kills it must do so humanely. Is that possible?," The Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine, January 23, 1994. "Executions - Preparing Staff for the Hard Task Ahead," The Corrections Professional, Vol. 1, February 16, 1996. H. Hillman, "The Possible Pain Experienced During Executions by Different Methods," 22 Perception 745 (1992). J. Weisberg, "This is Your Death," The New Republic, July 1, 1991.

I believe that a persons life is to be protected under all circumstances and that means even if they are guilty. What I don't see is what is wrong with life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty. The idea that it costs more to keep a person in prison then the death penalty is wrong. It costs 4x as much to put someone to death then it does to keep them in prison for life. I think that taking a person's life as punishment is totally unjust and wrong. The only circumstance that I can see the death penalty as being an option is when is is impossible to keep them restrained, which is very, very rare.

Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder. People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death. Life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death. Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder. Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good. Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such. Rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution. No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976. The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal.

I apologise for the misinterpretation of the verse from the Bible. I accept it may not have been the best quote to use. In spite of this I am still not in favour of the death penalty. A law or punishment should not be merely a form of deterrence. It should be a way to enforce and promote good values and attitudes. Simply putting a barrier rather than giving people the opportunity to change their ways will not change anything in my opinion. There will always be crimes, the law will always be broken and so it cant be said that a death penalty is the complete answer to problems. My point is that if this act was lifted or simply if the criminals were to move to a location where the death penalty is not in place, then crime rates will increase again. A death penalty will not ensure the stability of our community in the long-term as in order for a more permanent state of stability. peace and prosperity needs to occur because people are willing to refuse immoral acts, not just because of the punishments placed by the law, although I accept that this will have an impact. By your request I will reinstate my last question. You mentioned how "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." My question is why does this verse only apply to the public and why does it not to the government should they make a mistake in their judgement. Also, I would appreciate if you made it clear to which extent a death penalty should be placed. Do you think that death penalties should apply for every serious crime or murder irrespective of the circumstances (such as the accidental killing) or do you think that it should only be applicable in certain situations? If so which?

Thank you to CentristX for choosing to debate against me for this topic, and I hope also that we do have a good debate here today. I will be accepting the Con's definition for capital punishment. Contention 1: Capital Punishment is Unjust In a perfectly just legal system, there would be no one wrongfully convicted of a crime that they did not commit. However, because we live in an inherent imperfect society and live underneath an inherently imperfect legal system, there will still be those who are wrongfully convicted of crime. Despite this, we should still seek justice as much as possible. In many cases, as the Con may be prone to point out, the conviction can be appealed, especially if the inmate is on death row. However, there are still many who are wrongfully executed by the government. Time Magazine (1) reports that in the United States, 4.1% of those executed are innocent, underneath an conservative estimate. This means that every 120 out of 3000 are innocent, yet are executed anyway. It is obvious that is unjust for one to be killed for a crime they did not commit, especially as forensic evidence (like DNA) grows in amount and quality as new technologies enter the field of criminal law to prove that the innocent did not commit the crime. Because capital punishment obviously cannot be taken back or repealed, there is no way to right the wrongs that have been made against these innocent men. Therefore, capital punishment is one of the penultimate forms of injustice because it claims to be a just practice of the law. One of these 4.1% in Pueblo, Colorado was a man named Joe Arridy, who was executed in 1939 (2). Arridy had an intellectual disability. Three Colorado state psychiatrists told the court at his trial that his IQ score was somewhere in the 40s. Yet, he was still convicted because when taken to the police station, the police told him that he had committed the crime of the rape and murder of a schoolgirl in Pueblo and he confessed to it, even though he hadn't done it at all. All of the psychiatrists even agreed that Arridy would not be able to distinguish right from wrong in the first place. Arridy still was sent to death row. For three years he remained on death row, apparently unaware of where exactly he was. The warden gave him a toy train the first day he was there, and Arridy was always seen with this train until he was brought to the electric chair, where he gave the train to a fellow inmate. The warden called Arridy "the happiest man on death row." Arridy for his last meal requested a bowl of ice cream. He was posthumously exonerated from his crime by Colorado state governor Bill Ritter in 2011. Because we live under an imperfect legal system, there will always be mistakes made, either accidentally or purposefully (in the case of Joe Arridy). The 4.1% who have been wrongfully executed have faced the cruelest injustice, capital punishment, and it is the responsibility of the United States government to outlaw this act. Contention 2: Members of the criminal field and the legal system do not believe that capital punishment deters crime A) 88.2% of polled criminologists do not believe that capital punishment deters violent crime In 2009, the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (3) at Northwestern University polled criminologists who were members of the American Society of Criminology on whether or not they believed that capital punishment deters violent crime. The response they found was this: "Here, 88.2% of the polled criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, up slightly from 83.6% in 1996." Even the overwhelming majority of criminologists, leaders in the study of crime statistics, now believe that capital punishment is a deterrent. B) Police chiefs do not believe capital punishment deters crime According to statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, those regions of the country where capital punishment IS administered are actually the MOST dangerous for police officers. 69% of police officers polled believed that capital punishment was just a way of politicians showing that they were "tough on crime," while only 24% of police chiefs believed that murderers actually thought about the death penalty before committing crime. (4) Contention 3: Studies' results on capital punishment's deterrence effect are inconclusive and divisive A) Previous deterrence studies' results are erroneous or miscalculated In this same study by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Jeffery Fagan showed how a famous deterrence study, the Mocan-Gittings study, which found that each execution resulted in five less homicides, had a simple calculation error that created their erroneous results: "A second reexamination of the Mocan-Gittings study was conducted by Jeffrey Fagan. Fagan"s work is the most comprehensive review of the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of deterrence studies published after 2000. He first improved Mocan"s measure of deterrence, which is the number of executions in a given state divided by the number of death sentences imposed six years earlier. Because of the impossibility of computing this measure if the denominator is zero, Mocan and Gittings coded years with no death sentences as .99. Fagan reanalyzed the data using .01 (which is closer to zero) in the denominator rather than .99. That simple improvement made all the deterrent effects found by Mocan and Gittings disappear." B) There are no studies informative enough to prove deterrence works The National Research Council in their report titled "Deterrence and the Death Penalty" (5), concluded that most studies are not informative enough to deduce whether or not executions actually deter or exacerbate crime. They wrote that "the committee concludes that research to date is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates." Because research on deterrence is inconclusive, both because many studies have erroneous results or miscalculations and because research has been determined to be not informative enough to conclude that there is any significant deterrence effect, in this debate we should not be looking at the numbers alone. Instead we should seek the opinions of those who are familiar with crime and punishment, such as criminologists and police chiefs. Both of these groups' majorities, as I have shown, do not believe that capital punishment actually does deter crime. Because of the potential for moral injustice, through the wrongful execution of the innocent, we should not allow the practice of capital punishment to go on and we must outlaw it. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. (1): http://time.com... (2): http://www.csindy.com... (3): http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... (4): http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... (5): http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

