Question: Should Capital Punishment Be Permitted?

The Death Penalty Debate

The argument against the death penalty appears to be grounded in practical concerns, whereas my stance is more philosophical. However, let's delve into the discussion. My case rests on two key points: first, determining whether circumstances exist where the death penalty is justified and, if so, what those circumstances are; second, evaluating the death penalty's role in preventing repeat offenses rather than merely serving as punishment.

To argue that certain crimes deserve the ultimate penalty, I will concentrate on how the death penalty is a logical extension of human rights and the state's responsibility to enforce it:

1. My initial argument will explore why we have rights within a legal context. In human society, we believe in a set of inalienable human rights that are to be treated equally. But why are these rights inalienable? What distinguishes human rights from animal rights? We are not equal in our physical attributes, yet the law treats us as such because we share the ability to discern right from wrong and accept responsibility. Legal rights are based on the responsibilities one accepts. When one rejects responsibility, one forfeits rights. The mentally handicapped provide an example of diminished rights and responsibilities. Similarly, if a person rejects their responsibility to respect life, they should forfeit their right to life. Human rights are earned through the ability to understand and respect them. It is the state's duty to punish the rejection of responsibility with the removal of equal rights. Punishment should always match the crime.

2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against reoffenders. Certain severe crimes, like murder, rape, and drug trafficking, are committed by individuals with no moral compass, who are likely to reoffend and harm society. Rehabilitation is often not effective for such criminals, who may thrive in prison and pose a danger upon release. Eliminating these individuals can benefit society by negating the possibility of future crimes. Society is better off without those who cannot distinguish right from wrong.

In summary, my argument is that the death penalty should be considered in specific circumstances where it serves as a deterrent and benefits society by removing dangerous individuals who lack a moral compass. This stance differs from the current application in countries like the United States, which I will further clarify in subsequent rounds. I look forward to the counter-argument.

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

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.

My opponent has plagiarized most—if not all—of his arguments from here (http://simple.wikipedia.org...). Thus, conduct points should go to me. R1) Most countries oppose the death penalty This is a fairly weak argument. Merely because most countries oppose the death penalty does not mean the death penalty is unjust or should not be used. Most countries in 1700 had slavery, but that does not mean slavery is just. Most countries currently have a war on terror or ban drugs, but this does not mean those laws are just. In fact, many laws are arguably unjust. Therefore, the fact most countries oppose the death penalty does not mean that the death penalty is wrong. Although death penalty support has fallen in the UK, a country where the death penalty (DP) is banned, support for the DP is still higher than those who oppose it by 6% [1]. R2) Tyranny Again, Con uses similar arguments as he did above. Merely because tyrannical governments exercise the ability to execute criminals—or, in some cases, threats to the state—does not mean we cannot have a system where the death penalty is improved and can represent a healthy justice system. C1) The Death Penalty acts as a deterrent The vast majority of published research since 1999 supports the notion that usage of the death penalty reduces crime. 17 studies show it reduces crime, whereas only 5 claim it is not a deterrent, and 2 say we cannot conclude either way [2]. So, to a 17-5-2 ratio, the studies prove the death penalty reduces homicide rates. C2) The Death Penalty is just The justice system is based upon a system called proportionality. The worse crime you commit, the worse punishment you should receive. Taking away someone’s life is the worst retributive punishment you could inflict. Thus, there would obviously be a point where the DP would be required to give justice. Even if you think one murder isn’t enough to warrant the DP, would you move to execute Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Of course we would. As Edward Fesser argues, “it would be absurd to deny that there is a level of criminality for which capital punishment is appropriate, at least in principle.”[3] Thus, the death penalty *should* be used in any system where proportionality is used in the justice system. In Greece and other western countries, this is the case. Therefore, for justice to actually exist, there should be a death penalty. 1. https://yougov.co.uk... 2. http://www.cjlf.org... 3. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

