Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

The death penalty should be upheld as a legal practice in the United States. Thank you, Roy, for your well-thought-out argument. Here are my points:

1+. Justice demands that the death penalty be a legal option. My opponent argues that because the community favors the death penalty, the lack of it would require a non-democratic elite. However, there is another perspective: the death penalty should remain legal, and thus, the people should support it. Democracy is not always right, and assuming so would commit the is-ought fallacy. For instance, during much of America's history, the majority supported slavery, but that doesn't mean it should have been legal. The "should" in the debate resolution implies that the goal is to explain why people should continue to support the death penalty. If my opponent assumes that legalizing the death penalty comes with an overhaul of the system to eliminate wasteful trials, then I am allowed to assume that the people should support the death penalty, and thus, it should remain legal.

2+. Execution saves innocent lives. My opponent's intention to execute prisoners quickly without giving the Innocence Project enough time to intervene would have led to the execution of the 17 freed prisoners. The Innocence Project does not make this claim because they are unaware of my opponent's plans. Regarding the ten executions listed, the site claims that they are wrongful, but have yet to be confirmed by the state. This makes it unlikely that any of them were proper executions. My opponent incorrectly assumes that 35 is an upper bound, but this does not include the unknown number of innocents executed that were not caught by the Innocence Project, the state's revision process (which has already been sourced as imperfect), and the ten infamous cases. 35 is instead more likely a lower bound.

3+. False convictions are now extremely unlikely due to modern forensics. It may be more difficult for a framing or bribery to work, but it is far from impossible. I already cited a case in which it nearly succeeded; had a few fewer mistakes been made, it would have succeeded.

4+. Justice should not be compromised by a very small risk of error. My opponent compares the risk of driving to the risk of execution. Since Round 1, I've pointed out that the use of automobiles benefits everybody in the world outstrips the benefit of executing murderers "by factors easily past the billions." Anything true for one is a far cry from guaranteed for the other. This is somewhat of a subjective point,

I will first make my case, then I will respond to her argument. -Opening Argument-My support for the death penalty rests on three key points. Contention One: By murdering someone in cold blood you forfeit your own right to live. The law is established to protect its citizens. If you murder someone in cold blood, how can you expect the law to protect you? Is it really fair, or right, to murder someone then turn around and claim that you shouldn't be killed? If the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, is it really fitting that a murderer should be allowed to live out the rest of his life in a jail cell rather than be deprived of the fundamental right to life that he has taken from someone else? Contention Two: Justice must be done. The death of a family member or friend is always hard to deal with. Capital punishment is not about revenge, it is about justice. Should we expect a wife to be happy that her husband's murderer is rotting away in a jail cell because he ruthlessly took her husband from her? Is it really fitting to tell someone that even though their loved one was murdered, we're just going to lock the murderer away for a long time as punishment? This is not a fitting punishment for a murderer. The crime of murder is irreversible, so the punishment for murder should also be irreversible. Contention Three: A dead murderer can't repeat their offense. Even though escape from a maximum security prison is rare, it does happen. If a murderer hasn't been put to death, they run the risk of escape and repeating their offense. Even if they don't escape, they can still murder other inmates. Even though I do support the death penalty, I think it should be greatly restricted. There should be absolutely no doubt that the person is guilty, so that we can minimize the chance of an innocent person being killed through capital punishment. UrbanThuggirl’s argument The story of McCaffary does nothing to make her case. This man was guilty of murder and was justly executed for his crime. There is no crime more heinous against a fellow human than the crime of taking his own life from him. Capital punishment is about justice, not about revenge. I’m not sure what Urban’s case actually is. She seems to be helping make my case for me. She indicates that the murder rate has gone down from 1933 to 2002, and that capital punishment seems to be working as a deterrent to these murders. That’s good enough reason to keep it around. Now I’ll look at the pro’s and con’s she uses. It should also be noted that the chart does not indicate that there are more devastating effects due to the death penalty than there are good. It just indicates that she was able to think of more Con’s (13) than Pro’s (9). However, it seems clear that her Pro’s actually outweigh the Con’s. Con 1. I’d like to see some sources for this point, as it seems counterintuitive. It seems like putting someone to death would be more cost efficient than keeping them locked up for the rest of their life, having to provide food, water, board, doctor visits, etc. 2. Capital punishment does not violate the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. First, it is not unusual as since 1976, 1,264 people have been executed in the United States (and thousands of people have been put to death in China). [1] Second, it’s not cruel. In all states where capital punishment is used, lethal injection is the primary method of capital punishment (though in some states, inmates may choose another method). [2] Lethal injection is relatively quick and painless. [3] Three separate drugs are injected into the body. Lethal injection basically works by one drug anesthetizing the person and making them lose consciousness, the second drug paralyzing the person, then the third drug inducing cardiac arrest. 3. This has nothing to do with whether capital punishment is moral or immoral.4. Again, capital punishment is about justice, not revenge. Murderers are put to death after trials and they are found guilty. No other punishment fits the crime of capital punishment. 5. Capital punishment is not about killing people to show that killing is wrong. Capital punishment is about punishing a convicted murderer. Our laws are in place because the actions are wrong. The punishments are not there to show that the act is wrong, the punishments are in place so that the criminal can repay their debt to society. In the case of murder, the only fitting punishment is that the criminal pay with his life.6. I’m not sure we can show one way or the other whether death is a worse punishment than a life of hard labor in a maximum security prison. Plus, she offers no evidence that it’s a more effective deterrent than capital punishment.7. This has nothing to do with the morality of capital punishment. Something is not right or wrong depending on how other countries perceive ours.8. This is not an issue with capital punishment, but with the jury selection process. They need to make sure they can select jury members who will be able to convict someone if the punishment is death.9. This commits the logical fallacy of an appeal to pity. This does not affect the morality of abortion one way or another. Something is not wrong simply because it makes some people feel bad. Besides, what about the family members who have to deal with the pain of the murderer taking their loved one from them?10. This is a powerful objection to the death penalty, but that’s why I believe that more restrictions should be in place to ensure the least possibility of an innocent person being put to death. But innocent people die from falling down stairs or car accidents. Should we also outlaw stairs and cars?11. This is not an issue with capital punishment, more of an issue with our legal system. Courts have established that inmates who are insane – so out of touch with reality that they do not know right from wrong and cannot understand their punishment or the purpose of it – cannot be executed. [4] The Supreme Court has also held that a mentally retarded individual cannot be executed. [5] Capital punishment can certainly be abused by putting to death individuals who shouldn’t be, but this does not prove capital punishment immoral, just that judges can abuse the system.12. Whether it does or does not create sympathy is irrelevant to the case. It is a fallacious appeal to emotion. Wouldn’t being sentenced to a life of hard labor in prison also create sympathy? Why would one punishment (especially one that Urban, herself, says is much worse) create sympathy but the other would not?13. It does not bring the victim back to life, but it does bring closure. There is simply no way to make a murder “right. ” The crime is irreversible, so the punishment must also be irreversible. She might as well say we should not lock a murderer away for the rest of his life. It’s useless; putting him in prison does not bring the person back to life. Pro Little to say here about the pros. I will add that as Urban suggests, advancements in DNA testing and other methods of crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person’s guilty or innocence. This point alone negates her earlier objection that innocent people die from capital punishment. That’s becoming less and less likely with advancements in forensic science. Now, Urban has a wrong idea of what a crime is. A crime is an unlawful act. Capital punishment is lawful, not unlawful. For a judge to sentence a convicted murderer to death is not a crime; it is justice. [1] . http://www.guardian.co.uk...[2] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] . http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org...[4] Ford v. Wainright. [5] Atkins v. Virginia.