In response to my opponent when he said, "In the eyes of god there is no difference between one human to another- be they be a member of the government or not." The fact is, God instructs us to submit to governing authorities. They hold power over people in a different way than people hold power over each other. Romans 13:1: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." The government does have the power to implement laws in order to establish justice. The verse that the Negative made was clearly taken out of context... the Bible here was talking about the population spreading across the earth, not that governments shouldn't exist. "The death penalty is a deterrent. I agree. By establishing a death penalty there may be reduced crime however this will only be due to the fear of prosecution rather than as a result of moral consciousness or a development of moral beliefs." The fact is simple, the death penalty is a deterrent and it deters potential murders thereby reducing crime and restoring justice. It doesn't matter how the bad guys are deterred, the important fact is that we're saving innocent lives. "Furthermore a death penalty can not reverse the effects of the crime. It can not bring the life of a victim back. It cannot undo the physical or psychological effects of the crime. There is however one thing that a death penalty system can do, I admit- encourage a culture of vengeance." In implementing the death penalty we are not attempting to do something impossible, like bring lives back. I challenge the negative to find any evidence that the death penalty encourages vengeance. There is finally the fact of the case being misjudged. There is a risk in every court decision that it is not just. This is a risk we must take. I understand that there are false convictions but I also personally believe that polygraph evidence ought to be abolished because they are often so untrustworthy. In real life, more innocent lives will be saved with the death penalty because of the deterrent factor. The death penalty saves innocent lives. In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies. Will you please restate you last question? I'm not sure I quite understand it.

In this debate, I will be Con. It is my burden to prove that the death penalty should not be abolished in all states in America. I have one contention and then some simple facts that explain why the death penalty should not be abolished. I encourage everyone to vote for the person that presents the best arguments. Not based on your own opinion. Thank you! Contention #1: Punishment fits the crime One of the main principles of punishment and the judicial system is that the penalty fits the crime. If someone violently murders another individual or numerous people, then it makes sense for the punishment to be death. It might not bring back the victim but it does stop the accused from killing again. A life sentence would be nice if we knew for sure it would stay that way and a lot of times it doesn't. If that victim can't be brought back what right does the judicial system have to lift a life sentence and let someone out who committed murder. With the death penalty we know that person can NEVER attempt to kill again and can't get off easy years later down the road. This seems to be a great deal more fair than how the life in prison can be. Here is just a small list of reasons why I believe the death penalty should not banished from all states in the United States. 1.) When a criminal violently kills another individual or many people, he does not value that humans life, therefore does not deserve to live himself. 2.) The added cost to society of keeping a person in prison for 20 years at a cost of more than $50,000 per year. The unnecessary and tragic death, financial and human loss, and heartache caused by each murder is a huge loss to society, and the $1 million public cost to provide that criminal with room, board and security for the rest of his life compounds the damage to society. So what we have to see is it will cost more to lock up a convicted felon than to comite him/her to the death sentence. 3.) Today, the accuracy of modern forensics and DNA testing makes it very unlikely for an innocent person to be put on death row. Furthering this point, it is argued that the number of innocent people that may be killed is equalised by the number of actual criminals that are set free. 4.) Putting people in prison, as opposed to executing them gives them a chance of parole (or the small chance of escape), meaning they can commit more crimes. Capital punishment means there is no chance of the criminal committing another crime. 5.) When many prisoners are now being released early because our prisons are overcrowded, society is benefited by terminating inmates like Charles Manson, who has purposefully taken multiple lives, cannot be rehabilitated and has no right to public support. 6.) It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. Where I got my info! http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.heraldextra.com... http://www.krqe.com... I look forward to my opponents next response.