I enjoy a good debate on an important issue so thank you for offering me that opportunity. However, it seems to me that this debate is just going to keep going in circles. You say that if we execute murderers we are no better than they are, but I would once again argue that the opposite is true. I believe that the only morally right and responsible thing to do is to ensure that these criminals are never allowed the opportunity of committing these brutal acts again. If we simply lock them away for the rest of their life in a state that does not allow for capital punishment then what is to keep these individuals from murdering while in jail? As I said before, they have nothing to lose in so doing. In addition to that you can never rule out the possibility of their escaping, and in our current justice system it is far from uncommon to see these people back on the streets after a few years. I don't think I can stress this point enough. If we allow them to live we are in fact valuing their lives above the lives of the countless innocent. We can never fully vouch for their safety while these people are allowed something they so reprehensibly denied others. I don't think you fully understood what I was trying to convey in our last round. I was referring to capital punishment and not punishment in general. I assure you I was not trying to insult your intelligence by assuming such a thing. It just seemed to me that the structure of your opening argument seemed to indicate that you felt that execution equaled no more than an act of vengeance. So if I offended you I apologize sincerely. I disagree that punishment is about reform. Reform can be a happy outcome of punishment, but it is not the purpose of punishment. Punishment is a penalty imposed for wrongdoing. In the case of murder there can simply be no expectation of or allowance made for reform. Unlike minor crimes, murder is a crime that can never be undone or recovered from, and it is certainly one we are morally bound to never let the same individual perpetrate again. The criminal can simply never be trusted in society again, and can never be trusted around inmates. I'm afraid that in order to attempt to prove their point deathpenaltyinfo.org used very unrealistic and misleading averages. Some states are more prone to crime than others and that goes for both pro and anti-capital punishment states. However, since there are so many fewer states against capital punishment than there are for, the average can only be misleading at best. For a state-by-state look at crime statistics I recommend going to http://www.disastercenter.com... U. S. Crime Statistics Total and by State 1960 - 2006 I understand that the certainty level for trials can not always be 100%, but DNA testing is proven to be at least 99% accurate and the rigorous court proceedings usually eliminates any reasonable doubt from the case and more often than not proves undeniable guilt. If it is not proven adequately there is no possibility that 12 people will agree on one decision. That is why we have the court system set up the way we do. To provide as much certainty as is humanly possible and protect the innocent. I'm all for better technology, but to use your logic a case could never be officially closed and the process would never end. I understood the statistics you used. In fact, they usually go much higher than that, but we are debating the moral issue and not the monetary. However, to briefly cover that topic, court cases would not cost nearly as much if we would limit the appeals process to within reasonable bounds. You are more likely to die of old age than execution on death row.

The Death Penalty should remain legal in the U.S.. I will let my opponent start it off.

Jesus Christ. What do you think I mean by The Death Penalty, Why do you need a definition you know EXACTLY what it is if you are taking up the debate. Stop twisting everything and trying to be smart. I hate that so much and I see it all the time on this website. the death penalty, Is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is killed by the state as a punishment for a crime. Is that good? Case 1:Detering CrimeNumerous studies published over the past few years, Using panel data sets and sophisticated social science techniques, Are demonstrating that the death penalty saves lives. Using a panel data set of over 3, 000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, And Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, On average, Results in 18 fewer murders. Separately, Professor Shepherd's analysis of monthly data from 1977 to 1999 found three important findings. 1. each execution, On average, Is associated with three fewer murders. The deterred murders included both crimes of passion and murders by intimates. 2. executions deter the murder of whites and African-Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1. 5 African-Americans, And 0. 5 persons of other races. 3. shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2. 75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, One murder is deterred. Case 2: The Death Penalty Honors GodYou are probaly an Atheist but here goes:Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, By man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

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.