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.

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.........

My opponent fails to realize that the only punishment that Zimmerman can receive is "CAPITAL punishment". It doesn't matter what she thinks should happen, she views him as guilty, and if he is, he will be executed. Also, I've already established the fact that people are kept on death row for approximately 5-10 years. That is more than enough time to investigate. Courts don't like to dwell on claims of innocence after the defendent is executed. What's the point? To the best of their knowledge, the defendant was guilty. No, the government doesn't like advertising their mistakes, did my opponent advertise her mistakes? Did she elaborate on the fact that she dropped her contention? Also, who would want to share negative news? If someone wants to read depressing news, they can do so, but we shouldn't broadcast it for all to see. My opponent needs to look at her statistic 1/10 people are exonerated after their execution; 9/10 people are actually guilty. Judging by the principals of utilitarianism, founded by Jeremy Bentham, a theory that advocates the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, it's safe to say that the number of people who are guilty outweighs the number of those who are innocent. Sacrifices must be made for the betterment of society. My opponent speaks of Capital Punishment being vengeful, Capital Punishment is not revenge; if one of the victim's family members went and killed one of the murderer's family members, then yes, that would be vengeful. But fortunately we have a 3rd party(the government) making judgements as opposed to the immediate family members who would kill the murderer and not think twice about it. My opponent speaks of the FBI feeling that taxpayers should spend money on something other than Capital Punishment. Taxpayers' money also funds Solitary Confinement, which is almost the equivalent of housing a murderer. They are fed, bathed, and given a place to sleep, it sounds a lot cozier than the street. In a study, there were no executions in certain states who had chosen to drop the death penalty between 1968-1977; throughout these years homicide rates increased greatly. In 1967(The year before the death penalty was dropped) homicide rates were at an alarming amount of over 500,000 per year. By the time the death penalty was reinstated homicide rates had been raised to a shocking 800,000 murders per year. This is a 60% increase in murder. It was not until 2002 that the number of executions exceeded the number of homicides. Thus proving that Capital Punishment is effective. My opponent speaks of jails purpose. Does she wish to speak about purposes? Escorts are supposed to escort you to parties, but they end up being prostitutes. It's not about what the intentions are, it's about what actually happens. I urge the con vote for the following reason(s):-My opponent dropped her arguments about domestic violence, Casey Anthony, rape, Troy Davis, and CP being representative of cruel/unusual punishments.

The death penalty has been increasing the Death toll over the world. This penalty has mostly been given to murderers, though th executioner then will himself be a murder, and he will go on and on and on until humantiy is extinct. Also why kill two people for only one murder? To add on many of us value our nations heroes though theey killed other people illegaly.

Firstly, just because capital punishment is an ancient practice, does not mean it is ineffective. How would our society have reached the point it is at today, had we not borrowed ideas and inventions from ancient societies? Having said that, I believe that the death penalty works and we should not abolish it, but we should enforce it. We punish people in society for crimes like theft and assault, by taking away time from their life. Is it not the same to take away all of the time from their life at once? "The murder rate fell 60 percent since Texas started using the death penalty seriously in the 1990s." -ncpa.org How can you say taking someone's life humanely is barbaric, but keeping them locked away from society is not? You said: "States with no death penalty actually have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty." Have you any evidence or statistics to back that up? That sounds to me like you just threw out your own "statistic" to prove your point. I have actually tried to find statistics to support your statement, but I have come up empty handed. You said: "However, it is far better to keep a murderer locked up like an animal than to murder and become animals ourselves." Have you ever experienced either of these things? I doubt it; so how do you have the authority to say what is better? I would love to suggest a wonderful short story I read in my English class a while ago, it is about capital punishment and you will be surprised by the outcome. It is called, "The Bet" by Anton Chekhov.