I accept the terms of the rules and will post my case. But before I do, keep in mind these are not my opinions, simply things I have researched in an attempt to put on a fair and unbiased debate. Before we begin, let us realize that this debate should be weighed by lives and economics. Furthermore, if I convince you that the death penalty saves lives and is economically sound, I win the debate. With this in mind, I will begin. I affirm the Death Penalty for the following contentions. Contention 1: Deterrent effect While often contested, there is an obvious example of the effectiveness of the death penalty in modern times if we were to turn to an Emory University study in 2001 has found a clear deterrent effect in their study. They claim that the most robust finding in the study is the fact that they have found that the arresting, execution, and sentencing records ouch the theory of a strong deterrent effect on murders. The study goes on to say that the more we spend on the Judiciary system and police force, the more effective the police system is, which means we weed out more murderers. . http://cjlf.org... These findings are supported by Dr. Paul Zimmerman who states the following: "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 4 and 25 murders per year…” . https://www.unc.edu... The deterrent effect is said to work through econometrics, or the application of statistical and economic theories to determine truth value or come to a conclusion. . http://www.investopedia.com... In other words, we need to see that criminals, much like what is described in my first citation, think like they are purchasing an item by weighing the consequences and using the same decisions we use to make a smart, fiscal decision. This means that criminals are likely going to weigh death with killing an innocent person, resulting in them feeling deterred to go through with such action. Being tough on crime sends a message to criminals that is important. This statement shows that crime does not pay, and those that commit crime will suffer the consequences of said crime, whether execution or time in prison. This will in turn convince criminals that the actions that they would have taken would result in even more pain and problems in prison. We can actually see the effect of having smaller amounts of executions if we turn toward the recent statistics provided by the FBI in 2014, where although murder is shown to decrease, rape and aggravated assault charges increased after the death penalty was used less often. . https://www.fbi.gov... What needs to be done is clear, let us become tough on crime to protect the American public. Vote pro. Contention 2: Lack of alternatives The death penalty seems to be the only option for the most heinous killers and criminals. If we look at Psychology Today, we see that conditions such as psychopathy are prevalent in criminal activity and have no known cure at the moment. . https://www.fbi.gov... Also, according to the ACLU, between 5 and 10% of all death row inmates suffer from a severe mental health disease. . https://www.aclu.org... This is not necessarily treatable and also not necessarily effective. Remember, many dangerous criminals showed very little empathy or remorse for crimes, leading many to see them as psychopaths. Other alternatives that seem sensible are actually not. My opponent may bring up maximum security prison as an alternative as well. However, this fails on the face value of expenses. The average cost of a security prison is absurdly high. The average cost of a prisoner in a maximum security prison is $200,000 a year. This is a huge problem as we spend over 190 million dollars every year for prisoners which is not going to the American people and not benefitting the American economy. . http://www.golocalprov.com... Federal reform can’t fix this problem as the livelihood of the prisoners are still highly valued at a high security prison. Not only this, bet despite high security prisons being secure, there are always ways for prisoners to escape and continue to harm society. There are multiple examples, but a recent Chicago Tribune article describes the escape of three prisoners from a high security prison which resulted in manhunts due to the situation. With this in mind, we must neutralize threats and not assume that the criminal will not escape. . http://www.businessinsider.com... What is clear is the fact that the alternatives that could be proposed to Capital Punishment are not going to be effective at not only curtailing violence and crime, but also, there is no guarantee that that the alternatives will warrant more effective solutions. Because of this, affirm. Contention 3: Cost My opponent will claim that the cost of the death penalty is too high to be worth the effects. However, we need to realize that there is another actor many people do not take into account when stating this. In fact, according to Criminal Justice Legal Foundation study in 2009, we can see the following: “The average county with the death penalty disposes of 18.9% of murder cases with a plea and a long sentence, compared to 5.0% in counties without the death penalty. ” . http://www.cjlf.org... This is important due to the fact that the majority of the death penalty costs come from the legal and judicial system being nuanced with many rules and regulations. Not only this, but court costs are huge due to the fact that it is a life or death situation which is in the hands of each lawyer involved. However, these plea bargains are going to be saving money in the status quo despite what my opponent may claim. In fact, when we look toward the Death Penalty Information Center, we can see an overview of a Seattle University Study showing the costs of the death penalty showing the following: “Defense costs were about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution costs were as much as four times higher than for non-death penalty cases. ” . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Plea bargains will substantially reduce this price with less work for the judicial system to do. According to a 1989 study by the Yale Law Journal study, we can see definitely see huge cost reductions with plea bargain being used, which means that ultimately shows the reduced costs of the death penalty, regardless of what my opponent will say. . https://www.jstor.org... Contention 4: Reforms necessary I will concede that the capital punishment program is ineffective in many ways that seem to be tangible. However, not only are these problems overstated, but there are many ways to fix these problems as opposed to simply abolishing the death penalty completely. For instance, we can clearly see that more funding to the judicial system and policing system will make the process more proficient. Not only this, but the accidental execution of innocent people is a problem as well and needs to be fixed through a more informed and trained jury. We can also spend more on lawyers for those with the inability to pay for representation that is effective. The point is, any problem my opponent provides can be easily shown to be fixed through implementation of reform that would ultimately be solvent. My opponent’s resolution does not mention the current system or future system and simply asks if the United States should have a death penalty, meaning this argument is valid. Not only this, but we need to weigh lives over anything else in this debate, and since I have proven the deterrent effect occurs in the status quo, we need to see the impacts of this which includes higher public safety and less criminals on the street resulting in less lives lost as shown from my statistic from Dr. Zimmerman in my first contention.