=Case="A murderer deserves death penalty because he has trespassed against the whole society by killing one of its members."-unknown.Seeing as I agree with the above quote, I strongly negate the resolved. I offer the following contentions in support: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]. 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[2]. 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[3]. 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 other people[4]. 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. [5] A 2006 study from the University of Houston, stating that the Illinois moratorium on the Death Penalty led to 150 additional homicides [5] A University of Colorado at Denver study showing that for each execution five muders were prevented.[6]. 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.[7] 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. [8] 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: 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.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 and Spain have abolished it [9]. There is already a movement to abolish life without parole in the United States for juveniles and even for adult offenders! [10][11]. 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"[12]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.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.[13]. Nearly 96% of those executed in the past four years have fought to escape their sentence. C3. Capital Punishment is constiutionally sanctioned.There isn't much to be said on this point, so I'll make it brief. The Supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of Capital Punishment many times in the past, most recently in Bazes v. Rees.[14] Also, usage of the Death Penalty is contemplated in the 5th Amendment of the U.S. constitution when it states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."[15].Thank you to my Opponent for accepting, and I hope this is a debate we can both learn from! Sources:1. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us...;4. http://www.crimemagazine.com...;5. http://www.cbsnews.com...6. http://www.heritage.org...7. Lowe, Wesley. "Consistent and Swift Application of the Death Penalty Reduces Murder Rates." 8. Tucker, William. "Capital Punishment Reduces Murder Rates."9. http://en.wikipedia.org...10. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...11. Miller, Katherine. "Life Imprisonment Violates the Eight Amendment." 12. http://www.globalpolitician.com...13. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...14. http://en.wikipedia.org...15. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

I extend thanks to the opponent for his rebuttal. The death penalty communicates to everyone that murder is wrong, obviously if you murder somebody you know the penalty is imprisonment, but that does not change people"s actions. If we have capital punishment a federal punishment then everyone will know that the punishment is death and they will change their minds about what they are about to do. I see that you are a Christian like me, but the Bible calls us Christians to have the death penalty. The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts including: 1)Murder Exodus 21:12 Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. 2)Kidnapping Exodus 21:16 Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. 3)Bestiality Exodus 22:19 Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death. 4)Adultery Leviticus 20:10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 5)False prophesying Deuteronomy 13:5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 6)Prostitution and rape Deuteronomy 22:24 Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And it is corresponding with several other crimes. You are right that two wrongs do not make a right, but what you are mistaken is that we are not executing the innocent, these people have committed terrible actions against human beings, and they deserve to die. "Also if a person in his right mind has life in prison. He will be ashamed that he killed a person for the rest of his life." People who commit heinous crimes are not in their right mind, if someone thinks it is a good idea to murder someone they are not in their correct mind. Summary: 1 Communication 2: Death penalty and the Bible 3: Right state of mind [1] http://www.gotquestions.org...

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......


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

The financial implications of the death penalty should not be the sole factor in determining its use. The argument that capital punishment is a financial burden on the state is not a strong enough reason to discontinue it. Justice should transcend monetary costs, and a fair and proportionate response to crime should not be dictated by economic factors. Moreover, there are potential ways to make the death penalty more cost-effective, such as streamlining the appeals process or altering the execution method, which could address the financial concerns.1 1 "Saving Lives and Money." The Economist. March 12, 2009. Accessed June 5, 2011. This reference highlights that the economic impact of the death penalty can be mitigated without compromising justice.

You said: "But if we are to punish them through death, then shouldn't we AT LEAST make it equal to how they killed the victim." Ah but THAT would be equivalent to stooping to the level of the criminal. The point of execution isn't to "get even," it's to eliminate a threat to public safety. So the method of execution is irrelevant - we're not trying to give the criminal his or her just desserts, we're simply removing a dangerous individual from the population permanently in the interest of public safety. You said: "Also, what more can a killer do in jail to bea threat to society?" Again, you're correct that if we put a killer in jail for life that ALSO eliminates the threat posed to society. But your argument is that it's not just for us to execute those criminals. I'm saying that we can choose to do either one - it doesn't matter. We can choose to eliminate a threat to society by locking him or her up for life, or we can execute that person. They achieve the same result, so I'm arguing that they are morally equivalent, and that the death penalty is not impermissible, as you're arguing it is.