Thank you for your rebuttal. After rereading your opening statements a few times, here is my rebuttal. Morality - In this section of my opponents argument, they mentioned that the murder affected the entire family. The death penalty doesn't cocern the effects the family in question faced. In fact, in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, one of the families who had an eight year old son killed urged against the death penalty of the bomber in an open letter. [1] Also, a 2008 study suggested that punishing the offender made the victim (or the families) feel worse. [2] Proper Judgment - I would barely classify this as a reason for capital punishment to be accepted. This just shows it's a lengthy process. Yes, the process of a death penalty case is around 6-10 years, but this doesn't mean mistakes can't be made. [3] Like I said in my opening statements, 130 death row inmates have been released. Despite proper judgment, they were wrongly convicted. But imagine what would happen if they were killed: we wouldn't be able to bring them back. Deterrence - One example of the failure of deterrence states that crime in North Carolina has gone down since 2006. Coincidentally, not one person has been executed in NC since then. Similarly, murder rates are lower in states that don't have the death penalty. [4] "In fact, most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness." [5] In these circumstances, would you think of the future consequences you may face? You wouldn't be able to think rationally. So my opponents argument about would be criminals being put off by the death penalty only represents a marginal group. Kindest from of punishment - My opponent states that inmates lose their right to vote and that they're not considered a citizen. They go on to talk about how keeping them alive would be inhumane. With this argument, you could say that all inmates with a life sentence should be put to death. There are outrageous examples of life sentences like 3,000 cases of life without parole of non-violent crimes. [6, 7] So should someone be sentenced to death for, say, possession of a crack pipe or breaking into a liquor store? In conclusion, I believe that the death penalty shouldn't be used for punishment. Thank you for the debate. Citations [1]http://www.cnn.com... [2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3]http://criminal.lawyers.com... [4, 5]http://nccadp.org... [6]http://www.theguardian.com... [7]http://www.motherjones.com...

Hold up. you don't want the death penalty. someone who kill some one should die. you got me ok then

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.

This is a debate on the Death Penalty. No slurs or bad language, I will let my opponent go first since I am against. Enjoy!


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

The death penalty should remain an option.
Allowing the death penalty to continue is necessary. In response to your points, I will clarify and correct any misrepresentations or inaccuracies in your arguments. I will also avoid using citation numbers when referencing your work to prevent confusion. You mentioned that states without the death penalty often use life imprisonment without parole as a severe punishment. I agree, but many criminals do not receive such sentences due to overcrowded prisons and flawed laws that impose harsh penalties for minor offenses, gang-related crimes, and theft. It is immoral to execute those who decline psychological assistance, and it is currently illegal to do so. The mentally ill cannot be put to death as it violates the constitution. However, if a convicted murderer, rapist, or abuser refuses psychological help and is released due to flaws in the justice system, why shouldn't they face the death penalty? What do you suggest for criminals who escape hefty charges due to race, location, or financial status? In terms of ethics, I believe that a peaceful execution is a more humane alternative to causing psychological damage that renders an individual unable to cope with society upon release. I know two people who served three years for assault and are now broken individuals, waking up in terror and reacting violently at the sight of their names. A decade or more in prison could destroy a person, but providing them with luxuries doesn't serve justice. We are in a state of uncertainty: should we treat them well in isolation, preventing them from committing crimes but not teaching them a lesson, or should we damage them psychologically, or end their lives peacefully? If they return to society, damaging them could lead them back to a familiar lifestyle. Overpopulation is a serious issue in prisons, leading to safety concerns for guards and the risk of riots or mass escapes. While it's an exaggeration to claim that inmates live a happy life with luxuries, a prison officer with 15 years of experience at Cardiff Prison stated that inmates spend their days watching snooker on TV or playing computer games. The death penalty is not the only way to prevent reoffending, but due to the risks associated with it, we cannot permit it. Prison sentences and the death penalty do not deter crime rates. The death penalty is a viable option for individuals who pose a risk to others and security personnel. I am not disputing that life imprisonment might seem preferable to the death penalty, but skilled lawyers can exploit loopholes. I apologize if my argument appears disorganized; it's late, and I'm tired

Death Penalty - Capital Punishment - http://en.wikipedia.org... Resolved: The death penalty should be used at times as punishment for a crime. I negate the resolution. I reserve the right to make new contentions in future rounds. Contention 1: Costs Too Much [1] The government spends millions of dollars paid for by the taxpayers, just to try to get a person killed. This is, to put it simply, a waste of money. It costs much less money to keep people convicted of high felonies locked up under maximum security, and it would also create jobs in security. Contention 2: Risky People are often released from Death Row through DNA evidence that previously was unavaliable. [2] "In the U.S., as of June 2002, 108 people including 12 death row inmates, have been exonerated by use of DNA tests." This means that the death penalty has most likely killed at least one innocent person. Keeping people under maximum security would allow for the release of a person later discovered to be innocent. The death penalty, however, once delivered, cannot be repealed. That should do it for now. Good luck to my future opponent. 1. http://www.deathpenalty.org... 2. http://www.aclu.org...

Whether or not it costs more for life imprisonment, the death penalty is still depriving a person of life and the chance to better themselves even if they are never set free from prison. Also even though death is the worst punishment, many criminals, I think, would rather die than have life imprisonment. The margin for error in sentencing is also too great, juries can be prejudiced because of race, religion, and color. Since when can the government decide to do things that the common person isn't allowed to. Its unfair and a cruel abuse of a governments power.