The death penalty is bad, because it is inefficient, morally wrong, and overall not beneficial to society. PriceThe chemicals used in the Death Penalty are not expensive, but the various processes and procedures leading up to the day of execution can amount to quite a bit of money. 1.25 million dollars more per Death Penalty case than in a life without parole case[1]. We know the trials are more expensive, but some people may argue that the Death Penalty saves you money over time, because you get that 1.25 million back when you don't have to house and provide for prisoners, since they're dead now. This assertion would be incorrect, and I've got some statistics to back it up. I will use the state of California as an example. Currently, conservative estimates place their Death Penalty enabled legal system's expenditures at 137 million dollars[1]. If they were to do away with the Death Penalty, their system would be expending roughly 11.5 million dollars a year instead[1]. Over the course of 5 years they'd save a billion dollars[1]. So we can see that the deficit grows over time, instead of shrinking.DeterrenceMany supporters of the Death Penalty claim it deters crime, because it strikes fear into potential criminals. While this is logical at first glance, criminologists are unconvinced, 88% of them in fact[2]. They claim there is no evidence that deterrence exists with the death penalty. Now I'd like to share three quotes, the first from an organization, and the last three from criminologists. American Civil Liberties Union"The death penalty has no deterrent effect. Claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been thoroughly discredited by social science research. People commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts. The few murderers who plan their crimes beforehand -- for example, professional executioners -- intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. Some self-destructive individuals may even hope they will be caught and executed."[2]John Lamperti, PhD"...[I]f there were a substantial net deterrent effect from capital punishment under modern U.S. conditions, the studies we have surveyed should clearly reveal it. They do not...If executions protected innocent lives through deterrence, that would weigh in the balance against capital punishment's heavy social costs. But despite years of trying, this benefit has not been proven to exist; the only certain effects of capital punishment are its liabilities."[2]Tomislav Kovandzic, PhD"Our results provide no empirical support for the argument that the existence or application of the death penalty deters prospective offenders from committing homicide... Although policymakers and the public can continue to base support for use of the death penalty on retribution, religion, or other justifications, defending its use based solely on its deterrent effect is contrary to the evidence presented here. At a minimum, policymakers should refrain from justifying its use by claiming that it is a deterrent to homicide and should consider less costly, more effective ways of addressing crime."[2]Jeffery A. Fagan, PhD"Recent studies claiming that executions reduce crime... fall apart under close scrutiny. These new studies are fraught with numerous technical and conceptual errors: inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failures to consider all the relevant factors that drive crime rates, missing data on key variables in key states, the tyranny of a few outlier states and years, weak to non-existent tests of concurrent effects of incarceration, statistical confounding of murder rates with death sentences, failure to consider the general performance of the criminal justice system... and the absence of any direct test of deterrence.These studies fail to reach the demanding standards of social science to make such strong claims... Social scientists have failed to replicate several of these studies, and in some cases have produced contradictory results with the same data, suggesting that the original findings are unstable, unreliable and perhaps inaccurate. This evidence, together with some simple examples and contrasts... suggest that there is little evidence that the death penalty deters crime."[2]Getting the Wrong GuyAs we are human, and most of us imperfect, the Death Penalty will always hold the possibility of a permanent error. The courts are hardly going to go back and admit they killed an innocent man, but there are several cases where there is extreme doubt as to the now dead party's guilt. The following link[3] contains the names and case descriptions of ten men who are likely to have been wrongfully executed. Note that not all new evidence is thanks to advancements in DNA testing. Also note that the most recent case concluded in 2011.Additionally, the courts have admitted and caught 130 mistakes since 1973[4]. Some people might be saying, "Oh ok that's cool, I guess that's problem solved." Hardly. This statistic simply serves to show the rate at which our system can produce innocents on death row, enough to be able to catch 130 of them. This would imply a better chance for there to be innocents on death row who have not been exonerated. Lastly, there are people on death row who committed a murder or whatever, but aren't responsible for their actions: the mentally ill. The National Association of Mental Health estimates that between 5-10% of death inmates are mentally ill[5]. These people, who did victimize people, are victims of their mental illnesses. They deserve and need attempts at rehabilitation, not death. MoralityThe following may not convince some readers, and it doesn't need to for them to agree with my position, but I shall share it to add to my argument.Most proponents of the Death Penalty claim that it is fair and equal, because it repays a murderer with death. I agree that it brings things back to equal, but it also brings us, the people who condone the execution, morally equal to the killer. Think about it. The murderer killed because he wanted that person dead. We kill the murderer because we want him dead. Let's take the moral high ground instead.Solace to Families?Others will claim that the Death Penalty may bring victims' families solace and closure. I could argue about this with my opponent, but for the sake of the argument let's say it does, in every scenario.So? Look at the big picture. We have the possibility of money being used which could've been applied to things like the school system, roads, or mental health institutions, the possibility of killing innocents or the mentally ill, versus making one family feel better. If you're trying to shape government policy that cares for your state in the most beneficial way, the idea that families are brought solace and closure shouldn't sway you onto the Pro side.Thanks for reading!Sources:[1] http://www.deathpenalty.org...[2] http://deathpenalty.procon.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://www.amnestyusa.org...[5] http://www.amnestyusa.org...


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

The Death Penalty should be Eliminated

The death penalty serves as a crucial measure, as there are individuals who are so inherently malevolent that they cannot coexist with society without causing harm. Genuine evil does exist, and these individuals can inflict damage, taking lives or destroying them through their actions. Permitting such behavior to go unpunished or without deterrent for others with similar inclinations is unacceptable.

Note: The provided similar document maintains the length, complexity, and semantic style of the original document while preserving its relationship to the question. It presents a counterargument to the question of whether the death penalty should be allowed, expressing the view that it is necessary to deal with truly evil individuals who pose a threat to society.

I, am for the death penalty being totally abolished. I now give my opponent the opportunity to argue: - Why the death penalty is necessary in ALL cases - What possitive effects it has on society - Where and why the death penalty is called for reasonably - Why taking away a persons life is a fair punishment I now hand the debate over to my opponent.

My opponent has chosen an interesting direction to take this debate. What they said is basically that, if we call murder bad, then why should we advocate murderers getting murdered? The answer is simple. 1. There is a difference between the government and regular people. 2. murder is different from any other crime 3. the death penalty is a deterrent . There is a wide and distinct difference between a just court ruling and a homicidal maniac. The government is in a position to provide retribution for those who break the law. It can be equated to the difference between a child stealing away the food of his sister and a parent withholding the child's food as punishment to him. It is possible for the government to maintain their morals while still punishing crime. According to Death Penalty Curricula for High School, "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." Also, are you implying that everything the government does that isn't consistent with the laws for the people is evil? The second point my opponent brought up is that murder is the same no matter where you find it. This relates to my first point somewhat. It is necessary, vital that the government punish wrongdoers with capital punishment because it is the only just consequence. Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." Destroying human life should have no lesser penalty than death itself. Lastly, the advantage that death penalty is a deterrent. Other potential murders know that if they kill, they will be killed. In this way, innocent lives are actually saved. According to Death Penalty Curricula for High school, "(T)he theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings." This point is extremely strong and its effectiveness been scientifically tested. I have sources and statistics for all my arguments upon the Negative side's request.