The instigator has only provided one round for cases and counter analysis, so I will be brief. This is a policy topic evaluating the advantages/disadvantages of capital punishment. As such it should be evaluated within a framework of net benefits. This means the side offering the most compelling advantages verses the disadvantages of that case should win. The negative offers the counter plan of life imprisonment without parole in a federal maximum security prison for crimes that would be punishable by death in my opponents, "world." This approach solves the same problems at least as well as the plan of execution, but has a critical unique advantage that execution doesn't, no one can be wrongfully executed. Having identified how the negative would deliver criminal justice in those cases without the death penalty, I will answer my opponents observations in sequence. Aff observation A) "The Criminal would be sentenced to death/killed. He/She cannot do any more crimes/offenses." Recidivism: My opponent argues that an executed criminal cannot commit any further crimes. However, the negative case for life imprisonment provides the same benefit, or advantage. And while my opponent contends that 2% of prisoners escape, this is not correct. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013 escapees were less than one percent of the entire US prison population, and given that the US leads the world in numbers of people incarcerated less prisoners escape in other nations, as a derivative or function of that nations populace. http://www.bjs.gov... Moreover, inmates in maximum security prisons will escape far, far less frequently than the number that escape from the entire prison population. Given this information, the Aff case has negligible advantage in crime prevention, or recidivism, by executing the convict versus life imprisonment as put forward by the negative case. Aff observation B) "The number of criminals go down" This is not relevant. We have already seen that the impact of execution versus life imprisonment as put forward by the negative is negligible. To further extend that, the reduction of prison populations by executing them is categorically irrelevant. In the negative, "world" these convicts go to max security prison for life rather than be executed. Simply put, the same criminals are kept off the street in the negative world, and no one need be executed. Aff observation C) "Almost everyone is scared of death which makes less criminals due to their fear of death." First counter observation: Not everyone is afraid to die, so capital punishment will not prevent murder by those that do not fear death, categorically. This also extends to any situation where the offending party does not expect the victim of the crime to die. If the offending party does not expect the victim to die, capital is not a deterrent, because the criminal has no expectation that the crime could put them at risk of execution, again, categorically. Moreover, the evidence that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent is quite robust. A recent University of Colorado Study showed that 88% of criminologist do not believe capital punishment is an effective deterrent. http://www.colorado.edu... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... My opponent looses this argument on impact analysis, given that we can see cases where, categorically, the death penalty has no impact as a deterrent, and that expert criminologists overwhelmingly believe such punishment to be poor deterrent. Since there is no meaningful deterrent advantage to execution versus imprisonment, and execution carries the disadvantage of executing innocent people in some cases, which cannot be reversed, (life imprisonment can be reversed if the convict is exonerated) my opponent lost this argument. Aff observation D) If he/she is not killed he/she will have around 2% (as of 1999) chance of escaping which will have a chance to do the same crime. For one, this is the same argument as the first Aff observation, just in a new wine-skin. This was addressed earlier, but to reiterate; the number of escapes out of the the entire US prison populace is less than 1% (0.1334%) as of 2013 according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Moreover, inmates in a maximum security environment are much less likely to escape even than this percentage, to the point of approaching infinitely less likely. There is next to no chance that such an inmate could ever escape, and they cannot be be paroled. The only way they could ever leave prison in the negative "world," would be exoneration. The aff lost on impact analysis here too! This brings me to the negative unique advantages and the affirmative unique disadvantages: Affirmative unique disadvantage 1) Permanence of any errors. Justice systems err in conviction some of the time. As of 2014, since 1973 at least 144 death row inmates have been exonerated. A study highlighted in a Newsweek article that year (2014) suggest that at least 4.1% of all American inmates are innocent. http://www.newsweek.com... In the Aff world, those executed will be, well, executed. You can release someone from prison if they are proven innocent, but you cannot give them life back if you have killed them. This is a massive miscarriage of justice on the part of the Aff, and it is unique to the Aff case. In the Negative world, this never happens, ever! Affirmative disadvantage 2) Global reputation Over half of all countries and the overwhelming number of developed countries do not practice capital punishment for the reasons I have provided. This damages our reputation globally, and particularly with European allies. Even the Russian Federation does not practice capital punishment in any form. https://en.wikipedia.org... Unique negative advantages: the opposite of the affirmative disadvantages. Negative advantage 1) Not permanent is cases of error. This is simple as it gets. When someone in prison, even for life, is exonerated, the are free, and can legally action the party that harmed them by putting them in jail to the full extent of local/that nation's law. Global reputation: Any nation disposing of the death penalty improves that nations standing in the world. for those of you that followed the Wikipedia link I provided on the Aff disad 2, take your given red nation in that handy info graphic and turn it green, and rejoice at joining the rest of the developed world at being humane and sensible. Since the Aff lost every claim it made on impact analysis, has unique disadvantages that the negative doesn't, and does not provide those inverse advantage that the negative world does, voters are highly urged to pass a negative ballot. Go Warriors!