This house believes the death penalty should not be abolished because criminal activity is much less feared and therefore make violent murderers such as Luka Rocco Magnotta fearless which resulted in the sever death of Lin Jun in 2012. Do you really want this type of danger in the world? Although Magnotta was charged of first degree murder, he only serves a life sentence. Think of the outrage the world has and the pain the mother has to go through. Also according to https://en.wikipedia.org... it shows that Canada although has less people than China has a slightly higher homicide rate. Why? The sever death penalty in China and the tough gun control prevents death from happening.

I appreciate your argument and after some research here are some of my points . 1) Cost - My worthy opponent has mentioned it is more cost effective to give life imprisonment than death penalty . But consider the following example "Both Central government of India and Maharashtra governments have spent around Rs. 29.5 crores on Ajmal Kasab to provide him food, security, medicines and clothes during his confinement in Arthur Road Central prison in Mumbai, official sources said on Wednesday. Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) deployed around 250 guards for Kasab in the prison since his arrest in November 2008 till October 2012 and expenditure on this count worked out to Rs. 26 crore, sources said. Maharashtra government spent around Rs. 3.47 crores on Kasab including food (Rs. 42,313), security (Rs. 1, 46,81,794), medicines (Rs. 39,829) and clothes (Rs. 1,878). The state government also incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2 crores on building a bullet and bomb proof cell especially for Kasab in the Central Prison at Arthur Road. The cell was connected to the specially made court (also bomb and bullet proof) by a tunnel which was fortified with iron walls and ceiling to ward off any terrorist strike with bombs." At first it was decided that this terrorist would not be given death penalty. But due to so much of expenditure on him , the court finally gave orders for his execution. So one can imagine that how much capital would have been wasted on this one man if he was given life imprisonment. If criminals like Kasab are allowed to stay in jail with others then he would have also caused harm to other inmates. So one should first think about the security of the people( although they are prisoners) before thinking about the cost. 2) Innocent or guilty- Capital punishment is not given abruptly to a person who is just suspected of committing a crime. It is a long process and each case of death penalty comes before the court at least three times and a death row usually lasts averagely for ten years. So it is well planned and is done after a lot of screening. The percentage of making mistakes in this lengthy process is very low. While giving exams we do have a fear of making mistakes but we still give our examinations right? Similarly only due to the fear of making mistakes in judgement one cannot not just do away with the whole system. 3) Racial bias- well this is a thing which had never crossed my mind while writing this debate. The country in which I live in doesn't have this problem . But yes, there is a distinction between rich and poor as richer people can always hire better lawyers, but the judgement of our supreme court is accepted by everybody as final. The Supreme court of our country is an independent body which is not at all under the influence of the president. But as this problem is prevalent in American and European countries I would like to say that death penalty is like a knife. You can use it to either cut vegetables or kill people. It really depends on your hand. Racial bias doesn't only affect the judgements of death penalty but everything. So one needs to get rid of racial bias not death penalty 4) Deterrence- Some examples that capital punishment does work well as a deterrent. 1: 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 2: Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks." 3:A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. " 4: Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14). 5: For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor. So I conclude by saying that death penalty is indeed effective against murderers committing heinous crimes. citations [1]http://www.thehindu.com... [2]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [3]http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...

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

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 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.

Two wrongs do not make a right. My opponent should know this. One person kills another and he says he should be killed as well. Death is not a punishment. Life in prison is indeed a punishment. My opponent argues using his opinion. I argued using facts in my previous debate about his topic. Did my opponent even take the time to read that debate thoroughly? I clearly won and crushed my opponent, showing that the death penalty should not exist. My opponent has made a claim, yet did not provide a source. That is negligence. If my opponent wants to win this debate, I would suggest that he writes a thorough argument, effectively arguing his stance.

I am disappointed that nargiz_gab has forfeited this round.However, I would like to present my argument for why the death penalty ought not be supported and to do so I would like to explore the reasons that the UN’s General Assembly gave in support for its 2008 moratorium on the death penalty (UN resolution 62/149).I quote:"Considering that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity, and convinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights, that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable." [1]The reasons the UN gives in support against the death penalty are thus:a) That the death penalty undermines human dignity.b) That not using the death penalty would strengthen human rights.c) That the deterrent value of the death penalty is inconclusive.d) That any miscarriage or failure of justice using the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable.The thrust of my argument will rest on d), that any miscarriage or failure of justice using the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable.We, as humans, are liable to err (we’re not omniscient) and therefore miscarriages of justice will occur. We are, in a word, fallible. Now, if the death penalty was not instituted and an alternative, say, life imprisonment was instituted instead, then we allow ourselves an opportunity to rectify any miscarriages of justice that do occur. What good is it to the innocent person, who was wrongly executed, to know that a court, upon further examination of existing or even new evidence, found that person posthumously not guilty? It is, therefore, irreparable since the, later found, innocent person is already dead.Consequently, however expedient the death penalty may be, we ought not, on the principle that humans are liable to err, support the death penalty since miscarriages of justice will occur and that any miscarriage of justice using the death penalty, by definition, is irreversible and irreparable.I eagerly await nargiz_gab’s response.---[1] United Nation's General Assembly Resolution 62/149, http://www.un.org...

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.