Thank you Effy for setting this debate up. Keep in mind that I'll be taking on the role of Devil's Advocate for the duration of this debate. Good luck to the both of us! My opponent stated that I should argue why the death penalty should be necessary in all cases. Criminals are a burden on society. Why lock them up only to later release them to have them commit the same crime again? Also, upon being tried and sentence a criminal is no longer a member of regular society so they shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of mainstream society. It's also safe to say that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an accurate mentality to have regarding crime. "You rob me, I'll rob you back!" Wouldn't YOU want to get revenge if somebody harmed somebody close to you? More to come after my opponent posts her first argument. :)

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.

I am a bored man.Please only accept if you have won 10 or more debates.Too the voters! Please only vote on arguments! Do not vote on sources, conduct or grammar. If one paricipant performs poorly in those catagories that will take away from his arguments, but do not give either side those points. In accepting this debate my opponent is required to agree with this rule. Resolved: Capital punishment should be abolished in the United StatesI will be affirming the resolution.Burden of Proof:BoP is shared.Definitions:Capital Punishment- a punishment in which the person who committed the offense is put to death by the state. [1]Structure:1st round: Acceptance.2nd, and 3rd round: Arguments and rebuttal.4th round: No more arguments, just rebuttal and closing up.Terms:1. A forfeit results in the loss of the debate.2. If needed to save space because of the character limit, participants may post their sources in a separate link or in the comments section.If there are any questions please feel free to leave a comment or pm me.Sources:[1] http://en.wiktionary.org.........

Thank you Kohai. I'm pleased to see that you've presented such a compelling case. As per the agreed rules, I will post my arguments in this round and refute Kohai's in the next.=Case=When asked his position on the Death Penalty, President Barack Obama stated that he supported it in cases where "the community is justified in expressing the full extent of it's outrage." Seeing as I agree, I negate the resolved.C1. Capital Punishment saves innocent lives.SPA: Capital Punishment keeps a killer from striking again. There have been many instances in our justice system where a murderer has reoffended, in fact a study from the U.S. Department of Justice finds that of prisoners released in 1994, 1.2% of those convicted of homicide were arrested for another homicide within three years of their release.[1]. This holds especially true for our most dangerous criminals, in 2009 8.6% of those on death row had a prior homicide conviction. Over 5% of those on death row committed their capital crime while in custody or during an escape.[2] This shows that killers can, and do reoffend even while imprisoned!There are also many specific examples, such as Kenneth Mcduff. In 1966 a Texas jury ruled for him to die in the electric chair for his brutal murder of two boys and a girl. However his sentence was commuted to Life Imprisonment when the Supreme Court struck down the Death Penalty. Mcduff was later released, and ended up killing at least 9 more people. Thankfully, he was executed by lethal injection in 1998[3]. He will never kill again. Had he been executed the first time at least 9 innocent lives would've been saved.Another example is the recently executed Lee Andrew Taylor. While serving a life sentence for his brutal beating and murder of an elderly couple Taylor fatally stabbed another inmate after a "racial tension" incident occurred[4]. Thankfully, he was executed by Texas in 2011, never to kill again.Yet another example comes from Clarence Ray Allen. Allen was serving a sentence of life without parole for murder, when he conspired with his fellow inmate Billy Hamilton to kill the witnesses for his crime. When paroled, Hamilton tracked down the witnesses and killed one of them, along with two bystanders[5]. Allen was, thankfully, sentenced to die for this new crime, and executed by the state of California in 2006.These are only some of many examples of murderers who later murdered again. In many cases, anything less than the Death Penalty simply isn't good enough. The recidivism rate for an executed murderer is 0%.SPB: Capital Punishment has a deterrent effect.Many different studies provide many different results, some examples: Studies from Emory University stating that each execution prevents between three and eighteen murders. [6] A 2006 study from the University of Houston, stating that the Illinois moratorium on the Death Penalty led to 150 additional homicides [6] A University of Colorado at Denver study showing that for each execution five muders were prevented.[7]. Raw statistics also support the deterrent effect. Take the state of Texas for example:According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1—a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241—a 72 percent decrease.[8] Or nation-wide: By the beginning of the 1990s, however, states that wished to reimpose the ultimate penalty had fought their way through the endless thicket of appeals and restrictions imposed by the courts. In 1991, 14 murderers were executed while 2,500 waited on death row. By 1993 the figure had risen to 38 executions, then 55 in 1995, and 98 in 1999, a level not seen since the 1950s. At the same time, murder rates began to plummet—to 9.6 per 100,000 in 1993, 7.7 in 1996, and 6.4 in 1999, the lowest level since 1966. To put the matter simply, over the past 40 years, homicides have gone up when executions have gone down and vice versa. [9] These are just some of many examples showing the deterrent effect. As Researcher Karl Spence from of Texas A&M University states (speaking about the moratorium on Capital Punishment from 1972-1976): "While some death penalty abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest by using the death penalty, every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."Observation 1: While the argument that an innocent could be executed is a very compelling one, the murders committed by prior offenders and the deterrent effect of Capital Punishment outweighs this small risk.Observation 2: Any and all moral arguments are outweighed by the United State's obligation to protect innocent life.C2. The Death Penalty is a better punishment than Life without Parole.SPA: Life without parole does not always mean life.If the Death Penalty is abolished, the next thing to go will be life without parole. Already some European countries like Norway, Greece, Portugal and Spain have abolished it [10]. There is already a movement to abolish life without parole in the United States for juveniles and even for adult offenders! [11][12]. While no one can truly know if these movements will gain traction, the evidence in Europe speaks for itself, sentences for murder in Europe are much lighter than those in the United States. The law can also change, take for example the tragic case of Pamela Moss: "In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years"[13]Laws change, Governors change, sentencing changes, and people forget the past. The only way to truly know if a murderer will not ever be released is to execute them. Parole boards are not perfect, look to the McDuff case I've previously mentioned.SPB: Prisoners view the Death Penalty as a harsher punishment than Life without parole. One argument against the Death Penalty is that it does not force criminals to truly pay for their crime. While at first this seems to be a compelling argument, the evidence speaks against it. Criminals have the right to waive the appeals on their death sentence, very very few do. Executions in 2011: 25 so far, 1 waived appeals. Executions in 2010: 46, 1 waiver. Executions in 2009: 52 executions, 2 waivers. Executions in 2008: 37 Executions, 3 waivers.[14]. Nearly 96% of those executed in the past four years have fought to escape their sentence. Conclusion:The death penalty undoubtebly saves innocent lives through prevention, and evidence strongly suggests deterrence. As a society, we have a moral responsibility to use the ultimate penalty for the most serious of crimes. Thus I respectfully urge you to vote Con. Sources:1. http://bitURL.net...2. http://bitURL.net...3. http://bitURL.net...4. http://bitURL.net...5. http://bitURL.net...6. http://bitURL.net...7. http://bitURL.net...8. Lowe, Wesley. "Consistent and Swift Application of the Death Penalty Reduces Murder Rates." 9. Tucker, William. "Capital Punishment Reduces Murder Rates."10. http://bitURL.net...11. http://bitURL.net...;12. http://bitURL.net...13. http://bitURL.net...14. http://bitURL.net...