"If the death penalty was implemented, those murderers might reconsider before committing the act." [sic]Unfortunately, those who commit violent crimes do not have the capacity to see the consequences of their actions in most cases. Implementing the death penalty would not be able to prevent heat of the moment murders, manslaughter or even some premeditated crimes. Only a few cases of First Degree murder might, might, be prevented under this plan. Unfortunately such speculation isn't strong enough to justify imposing this on all the states.State Sovereignty States in the United States of America have a right to implement certain policies on their own free from federal control. The death penalty is one of these policies. You cannot justify infringing on state sovereignty in order to impose the death penalty on all 50. People have a right to choose what kind of state government they want to run. You can't justify this breach of states rights on the words "murderers might reconsider". It's not strong enough evidence. Therefore, the death penalty should be left as a decision for each individual state to decide on.

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.

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.

The Death Penalty should remain legal in the U.S.. I will let my opponent start it off.

Yes, the death penalty is there to make criminals not want to commit murder, but I would like to ask my opponent if they think that that empty threat is enough. Plenty of murderers in the U.S just think to themselves, "As long as I cover my tracks, I can't get caught." Regardless of whether or not the death penalty is threatened against them. I would also like to repeat my point that someone found guilty could actually be innocent. Sentencing an innocent person to death is murder. If a killer is crafty enough, it can be relatively easy to frame someone. And yes, all the countries that my opponent listed do execute people, but does that make it okay for us to do it? Sentencing a guilty person to a lifetime of jail with no chance of bail or parole is more humane than killing them.

=Case=When asked his position on the Death Penalty, President Barack Obama stated that he supported it in cases where "the community is justifed in expressing the full extent of its ourage"Seeing as I agree, I affirm. I offer the following contentions in support: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]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: 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.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 probability of life wothout parole being abolished is significantly higher considering that their are already movements to do away with it. Also, 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.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.Thank you to my Opponent for accepting, and I hope this is a debate we can both learn from! 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...

The death penalty should be Illegal. The death penalty is wrong and immoral. According to "Against the Death Penalty" there are many different factors that play tribute to why the death penalty should be illegal. Firstly, a life sentence would save time and money as opposed to the death penalty. Secondly, many people believe the death penalty is used as a deterrent, as in we have to make crime rates go down. The truth is, crime rates have not gone down. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other countries. Nothing bad can come from sending someone to life in prison. It keeps crime off the streets and it is a lot more moral than the death penalty. We live in a country where killing is wrong, yet we kill people on death row. It is almost as if we are hypocrites. We do not live in a country where we live by an eye for an eye. We live in a country where we have the right to life, and that should not be taken away from us, no matter what the circumstance.

The death penalty should be put back in place in Western society because it is a way to get rid of the extremely small percentage of people that are a public danger for members of society to be killed in a quicker and cheaper way. I only ask this. Is a perpetual prison sentence not simply a more expensive and frankly more cruel way of killing these criminals? Obviously, The death penalty should only be applied in extremely specific circumstances to ensure that only criminals that have committed crimes so horrid they lose the right to live in society. Is food and shelter for several decades really the best investment for the tax payers? Would it not be better to simply end their life in a non-painful way than to let them rot in a prison cell for so many years?


