Question: Should Capital Punishment Be Permitted?

Should capital punishment be permissible for drug offenses? Unless an individual has committed a heinous act, such as a mass killing, the death penalty should not be considered for drug-related crimes. It should be reserved for the most egregious offenses, not for drug use or distribution.

There should be a death penalty for murderers to deter future murders. The death penalty would deter some future murders because some people who want to commit murder won't do it because they know that they will get killed if they do so. Studies have shown that it deters crime. Most criminals don't want to die. The death penalty should be done in a painful, harsh way so that it would be more likely to deter crime. Some People will be scared to commit murder if the death penalty is done by getting shot with a gun. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...

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

Rebuttal time! R1: God’s law A. Crimes? My opponent has made a religious argument. However he has yet to explain what crimes deserve the capital punishment in the bible. He simply responds saying that it is God’s law. However, allow me to make a religious rebuttal of my own. B. My rebuttal to biblical challenge According to Genesis 9:8- 10, all life is sacred and protecting it is important to God. He then goes on to say that to murder is to affront Him. This clearly shows that simply killing others, whether he/she be a murderer or an innocent victim is against the Bible. So, God’s law has shown the importance of life. Secondly, let us turn toward John 8:7 where Jesus responds to a group of people stoning someone to death with, “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her. ” This shows that it is hypocritical to kill someone simply due to someone sinning. After all, we are all sinners. Third, we need to look toward the New Testament: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. ’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. ” Matthew 5:38-42 – See more at: . https://sojo.net... Clearly, we need to turn the other cheek. This can also be applied to the issue at hand. Jesus was always conversing and allowing people to learn by example whether or not they were outcasts to society because they were sinners. Also, considering the fact that the Old Testament is continually contradicted by the New Testament in theology as demonstrated, we can’t take it into account since the most recent of God’s law rests in the New Testament. R2: Biblical context This is simple. The bible can be figuratively interpreted and literally interpreted which leads to very different impacts. While my opponent may say the “word of God” makes him think this way, let us look toward a different interpretation. The Bible was written by people trying to interpret a godly figure, which is then interpreted among the ages by many different people. Then, it is translated which may lead to the Bible having a different meaning than the original Bible made so long ago. Thus, we are interpreting for ourselves an interpretation of a godly figure, which is then translated so more meaning is lost. If we were to assume that meaning was lost among the eras of when it was passed down, it would be logical to then assume that a literal interpretation of a document that has lost literal meaning is very likely to have different ideas and laws than the form we have now. However, there is great spiritual understanding in the bible that can also be properly addressed if we take a figurative translation, where maybe the law against homosexuality was to address a problem with a tiny population with stagnant growth as opposed to nowadays where we have a tremendous population. We need to see the bible from the context of when it was written if we are to apply it today, as well as see it as a figurative document that has lost meaning due to multiple translations. R3: State of debate My opponent has yet to explain why my reasoning is wrong in my constructive speech. R4: Not executing people that god wants in status quo According to your argument, there are 19 crimes that god says should be executed. However, since our country is not a Christian Theocracy, we do not execute the people God wants us too. I am assuming you want homosexuals to be executed as per Old Testament law, but we only execute people who have committed heinous crimes from a secular perspective. Also, since separation from church and state exists through Supreme Court decisions (look at notable examples here: . http://archive.adl.org...) and one of the founding father’s intention (specifically Thomas Jefferson), why should we execute the people that a certain religion wants us too? We clearly see otherwise. Questions to Consider Is it not against God’s will to execute innocent people? Why do we look at today’s debate through a biblical standpoint? Where are your points showing that Christian morality has to be weighed in today’s debate? Why haven’t you addressed my political points?