Okay, so for this please site any sources that you may use and Spend the first round to just state your opinion, the second to rebuttal and the third to conclude. Please do not quit on me. The death penalty is just plain wrong. Why should the loss of a life result in the death of another? Or in the case of many lives, why should death = death? What is the point of killing someone when they can just spend the rest of their life in prison. I understand the cost of putting someone there but if the state can't afford jails then why put laws in place in the first place? Additionally, who is it up to to decide what is punishable by death. In some countries it's mass murder, others speaking out against the government, others being gay, and even in some watching Desperate Housewives will get you filed for treason and executed. Who decides what is suitable and why do they have that right? Let's say the judge decides, in what country is the judicial system without error? As long as the capital punishment persist innocent people will die at the hand of the state. Every court system makes mistakes and after you've killed someone you can't just say, "Opps, jk my bad." It's done. There's no going back. Now, let's look at what happens when we give the state the right tot kill. The holocaust happened. The state had the right to kill these people and it escalated and no one questioned them because they were allowed to do that. For the record, as soon as the war was won Germany officially banned the death penalty and even refused to try the Nazi war criminals. Now look at Germany, it's a European Power House. The death penalty is inhumane. In saudi Arabi a person can be publicly stoned to death and it isn't the only country in the world to do that amongst other horrors such as: hanging, electric chair, injections, fire line, etc.. the Universal Declaration of human rights states that no one should be subjected to cruel, tortures or inhumane treatment or punishment. I would say that all of these methods meet the criteria. Some may argue that injections are painless, I say how do you know the physical, let alone the emotional, pain and stress of dying? Did you ask someone? No, because they're dead and can't tell you. In conclusion the death sentence is morally and politically wrong and should be banished world wide. source: the universal declaration of human rights (please see article 5) http://www.un.org...

The death penalty is useless. It is morally wrong, inefficient, and observably ineffective in accomplishing several key goals. Historically, there have been five presumably legitimate purposes for punishment: (1) Retribution, (2) Deterrence, (3)Rehabilitation, (4)Incapacitation, and (5)Public Education. [1] For a punishment to be morally permitted, it must justify itself by fulfilling at least one of the aforementioned criteria. The death penalty is justified only under one criterion, and that criterion is not enough by itself to justify any punishment. (1) Retribution The death penalty does provide retribution. It provides retribution at a cost of an additional $90,000 per inmate on death row. [2] Life imprisonment is less costly, and an equally valid form of retribution. Even assuming that retribution is valid, the death penalty is still inefficient compared to life sentencing, an equally valid alternative. Where two processes are proposed to meet the same end, assuming the same result, the more efficient process should be favored. Life imprisonment and the death penalty both remove the freedom of an individual to act. One method is simply more costly and eliminates all of the offender's potential value. Therefore, the death penalty is the worse of two methods of accomplishing the same ends, and must be discredited under a theory of retribution. (2) Deterrence The death penalty does not deter. [3] (3) Rehabilitation The death penalty does not rehabilitate, obviously. (4) Incapacitation The death penalty does incapacitate. Incapacitation, however, is an invalid goal by itself. If incapacitation alone could justify the death penalty, then it would be proper to extend it to every instance of every criminal act ever conducted. After all, the argument goes, they wouldn't reoffend. Similarly, most people who argue for prison reform are concerned for rising costs. Life imprisonment is just as valid a form of incapacitation. It is also less costly. If incapacitation is the goal, then life imprisonment is still the better alternative. (5) Public Education If the death penalty does educate the public, it doesn't do it in the way it aims to. [4] [5] By increasing the incidence of homicide, the death penalty clearly could not accomplish its ends under this criterion. Conclusion The death penalty is therefore not justified. If the death penalty is not justified, it is the unjustified taking of another's life. The unjustified taking of another's life is murder. Murder is morally wrong. Therefore, the death penalty is morally wrong. The death penalty is therefore inefficient, ineffective and morally wrong. It should be discarded. Sources [1] http://www.wcl.american.edu... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5] http://www.prisonactivist.org...

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.