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital Punishment
A life sentence in prison can be just as effective in deterring crime and murder as capital punishment.

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

It is in fact an interesting topic, and I have not yet debated it. This should be fun, no matter what the turn out. Now to the real issue. .. The death Penalty. It was supported in the Old Testament, thats for sure. Gen. 9:6--- "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. " This was said by God Himself after the flood, while Noah was making his offering. Some would say, however, that this verse is now outdated since the death of Christ, but I do not think this is so. I believe that this is just one of the many verses that COMMAND capital punishment. Look at what Ecclesiastes has to say on the matter. Ecclesiastes 3:1-3--- "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;A TIME TO KILL, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;" A time to kill. People quote this verse all the time, and yet some would disregard this line. Why would the Bible say there is a time to kill, if there really was not time to kill? The answer is, it wouldn't. God says what He means. If there is a time to kill, then there must be a good reason to kill. Exodus 20:13--- "You shall not murder. " Murder--- "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" Well, obviously thats not the right time to kill. This leaves us only two logical options then: war, and capital punishment. In the Old Testament, od commands wars. In fact, He even commands Saul to completely destroy a certain people, and when Saul spares king Agag, He get the throne taken from him. 1 Sam. 15:3--- "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. " When Sual does not. .. 1 Sam. 15:26--- "But Samuel said to him, 'I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you as king over Israel! '" God commanded Saul to kill, and God was mad when Sual did not. That was a right time to kill: when God commands it. What does the New Testament have to say on the matter though? Well, lets look at Romans. Rom. 13:3-4--- "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for HE DOES NOT BEAR THE SWORD FOR NOTHING. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. " Swords are instruments for killing. Killing people actually. The Bible commands us to be afraid if we do wrong, because He has given our authorities the power to put us to death if we do that which deserves death. Even Paul in the Bible knows that. Acts 25:11--- "If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I DO NOT REFUSE TO DIE. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar! " Paul knows that if he has done anything deserving of death, he can and will die. Why? because the government "does not bear the sword in vain". This is not all the Bible has to say though. 1 Peter 2:13-14--- "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. " During the time that this was writen, the main form of ounishment was flogging and/or death. In hebrews, it says that there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. Heb. 9:22--- "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. " There are people in society that deserve to die, and God has given our aythorities the power to kill those who deserve it. If you think about it, it really makes sense. when a person dies in rebelion of god, God damns that person to hell. When a person on earth is in rebelion of his government, God gave the govenrnment the power to kill the physical body of the person, so as to keep order in His creation. There is even an instance in the Bible where Jesus shows grace when the death penalty is due. John 8:1-10--- "But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say? ' They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. ' Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. " Jesus shows mercy even though the law commands that she be put to death. You might say that Jesus was stopping them because the law no longer applied, and she did not deserve the death penalty. Look at what the Bible has to say about that. Matt. 5:17--- "'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. '" He did not come to abolish the law. .. in which case He was showing the girl grace; not saving her from undue punishment. I think that should do for my opening arguments, and I look forward to yours. Thanks, Renzzy

Thank you for posting your next argument. Sinning...hmm. 1. 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' 2. 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' 3. 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' 4. 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' 5. 'Honor your father and your mother.' 6. 'You shall not murder.' 7. 'You shall not commit adultery.' 8. 'You shall not steal.' 9. 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' 10. 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' No where does God say that the death penalty is wrong. In fact, after God gave Moses those laws he also gave laws concerning the death penalty. Saying that it is sinning to use the death penalty is not true. It is not the same as the person committing the crime. The murder is not punishing anyone. If you think about it, lethal injection is merciful compared to what the murder did. The injection does not rape, or abuse that murder. I believe I have made my point. So thank my opponent for this debate, She did well. And I thank the audience for reading it.