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital Punishment
"It's amusing how you're discussing the present system, when it was implied that this debate revolves around the current practice." My adversary has neglected to elucidate on the rationale for abolishing any form of capital punishment. My opponent did not specify before the debate commenced that the subject of capital punishment was confined to its existing application in the United States. My opponent is attempting to clarify their intentions post-debate initiation. I perceive this as an irresponsible imposition on me by my opponent, as I accepted this debate based on the conditions provided at the time of acceptance. I was under the impression that I was accepting the 'Pro' position for capital punishment in general. Note that neither the debate title nor any pre-debate comments mentioned "Resolved: The current capital punishment system in the United States should be abolished." I am within my rights to argue for capital punishment, not THE capital punishment. Here are some definitions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death - permanent cessation of all vital functions: the end of life [1] Penalty - a legal sentence or punishment for violating rules of procedure [2] Punish - to subject someone to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for an offense [3] Voluntary - done, made, or undertaken of one's own accord [4] Recidivism - the act of repeating undesirable behavior after experiencing negative consequences [6]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital punishment can be defined as a legal sentence subjecting a person to death. My stance is that capital punishment should remain in the United States, but it should be different from the current system. The decision to undergo capital punishment should be a voluntary choice made by the convict, who would have the option of life imprisonment or death. I believe that some criminals would prefer capital punishment over a life sentence. This is supported by the occurrence of murder-suicides in the U.S., where a person commits murder and then takes their own life. The evidence for this argument is provided in the first round of the debate. R1: Cost "SO your 'the defendant chooses' is incorrect. The judge ultimately decides, the defendant can only plea to weaken the sentence." It is not incorrect. In a voluntary capital punishment system, the defendant would have a choice. Remember, the argument is not about the current U.S. capital punishment, but about capital punishment in general. The high cost is associated with the trial process. A voluntary capital punishment system would significantly reduce costs by eliminating the appeals process, which is the most expensive aspect of capital punishment. The appeals

Even if I was tortured, I would still see no reason for my torturer to have his one and only life taken away from him; and like I said, that's the easy way out for him. The reasonable thing to do is give him a harsh punishment, let him sit in prison for some years, and have him receive help in therapy after that. I know that what he did to you was horrendous, but I think yanking his life away is still a bit extreme. This is why the government only executes the death penalty when someone commits murder, endangers government officials, or endangers the country. In summary, the only way someone should receive the death penalty is if they commit any of the crimes I listed above. Most of everyone deserves a second chance, and not for their life to be snatched away from them. Again, it's not morally justified.

Disappointingly, nargiz_gab has once again forfeited his opportunity to advance his arguments. I, however, will reiterate why the death penalty ought not be supported.Humans are not omniscient, thus uncertainty as to someone's guilt will exist. If the death penalty was instituted, miscarriages of justice will occur, miscarriages which, by their very nature, are irreversible and irreparable. Therefore, to maintain the legitimacy of the justice system, the death penalty ought not be supported, however expedient it may be.Thank you, once again, to nargiz_gab for initiating this debate.

First, I will address my opponent's attacks then turn to reinforcing my own case. My opponent's C2 was along the lines of the innocent people are being given capital punishment. However, a few of these people would have gotten life in prison anyways. As well as, it is not the fault of the death penalty, it is the fault of the investigators, meaning the simple way to solve this is to have hard evidence that the person actually committed the crime. My opponent's C3 was of how the cost of the death penalty was greater than the cost of life in prison. However, "According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the cost for the drugs used in lethal injection is $86.08." As well as what my opponent fails to inform is that the $1.26M is a study from California alone. My opponent's C4 was that life in prison was a reasonable alternative. My opponent stated that, "Keeps violent offenders off the streets for good." However, the death penalty, not life in prison, keeps people like Lisa M. Montgomery off of the streets for good. Lisa M. Montgomery murdered a pregnant woman, then proceeded to cut the unborn baby out of the womb, claiming it was hers. My opponent is trying to argue we should keep people like Lisa M. Montgomery in prison, where there's a chance for them to escape. As well as, prisoners want death rather than life in prison considering life in prison drives one to insanity. I will now turn to reinforcing my own case. My first contention was that it deters would-be criminals to commit felonies. This means there will be less crime, therefore ensuring public safety. As I had stated earlier, "recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year." Now, I ask you, would you rather have these criminals, who murdered and raped, behind bars, or for them to be rid from the Earth? My second contention was the death penalty benefits taxpayers and the economy; directly conflicting with my opponent's C3. As I had stated, a lethal injection, in reality, only costs $86.08, whilst life in prison costs over $1M. These murderers, rapists, etc. should not be able to continue living in jail cells with the slight chance that one day they may be released or they may even escape. The US should not take that chance. Thank you.