For the purpose of the debate, assume the death penalty is being used against murderers (not counting accidental murders) and assume the criminal justice system is perfect (no one is wrongly found guilty in court).


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

The United States should consider abolishing the Death Penalty
"Is it merely unsupported claims? Isn't that how philosophy operates?" A. You proposed that the death penalty deters crime using a quote, but without a citation, we cannot assess the study's validity, making it dismissible. "If jail time deters, wouldn't the death penalty deter more?" A. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but you made a claim that the death penalty increases the rate of finding and arresting violent criminals, which is absurd and unsupported. The source you provided is lengthy, so I won't delve into it. However, I believe the evidence I presented, showing the death penalty's ineffectiveness as a deterrent, is substantial. "...impacts the police and potential criminals. I disagree with rational choice theory since if it were valid, states with the death penalty would have lower homicide rates." "Do you have proof of this? If you can request evidence, I should be able to as well. If such evidence exists, I'd like to refute your second assertion." A. I did provide evidence, a graph (or a link to it) showing that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates every year for the last 25 years, clearly indicating it's not effective as a deterrent. I can provide more evidence if needed. Opinions of top criminologists: A survey by Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of leading criminologists in the U.S. revealed that 88% do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent, while only 5% do, and 7% are indifferent. This shows that many top criminologists believe the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. When asked if they think there's good empirical evidence to support it as a deterrent, 94% said no, even among those who believe it works. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Opinions of police chiefs: In a 2009 study, police chiefs in the country were asked if they believe the death penalty works as a deterrent, 37% said yes, while 48% said no. Both criminologists and police chiefs agree that it does not work as a deterrent. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... North Carolina empirical evidence: No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006, and the last death penalty sentence was given in 2012. Since the execution has stopped, state murder rates have declined

Slogan: En eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Capitol punishment should be abolished because of a high possibility for error, the fact that it is an unethical practice, and its high cost. 1) Capitol punishment should be abolished because of its high possibility for error. By ruthlessly killing people who are convicted, prosecutors are completely obliterating any hope of correcting their mistakes if it turns out the prosecutors were wrong. According to a study done by Columbia Law School Professor James Liebman, 68 percent of all death verdicts reviewed from 1973-1995 were revised by courts due to serious error. Of those revisions, 82 percent ended in less harsh sentences, and 9 percent of those people were found innocent and eventually freed. Since capitol punishment was reintroduced in America in 1973, 99 death row inmates have been exonerated, raising questions about its validity and leading to mounting pressure among opponents for it to be scrapped or at least suspended. If these convicted people are sentenced to death, and then are later found to be innocent, the legal system has just murdered NINETY NINE people who didn't deserve to die. http://www.cbsnews.com... Wrongful conviction is also present in modern times. According to the nonprofit Death Penalty Focus, there have been at least four men wrongfully killed in the past two years. Also, 139 men and women have been released from Death Row nationally… some only minutes away from execution. How many more might have been released, had then not been executed? We will never know… and that's just the problem. Examples of this include Troy Davis, executed despite the fact that, according to Amnesty International, all but two of the state's non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony and many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis. Another example is Cameron Todd Willingham, wrongfully executed under the charge of setting his house on fire and killing his three daughters. Just imagine the horror his parents must have felt, having lost all three beloved granddaughters and then having to watch their equally beloved son be executed! http://www.deathpenalty.org... If an innocent person's life is taken, that is murder. Murdering innocent people is something that belongs within the confinement of the past. Slaughter belongs to war, and countries that oppress their people. We cannot continue a ruthless practice without looking deeper into our society and our values. Is this what is at the heart of America? 2) Capitol punishment should be abolished because it is way too expensive. Capitol punishment is much more expensive than life in prison without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. According to deathpenaltyinfo.org, in the Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, it states that, "The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 dollars per year per inmate. With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually." Also, using conservative rough projections, the Commission states that the annual costs of the present death row system to be $137 million per year. And that is JUST in California! This is yours and my taxpayer money that goes toward murderers. Even worse, what if a person is innocent? That's millions of our money down the drain. If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of "Life Without the Possibility of Parole", which costs millions less, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on things like our $14 trillion debt, education, public safety programs, health services, the possibilities are endless. 3) Capitol punishment should be abolished because it is immoral. Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". Most developed countries around the world recognized these rights have abolished capitol punishment or they are considering it. According to Amnesty International, in 1977, only 16 countries had abolished capitol punishment for all crimes. As of December 2010 that figure stands at 96 and more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished capitol punishment in law or practice. In 2010, only 23 countries used capitol punishment. http://www.amnesty.org... Deathpenalty.org lists the number of executions by country. In 2010, China led the world with over 1,000 executions, Iran had 252, North Korea had 60, Yemen had 53, followed by the US with 46. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... With capitol punishment in place, the US is consistent with countries that have horrible human rights histories with their people. Meanwhile, The European Union and the United Nations General Assembly have drafted rules to abolish capitol punishment. In order to keep up with democratic, modern, and civilized nations, it is neither wise nor moral for the U.S. to have capitol punishment in place.

I am looking for someone to give a reasonable explanation(s) and arguments on why he or she feels that the death penalty should remain legalized in certain areas of the United States. Therefore, I will be arguing on why I do not agree with the death penalty. For this 1st round I am asking for acceptance, 2nd-4th round going deeper into the argument, and the 5th round should be the final conclusion. This is only my second debate and compared to my last argument, I know this is going to be even more controversial, so, I'm not quite sure what to expect. First off, let me introduce myself. My name is Destinee Bayona and I'm an 18 year old freshman attending William Paterson University in New Jersey and majoring in Psychology. As a requirement for my Philosophy class I am taking, and for 15% of my overall grade, I must complete 3 debates throughout the semester, with this being my second so far. Each debate must be a maximum of 3,000 characters, for 5 rounds, and must be completed by April 1st. Also, absolutely NO copying and pasting. If you are going to speak on your opinion, let it be YOUR own thoughts. I have a lot to say so I look forward to this debate :)

Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments Time to Argue: 24 hours Argument Max: 10,000 characters Voting Period: 3 days In this debate, I as the PRO debater will be defending the resolution Resolved: In the United States, capital punishment should be outlawed. I will do so using both moral and empirical/statistical arguments. I look forward to a fair and civil debate.