"--> 6% of murderers repeat their crime? What of the 94% who don't repeat their crime? Clearly, the majority of killers do not make the same mistake again and therefore have a chance to repent and reform." 6% is far too many. Can you look the family of people murdered by repeat offenders in the eye and say "I thought they would repent." I assume not. Murderers need to be kept off the streets, permanently, we need to save innocent lives, and capital punishment saves them. "--> Every execution prevents 8 murders? Doesn't that contradict your previous statement which says that only 6% of murderers repeat their crime?" No, I'm speaking of the deterrent effect of the death penalty. It deters others from murdering. "--> Indeed murder is bad. That, however, doesn't justify executing the murderer because the act of execution is also considered murder. More good is also not caused by executing the murderer because it is in human nature that we, as people, are able to change and be reformed." Murder is killing an innocent, capital punishment is killing a guilty man, who may kill again, and if not, the execution will save 8 people. "--> Legal does not equal just. The Supreme Court's decisions are based on human judgement which is fallible. Taking away a HUMAN life sounds pretty cruel to me. The accused person could be someone's parent or someone's children. Tearing families apart is very heartless thing to do." This was a rebuttal to your argument that it was unconstitutional. Human Judgement may be fallible, but it does not fail countless times on the same issue. "--> The chances of an innocent being executed may be small, but yet the risk is still there. 25 people have been wrongfully executed since the start of this century. The reason for you supporting the death penalty is to protect the lives of the innocent and prevent their murder. How is this possible when innocents are being executed? Therefore, it is nothing like Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person. Innocent people have ALREADY been killed." And more than 25 people have died from the chicken pox shot. Is it a huge deal? No, because comparatively we save many innocent lives. It's very much the same thing. You kill when you save, it's inevitable. Just think, who do you want to save, an innocent, or a murderer. Oh, and by the way, 60% of those executed "innocents" had no evidence suggesting they were innocent. "--> Indeed, SOME people (the 6%) will never change. But what of the 94% who do change? They deserve the chance to change. Executing them will prevent that from happening." Just because they didn't murder again doesn't mean they suddenly became a wonderful person. Besides, with the death penalty, the statistic will be 0%. We need to save innocent lives, reforming the lives of murderers should not be our priority. "--> Saving lives is just, but not when it occurs at the expense of others' lives. No one person is truly evil and nor is one person completely good. People can change and preventing that from happening is the true evil." You need to sacrifice lives sometimes. People have to die, it's your choice though, a few murderers of many innocents. "The death penalty is an unjust form of punishment. An eye for an eye and the world will be blind." It's not an eye for an eye, we are killing them to save lives. That must be society's focus. Innocent lives are much more important than murderer's lives. Also, voters, remember, only the worst get murdered. First degree premeditated murder gets capital punishment, while crimes of passion would not. These are people who made a conscious choice to do evil. "

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.........

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.

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.

I am new to this site. ---- I think that capital punishment should be totally reinstated in United States. United States is facing a financial deficit, and by executing rapists, child predators and murders can save the American taxpayers millions if not billions per year. ----------------------------- Firstly, the cost of looking after these criminals is too much; it"s a major burden to our economy. It costs around $90,000 a year to look after these people; so if an inmate is in jail for 20 years the cost is outstanding, Almost a quarter of a million dollars per person. In 2010 over 30,000 inmates were incarcerated in maximum security prisons, these prisons house the worst of the worst and yet some of the most expensive jails in the country. If capital punishment was fully reinstated in United States we could save taxpayers millions of dollars per year, this money could be put into education or infrastructure. ------------------- Secondly at least 26% of criminals re-offend, by executing prisoners that percentage can be cut drastically. As America"s population grows so does crime rates. As the economy gets worse more people are resorting to committing violent crimes. ---- Lastly multiple studies show murders were drastically decreased after a public execution; the foresight that they could be killed for their actions may prevent them from committing the crime. --- ------------------ ======================================= All of my information should be accurate, if there are any minor mistakes simply overlook them for the sake of the debate.

The death penalty is necessary, because some people are so vile they can never be in contact with society without harming it in some way. Truly evil people do exist and they harm others - sometimes killing or ruining lives through their actions. This is not something that should be acceptable or allowed to continue without punishment to deter others with a like mentality.