I. Our Unalienable RightsIn The Declaration of Independence, we see this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." [1] According to The Declaration of Independence, we are born with unalienable rights and we must secure these rights. One of those rights happen to be life. The Government shouldn't be able to take life through capital punishment as unalienable rights may not be taken away. [2]II. CostThe costs of a death row inmate are far higher than the costs of any other prisoner. Seattle University found that it costs $1 million more for a death penalty case than a case where a life sentence is the verdict. This is because of the costs for defense, prosecution, multiple trials, etc. [3]This isn't unique to Washington though. California has spent more than $4 billion in death row since 1978 and they spend an additional $184 million a year. It's estimated that taxpayers in California pay $90,000 more per death row inmate. [4] California can save $1 billion every five years if the death penalty is abolished. In turn, if these states were to get rid of capital punishment, they'd save a lot of money.III. InnocentsNo matter how good the defense is, we can never know for sure if someone is innocent or guilty. 144 people have been released from death row after being proven innocent. [5] They were the lucky ones. It's estimated that 4.1% of executed inmates were really innocent after further further investigation. [6] This proves that even though it's a long process to sentence someone to death, it isn't a flawless system. When you make a mistake in a life sentence, you can always acquit the person and they'll be free. If you kill someone then you can't do that; they're dead. IV. Racial PrejudiceWhile some may argue that the severity of the crime you commit is a large factor in your sentence, race also takes hand in the verdict. "While white victims account for approximately one-half of all murder victims, 80% of all Capital cases involve white victims. Furthermore, as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims." "In April 2001, researchers from the University of North Carolina released a study of all homicide cases in North Carolina between 1993 and 1997. The study found that the odds of getting a death sentence increased three and a half times if the victim was white rather than black." [7] This shows the prevalence of racism and how it can affect your sentence. This makes for an unbalanced system that favors one race over the other. V. It Doesn't Provide ClosureMany of those for the death penalty provide the argument that it gives closure to the victim's family and helps the coping process. In fact, only about 2.7% relevant cases bring closure [8] because the aspect of revenge was later contemplated by the families. In the case of the Boston Marathon Bombing, the remaining culprit Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death. Only 15% of Boston residents wanted him to be executed. [9] In another story, two parents who lost their 8-year-old son urged against it in an open letter. [10] "We understand all too well the heinousness and brutality of the crimes committed. We were there. We lived it. The defendant murdered our 8-year-old son, maimed our 7-year-old daughter, and stole part of our soul. We know that the government has its reasons for seeking the death penalty, but the continued pursuit of that punishment could bring years of appeals and prolong reliving the most painful day of our lives. We hope our two remaining children do not have to grow up with the lingering, painful reminder of what the defendant took from them, which years of appeals would undoubtedly bring." [11]In other words, they knew it would cause trauma to those who lost family in the bombing like themselves. It only extends the grief rather than cure it. In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished. Too many factors are involved with the sentencing, those that you wouldn't see in any other case like a life sentence.Citations[1]http://www.archives.gov......[2]http://www.dictionary.com......[3]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......[4]http://deathpenalty.org......[5]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......[6]http://www.newsweek.com......[7]https://www.aclu.org......[8]http://deathpenalty.org......[9]http://www.bostonglobe.com......[10]http://www.bostonglobe.com......[11]http://www.google.com......

Okay, the death penalty is an unjust form of punishment. I disagree. The death penalty is most certainly just. The death penalty saves lives. Statistics show that every execution prevents 8 murders. So basically, I kill a bad guy, and I save 8 good guys. Sounds pretty just to me. I will expand later.

For clarification purposes, I am Pro in today's debate. I will be upholding capital punishment's justifiable causes, and I will go one step further and endorse a model by which I feel should be the universal code for the death penalty nationwide (USA). ________________________________________________________________________________________________"I appreciate the passionate beliefs of people on both sides of the death penalty debate. I fully understand the concerns and deeply held convictions of those who would like to see the death penalty abolished in Connecticut. However, I also fully understand the anguish and outrage of the families of victims who believe, as I do, that there are certain crimes so heinous — so fundamentally revolting to our humanity — that the death penalty is warranted." ~Mary Jodi Rell, 72nd Governor of the U.S. state of Connecticut. When considering if capital punishment is justifiable or not, one must ask 3 specific questions. Is it deemed justifiable if it has the ability to deter crime? Is it justifiable when dealing with heinous, psychopathic, non-rehabilitative individuals? Is it justifiable when the previous two questions are affirmed and the majority citizens and law enforcement back the assertion? I will begin by addressing these 3 questions, posed as contentions, and then endorse a model to ensure that the statute becomes justly applied. *Motion #1: The death penalty has the ability to deter crime.While researching if capital punishment is successful, It is important not to just look at the states that endorse the policy and then compare rates with those that don't, a more extensive review is required. One must look at the years in which capital punishment is carried out more frequently and compare the crime rates to those years in the state that did not apply it as much. Reason being is because the debate at hand is not about whether the threat of the death penalty deters crime per se, but if it deters crime when it is actually applied to those in need— the difference between a potential threat and a direct threat. Exhibit A: Statistics from the Bureau of Criminal Justice indicate that when monitored over a a large period of time, and not just during a specific period where the trend would be going up or down, there is a deterrence of capital crime when capital punishment is given more frequently. [1] It is accepted as a just form of morality when killing to save the life of another innocent person. When applied on a larger and more regulated scale, the same can then be adopted for capital punishment. *Motion #2: Capital Punishment is justifiable when dealing with heinous, psychopathic, non-rehabilitative individuals.The U.S. justice system balances 5 ideologies behind our criminal justice system: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration.[2] However, there are some people who simply cannot be helped, restored to normality or allowed to walk amongst the citizens. Whether it's their upbringing, their imbalances, or their nature, they just love what they do— they love to kill. They're not to be allowed to walk with free society, be put amongst the general prison population because they will prey on those around them, and they cannot be forced into solitary confinement until death because 23/24 hours a day in small cells without any form of natural light and no meaningful contact with staff or other prisoners is on a level consistent with cruel & unusual punishment.[3] This only leaves 2 of the 5 main ideologies behind our criminal justice program, retributive justice for the victim (and family members) & deterrence from future offenses. If in any case of immense torture, rape, and murder of children can justify capital punishment at all, it is proven to be justifiable. *Motion #3: When the first two motions are established, the acceptance among the population deems capital punishment justifiable.According to the PEW research center in 2010, a total of 62% of all U.S. citizens favor capitol punishment in such instances as defined above. Exhibit B: That number was then confirmed again January of 2012 by the same agency.[5] In a democracy, or democratic republic, when something is deemed justifiably moral/humane then it is to be presented among the people for them to decide on the issue. As can be seen, capital punishment is supported by the majority of U.S. citizens. What has risen, however, was concern for innocent convictions, concern for prejudice rulings on capital crimes, and prolonged widespread use. As such, I've decided to adopt the Massachusetts model for capital punishment established by Governor Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney set forth, and passed, a plan that:- Limited capital punishment to people convicted of terrorism, multiple murders, killing law enforcement officers and murder involving torture. - Required conclusive scientific evidence, such as DNA, linking the suspect to the crime scene. - Mandated a scientific review of the physical evidence before an execution was carried out. - Established a "no doubt" standard which meant that even after a guilty verdict was rendered, the death penalty could not be imposed if any juror harbored the slightest doubt about the defendant's guilt. - Required two trials, one to determine guilt and the second to decide whether to impose the death penalty. - Required an automatic review by the Supreme Judicial Court. - Barred the execution of anyone who was younger than 18 at the time of the crime. - Required the creation of a list of "capital case qualified" defense attorneys to represent any defendant facing the death penalty. - Created a commission to review complaints and investigate errors. [6] If this standard applied across the board, around the nation, it deems capital punishment justifiable in the United States of America. [1]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...[2]https://www.ncjrs.gov...[3]http://thehill.com...[4]http://www.pewforum.org... [5]http://www.people-press.org...[6]http://prodpquotes.info...;