Thank you, nargiz_gab, for initializing the debate. I accept and will be arguing that the death penalty ought not be supported. I request that for the second round we each advance our arguments in support of our respective positions and that for round three, the final round, we counter argue the each other's argument in the previous round in addition to summarizing our respective positions thereby concluding the debate. I invite nargiz_gab to advance his argument as to why the death penalty ought to be supported.

The role of Devils Advocate, I believe, will make this a healthy debate & help to improve argumental skills, so, good luck. Now, I asked that my opponent stated WHY the death penalty is necessary in ALL cases. "Criminals are a burden on society. Why lock them up to later release them to have them commit the same crime again? " Crime is a major issue in today's society, agreed. But, for minor crimes, rehabilitation is offered in the vast majority of cases. Whether the accused is jailed for their crimes or not, there are professionals who are there to help, to encourage the accused that a life of crime is not the way forward, that what they are doing/done is wrong, hence the legality. In more serious cases, murder, rape, kidnapping etc. capital punishment should, in all cases, be looked at as an easy way out. Granted, if someone committed one of the following crimes upon a family member or close friend of mine, yes there would be a side of me that wanted them dead too. But, what would that gain? A lifetime behind bars seems the harsher punishment. Death, is an easy way out. Having to spend every last day of ones life confined to a cell for 23 hours of the day, everyday, having to live with their conscience knowing they will never play a role in society again is surely a more effective punishment than taking ones life away. My opponent claims that, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an accurate mentality to have regarding crime. I strongly oppose. The difference between punishment and the crime is that one is legalised and the other is not. So, in regards, that would make the instigator a criminal too. People are more brutalised by what they see on T. V. daily. People are not brutalised by punishments. My opponent failed to state where, when and why the death penalty is a fair resolution,also why it is a fair punishment and what positive effects it has on society.

For the purpose of the debate, assume the death penalty is being used against murderers (not counting accidental murders) and assume the criminal justice system is perfect (no one is wrongly found guilty in court).

Since I have spent this debate arguing the negative impacts of the death penalty, I realise that I should probably also offer alternative punishment methods that "promote good values as effectively as the death penalty "(as my opponent has claimed) . But the truth is I dont see what is wrong with our current methods of preventing crime- which does not require the taking of lives- be those lives sinners or murderers. In fact according to a report found in the guardian: http://www.theguardian.com... ) ,crime rates have fallen- and guess what- the government didn't even have to kill people!!. Personally I am a big supporter in preventing crime (or any sin for that matter) before they happen rather than acting after it has happened. In particular, I believe that education is an extremely powerful tool to PROMOTE GOOD VALUES and that if we were to put more stress into creating awareness of these issues, their causes and preventive measures into the syllabus in schools , maybe then we may find the COMPLETE ANSWER. An answer that IS more promising. I am new to this site, this being my first proper debate however i really enjoyed it. This experience was although at times challenging, incredibly interesting. Thank you Alain.Ginger.

I think Ill address this based on each paragraph It really isn't a rash idea if you think about it these are the worst criminals we have on the planet, they have had the chance to live a life in our world. These criminals do have value but they are of more value in death than in life. For the world will be a safer place if the death penalty was in full swing. Though if they truly are sorry for what they have done then at the time of their death they shall be received into the Lord's arms. This is proven by Jesus' last words on Earth. The verse your referring to Matthew 13 does refer to weeds and wheat but in the sense of growing up and developing into something prior to the "weeds being pulled and burned by the bundles." This example proves my point because the "weeds/criminals" have grown alongside everyone else and at the point where they cause more harm then good they too are harvested and burned. This is my interpretation of the verse at hand. God does punish the souls so truly he judges after death, the death penalty is a means to get to that point in time. Grouping most of this paragraph the line between a new born baby and a murderer/rapist is just that. THIS IS THE LINE Its how a person lives their life and the chance to live. Courts are very black and white if proven guilty if you would like a definition of 1st degree 2nd degree and Rape Ill oblige but until then you should know the difference between them and what that means in our society. Also I'm open to hear any reason how a murderer could be a "help" to society please do go on. "Damage done is damage done!?!?!?!" ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?! Through this logic I could kill someone do some community service, get out kill your best friend do some more community service then kill you and well.... do some more community service. This is terrible logic and hardly worth debating its like giving an infinite free pass to any criminal. I'm not saying anymore on this absurd piece of thought. You give some alternatives for a sentence, these are busying sentences just buying time for someone on drugs or a misdemeanor not for someone convicted of any of the hanus crimes that have been listed. By taking the life of someone proven to have done such inconceivable harm to another adds value to the victims families lives and God will judge that felon then. Also I'd like to point out the lack of comparison between abortion and death penalty I don't know but I thought the debate was about how someone could believe in both not just the merits of the death penalty which is humane through lethal injection.

I think the death penalty should stay for the criminals that deserve it because first of all our tax money is paying to keep them in prison even after they did a horrendous crime and besides jail is not torture enough it barely even close enough homeless people come to jail all the time to get food and water and heating and another reason why there should definitely be a death penalty is because someone who is responsible on taking away lives from other people for no reason is just straight up cruel and evil and we should take charge and do something about it because innocent people don't deserve to die its not fair and these people need to learn and understand that what they did was not only wrong but monstrous and inhuman and it will also teach a lesson to others as well.

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