No problem. First of all I'll say while I do agree with the death penalty I think it should be very hard to be sentenced to. So imagine this. It is a summer night and your sleeping in bed with your wife and daughters downstairs. Someone breaks in and before you can do anything about it he has brutally slaughtered your wife and daughters. How could this man possibly just go to prison. He took innocent lives so why shouldn't a fair punishment for him be the death penalty. An eye for eye, right? I do realize many arguments against the death penalty are that what if an innocent was sentenced with a death penalty. While this is possible it is very rare. An innocent man has a better chance of being killed by a falling meteor. The death penalty offers more reward than risk. Also another thought is when someone doesn't get the death penalty there is a decent chance he will be out on the streets before he dies. Very few people serve a full life penalty. Would you really want to take a chance of this man being back on the streets someday?


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

The concept of "an eye for an eye" advocates for proportional justice, which can be interpreted as a rationale for the death penalty.

**Question**: Should college be free?

**Documents**: College should be free
Education is a right, not a privilege. Making college free would level the playing field for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

**Similar Documents**: Education should be universally accessible. Treating education as a right rather than a privilege by making college free could ensure equal opportunities for students from all walks of life.

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. :)

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.

I will just quickly point out some key reasons why we need the death penalty and give some voters. 1. The punishment should fit the crime. Especially if the crime that is committed is murder. 2. If someone violently murders another individual or numerous people, then it makes sense for the punishment to be death. 3.Capital punishment means there is no chance of the criminal committing another crime. 4. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process. 5. A majority of the criminals that are put on the death penalty, have either had several offenses or committed murder in the first degree. This being the case, the criminal has had multiple chances to "change or reflect" and does not value the life of the individual or individuals that he/she has murdered. 6."If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."I believe I have successfully attacked my opponents case while upholding capital punishment. This was a fun and interesting debate and hopefully Edgyruse and I can have more debates like this some other time.With all this being said... I urge a con vote. Thanks :)

The death penalty saves lives." --> The death penalty takes away the life of a person which is most certainly not considered saving a life. "Statistics show that every execution prevents 8 murders." -->Which statistics show that? Who researched it? It is impossible to prove this because once a criminal is murdered, it is impossible to tell how many people he/she they might have killed (if they kill any at all) had they been allowed to live. "So basically, I kill a bad guy..." -->What makes a person bad? What makes a person good? Everyone has done something wrong in their life. No one is righteous. Therefore it is impossible to to sentence a "bad" person to death and have the action considered just. The 7th amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The death penalty clearly falls under the category of "cruel and unusual punishments" because it takes away a person's life which is one of the inalienable rights (rights that cannot be taken away.) Humans are also fallible. Therefore, human judgement is fallible. This makes the death penalty a faulty and imperfect form of punishment. Once a person has been executed, and new evidence appears and proves them innocent, there is no way to bring the executed person back to life. However, if there was no death penalty, and the person was simply sentenced to a life sentence in jail. When the new evidence appears, the accused person can be released from jail. Even if the accused person really did commit the crime, I believe that humans have the ability to change. If you kill the guilty person, they will never have time to repent nor will they ever have time to change. Killing a person, whatever the reason, is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.

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

I am here to say that we should abolish the death penalty due to the fact that death penalty is inhuman and cruel to people.

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.

Yes, the death penalty is there to make criminals not want to commit murder, but I would like to ask my opponent if they think that that empty threat is enough. Plenty of murderers in the U.S just think to themselves, "As long as I cover my tracks, I can't get caught." Regardless of whether or not the death penalty is threatened against them. I would also like to repeat my point that someone found guilty could actually be innocent. Sentencing an innocent person to death is murder. If a killer is crafty enough, it can be relatively easy to frame someone. And yes, all the countries that my opponent listed do execute people, but does that make it okay for us to do it? Sentencing a guilty person to a lifetime of jail with no chance of bail or parole is more humane than killing them.

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.

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...