Pro has not responded to any of my arguments. This is a debate, and debates entail an exchange, not talking past each other and ignoring the other side.Now, on to the mesh of one sentence arguments...the American jail is not as hard as should be on certain prisoners for what they have done. 1) This is irrelevant. If jails should be harder, it only follows that the jails should change, not that the death penalty should be allowed. 2) Why are jails not hard enough? Please provide support. I think that if you have the guts to go up and have the nerve to kill someone then you definitely don't deserve to still be living and breathing on this earth its just not right1) I developed a lengthy argument last round which addressed the moral responsibility of individuals and the unjust nature of the death penalty. I invite Pro to read it.2) Pro only appeals to emotion. She doesn't make an argument. you need to learn from your mistakesUnfortunately, you'll find that when you try to use capital punishment to educate someone, their capacity to remember what they learned is greatly impared. it will also teach others to learn from what you have done and be warned that if you decide to take this path in your life there will be serious consequences like the death penalty Deterence is a contentious issue, so Pro cannot make an argument for it without providing outside research. In 2008, a survey was conducted on members of the prestigious Fellow in the American Society of Criminology. 88.2% of the experts do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. 74.7% say that research refutes the claim that death-penalty states have lower homicide rates than neighboring states without the death-penalty. In fact, death-penalty states had 42% higher homicide rates than non-death penalty states in 2007. [1] Also, in a 1995 national survey, two-thirds of nearly 400 police chiefs and county sheriffs responded that they did not believe the death penalty significantly lowered the number of murders [1]. “Overall, it is clear that however measured, fewer than 10% of the polled experts believe the deterrence effect of the death penalty is stronger than that of long-term imprisonment”[1] A study was conducted a few years ago by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies [2]. The study covered over three decades of research and concluded that there were three fundamental flaws in current studies on deterrence: 1. “The studies do not factor in the effects of noncapital punishments that may also be imposed. 2. The studies use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers’ perceptions of and response to the use of capital punishment. 3. Estimates of the effect of capital punishment are based on statistical models that make assumptions that are not credible.” The conclusion of the study was that research is not informative about the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates and, therefore, should not be used to inform policy judgements. There have been a vast amount of studies regarding capital punishment and deterrence such as the 10 mentioned between 2004 and 2012 here [3]. The only thing we can gather from all these studies is that the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates can’t be established, as the mentioned article concludes. There are, however, reasons why the death penalty might have very little deterrence or no deterrence at all. The first reason is the consensus of experts against deterrence. The second is presented below. For the death penalty to deter, criminals need to actively weigh the thought of execution to their potential crime. This is problematic; one, because executions happen so little in America and are applied so arbitrary that no one would believe they had much chance of receiving the death penalty. Also, murders are largely committed in the heat of passion, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or because they are mentally ill--little thought is given to the possible consequences. Those murderers in the minority, who plan the crime in advance, are counting on not being caught; they expect to avoid punishment altogether.[4]or harsher and stricter jails This debate has nothing to do with the debate.People need to take the blame for what they have clearly done and its not right to kill and innocent person and still live and eat and live your life when them and their families have to suffer for what you have done Correction: Live and eat and spend the rest of your life in prison. No one contends that murderers should recieve punishment. Pro has simply given no rational argument for why it warrants the death penalty. I've already given many reasons why the death penalt is unjust. Pro can't address any of my arguments nor even give one of her own.i don't know if you've noticed but your justice system has more sympathy for our criminals than our victims No, I haven't.Another good reason to have the death penalty is because when a prisoner's parole or escape can give the criminals another opportunity to kill another person again. The only way to stop recidivism is to execute every murderer, which no person wants, or life without parole, which is an alternative to the death penalty.Also have you noticed with all these prisoners here and known of them getting killed its taking up space and that's not realty safe.Seriously... The answer to our prison population IS NOT TO JUST START KILLING PEOPLE. And finally something we all have to pay attention almost everyday is our taxes did you know that we are paying to keep our criminals stuck in that jail place when it could be going to something a lot more useful that could actually help and benefit us.Pro obviously did not even attempt to read my case.Sources: [1] http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://deathpenalty.procon.org...;

The resolution is: Death Penalty is a logical and practical punishment compared to life imprisonment. I will be arguing that life imprisonment is a better option compared to the death penalty, and my opponent will be arguing on the side of the death penalty.

"" This is the ultimate final factor in the theorem which, when fulfilled, will, according to the theorem, prove the necessity of capital punishment. The following statements stand: 1. There should be no penalties at all due to a lack of proper justification(s) 2. There should be no death penalty."" To sum your argument up. It is your opinion that there is no justified reason to lock away a rapist, murder, child killer under any circumstances. I am sorry but I don"t feel I need to provide justification or proof why we should lock away these types of people. Given you have ""yet to provide compelling objective reason(s)"" why we should let them walk our streets. "" In light of an inability to provide proper objective justifications, I will now return to the original notion"" I would like to remind my opponent the original notion was "There is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century'. You have not provide any substantial reasons why the death penalty is no longer relevant in the 21st century instead you have been on some rant about what is the meaning of life." I believe my opponent to have misconstrued the entirety" of the argument. I am sorry I failed to provide sources in my previous round but I would like point out so did you here is a sources showing the murder rate in the uk and how it has risen since the abolition of the death penalty (1965) www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03805.pdf .Here is a news article highlighting the discrepancy. http://abclocal.go.com.... To some up my opponent has failed to provide compelling evidence why child murderer or mass killer such as the man who committed the Boston bombings should not face the death penalty. In fact he suggests that there is no reason to keep them locked up and they should be allowed to mix with the general public. I find this impossible to accept. On a purely personal view point why should the farther of the 8 year old boy killed in the Boston bombings have to pay to keep his sons murder fed, clothed, warmed , entertained and safe in prison?. I really don"t think that there is a justified reason for this. I accept the death penalty should not be used in all crimes but sometimes anything other than the death penalty is not enough.

"Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate." My opponent has failed to explain why any kind of death penalty should be abolished. My opponent did not specify before the debate started that the topic of death penalty was only limited to its current use in the United States. My opponent wishes to make known of his intentions AFTER the debate started. I find this to be an irresponsible condition opposed upon me by my opponent because I accepted this debate only on the conditions of which were supplied at the time of acceptance. At the time, I was accepting the position of 'Pro' for A death penalty. Notice how neither the title of the debate nor anything written in the comments section before the debate started includes anything specific that says "Resolved: The current death penalty system instituted in the United States should be abolished". I am within my bounds to be arguing for a death penalty, not THE death penalty. In this case, I would like to supply some definitions: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Death - a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life [1] Penalty - 1. A legal sentence. 2. A punishment for violating rules of procedure. [2] Punish - to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal. [3] Voluntary - done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution. [4] Recidivism - the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior. [6] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The definition of a death penalty can be construed from the definitions above as a legal sentence subjecting a person to death. My stance on the subject of a death penalty is that a death penalty should remain in the United States, but it should be entirely different than the current death penalty. A decision to undergo the death penalty should be a voluntary choice made by a convict who would have the option of life in prison or death. I have no doubt that a portion of criminals sentenced to life in prison would rather opt for the death penalty than a life sentence. This is evident by the fact that a large number of murder-suicides occur in the United States in which after a person commits murder, they take their own life. The source and evidence for this argument is listed in the first round of the debate. R1: Cost "SO your "the defendant chooses" is false. The judge in the end chooses, defendant just gets to plea to try to weaken the sentence." It is most definitely not false. In a voluntary death penalty, the defendant WOULD be able to choose. Remember, the argument is not about the current US death penalty, but is about A death penalty. So it is the trial itself under the DP that is expensive. That is what I have said all along. A voluntary death penalty would eliminate the bulk of the cost that it takes to execute a criminal because the legal appeals process which costs the most money would be eliminated. The appeals process exists because convicts who are fighting the state do not want to receive the death penalty. The people who would fight the death penalty in the future would not be sentenced to the death penalty in a voluntary death penalty, they would be sentenced to life in prison, therefore eliminating the appeals process in death penalties that costs the most amount of money in the current death penalty in the US. Also you concede that the DP costs more. I stated that the current death penalty costs more. A voluntary death penalty would cost so much less than the current death penalty, and would cost less than life in prison simply because the costs for food, health and shelter would amount to $0 after the criminal is executed. The states would actually save $1.5 million in living costs per convict if the convict opts for the voluntary death penalty over life in prison [5]. R2: The death penalty does not deter crime. The act of deterring crime is not the primary purpose of creating and enforcing rules for punishing lawbreakers. Fantastic. Then if deterrence isn't a major issue in deterring crime, then why are you debating that the death penalty doesn't deter crime if any other form of punishment isn't made to deter crime either? If the sole purpose of rules of law aren't even made to deter crime, you have just defeated your own argument. You make it seem that deterrence is a negligible issue. R3: The DP infringes international law. I agree with your statements on the current death penalty. But not all death penalties would violate this law. A voluntary death penalty would allow a convict to have more personal liberties than the current death penalty and a convict would also have the right to life or death based on his choice. R4: Risk of executing innocents I fail to see how an innocent person would want to opt for death under a voluntary death penalty. Even so, it's a person's right to life or death and a government shouldn't be infringing on 'international law' that you cite in this debate because it would infringe on liberty of the person to govern their own body. R5: Death sentences are racist and unfair "Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate." Like I said above, I am arguing for A death penalty, not the current death penalty. You did not specify that as a condition of the debate when I accepted the debate. Therefore you MUST convince the voters that the United States would be better off without a death penalty, and I am convincing the voters that the United States would be better with A death penalty. Notice that the topic is simply 'Death Penalty' and that you did not provide any additional information to what your resolution was for the debate. Therefore I am obligated to argue within my bounds, and my bounds are that I am arguing for a Death Penalty in the United States. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In conclusion, the United States would be better off with a voluntary death penalty than without one at all. - It would be cheaper than life imprisonment by saving 1.5 million dollars per inmate. - It would give the convict the right to make a decision on their continuation of life. - It would eliminate the possibility of the criminal from being released back into society and committing recidivism. Voters: Because the debate resolution later admitted by my opponent was not provided at the beginning of the debate, I strongly urge you to base your decision on who convinced you more on the argument that a death penalty of some kind is better or worse than any kind of death penalty at all. I hope that after reviewing all of the debate, you make the right decision and vote Pro! :) Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://en.wiktionary.org... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://dictionary.reference.com... 5. http://www.heartsandminds.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...