There are many reasons why we should abolish the death penalty. It is expensive, cruel, flawed, and not doing anyone any favors. Skeptical? Maybe the following facts will change your mind! 1. It's expensive. As of April 30th, 2013, the US National Debt is over 16 trillion dollars. We can't afford to add to this tremendous amount! In California ALONE, over $4 BILLION dollars were spent on capital punishment ITSELF since 1978. And $184 million has been additionally spent EVERY YEAR in California on the capital trials, security on death row, and legal representation. In Maryland, taxpayers have spent AT LEAST $186 million on the death penalty since 1978. 2. It's inhumane. Many execution methods are cruel. Take the gas chamber, for example. "At first there is evidence of extreme horror, pain, and strangling. Their eyes pop. The skin turns purple and the victim begins to drool." says Clifton Duffy, former Penitentiary warden of San Quenton, California. Hanging is also an unacceptable means of capital punishment. According to "Executions- Preparing Staff for the Hard Time Ahead" and J. Weisburg, author of "This is Your Death," execution by hanging is rarely instantaneous, and that " If the inmate has strong neck muscles, is very light, if the 'drop' is too short, or the noose has been wrongly positioned, the fracture-dislocation is not rapid and death results from slow asphyxiation. If this occurs the face becomes engorged, the tongue protrudes, the eyes pop, the body defecates, and violent movements of the limbs occur." The firing squad is no better. The shooter is supposed to aim for the inmate's heart for a more human means of killing, but if they miss, the inmate slowly bleeds to death. Lethal Injection may sound like a good option, then, if a death without pain is best, but it's risky. The chemical that kills the inmate is supposed to be injected into a working vein so the death is painless, but sometimes, the needle is mistakenly injected into their muscle. This causes an extremely painful death. These methods of executions clearly show that execution is torturous and inhumane. 3. Many executed people are actually innocent. According to Columbia University professor James Liebman, 5% of inmates executed are later found to be innocent. 5%! This is similar to 1 student in every classroom at an elementary school being killed. 1 in 20 people are killed, sometimes torturously, for only seeming guilty. This is NOT in any means acceptable. 4. It's not justice. Many families of murder victims are against the death penalty. One is Aba Gayle, whose teenage daughter Catherine Blout was murdered by Douglas Mickey. Says Gayle, "I did not want state-sanctioned murder to tarnish the life of my beautiful child." Another is Vicki Schieber, whose daughter was murdered in Pennsylvania in 1998, who disagrees with the death penalty, saying "The system is just too painful." Many families of murder victims agree that the money annually wasted on the death penalty could be used to help counsel and support survivors. The death penalty is wrong on many counts, such as its over the top pricing, its cruelty, its murdering of innocent people, and its inability to serve justice. If two wrongs don't make a right, why do we murder murderers? Why do we kill to show that killing is wrong?

in 1971 the LosAngeles Police Department reported that half of a group of suspects under arrest for robbery stated that they had decided not to carry or not use weapons in their "work" to avoid any risk of a killing which could lead totheir own execution. 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. Moreover, Even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, That is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty. Finally, The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, This is a form of incapacitation, Similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, Either in prison, Or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, The death penalty helps to prevent future crime. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder. It should be the strongest punishment for deterring. For Religion I simply said that you can ignore the argument, But no you had to laugh. Great conduct

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.

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.

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

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

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 death penalty should not be allowed, as it is morally and logically unsound. From a moral standpoint, it is state-sanctioned murder and violates the 8th amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is a form of murder, and it is hypocritical for society to tell people not to murder and then turn around and do the same. Moreover, it is dangerous, as there is a risk of executing innocent people, and many states have reopened cases where wrongful convictions occurred.

From a logical standpoint, the death penalty is costly. According to Common Dreams, executing prisoners can be three times as expensive as life imprisonment, primarily due to the higher costs of capital punishment trials, automatic appeals, and heightened security on death row. Commuting all death sentences to life in prison would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the U.S. and many billions over the coming decades.

The death penalty is also unjust and racially charged, as it is more likely to be applied when the defendant is black and the victim is white. The death row population is more than 40% black, nearly three times the proportion of the general population, and African American men are disproportionately sentenced to death.

There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime, and it provides no healing for the survivors of violent crime. Instead of offering punishment, the justice system should focus on healing for the victims' families.

In conclusion, the death penalty is morally and logically unsound, costly, unjust, and provides no healing. It should not be allowed.

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.

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

The death penalty is archaic and immoral. We are no longer living in the dark ages and as such our society should be at a point where we don't punish death with more death. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Not only is the death penalty crude and barbaric but statistically speaking it does not even deter crime. States with no death penalty actually have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty. Some people are bad, there is no getting around that. However, it is far better to keep a murderer locked up like an animal than to murder and become animals ourselves.

1. The death penalty is not in fact necessary - saying that it is necessary implies that it provides a service and/or solution that cannot otherwise be obtained. And that is patently false. Rather what the death penalty does is allow individuals to sate their need for vengeance. But vengeance is not nearly the same thing as justice and therefore the death penalty should be considered cruel and unusual punishment that does not fit the scope of any crime. 2. The point of the Justice system is to a.) punish and b.) rehabilitate offenders to become useful members of society. I've already addressed point a, but in regards to point b - it's rather hard to rehabilitate a corpse. A dead person can never become a better or more decent person nor can they be taught the value of remorse. Most importantly someone who is dead cannot be taught to repent of their crime - which is to say they cannot be taught to work toward repaying the debt of what they have deprived society and their victims of. 3.) Which brings me to my third point - "vile" and "evil" are not only subjective values, but there are very few individuals who entirely lack the ability to be taught to recognize the errors of their ways if not the actual import of what they've done. And most of those who exist in that category are what would be known as sociopaths and/or psychopaths. A sociopath can be tried as someone with the competence to know better, but sociopathy does possess a biological component and therefore there is a discernible gray space as to whether they need help or punishment. A psychopath meanwhile can be held accountable, but the gray space for the agreed upon treatment is even wider in nature. Killing either of type of person would therefore be as big a sin as anything they might have done. 4.) And of course in bringing up competence we then must look at how accurate the Justice system even is when it comes to convictions. Because you can't simply apologize to someone you've executed after the fact. Apologies have never brought anyone back from the dead. And unfortunately there have been more than a few executions that proceeded on little if any real evidence and an ungodly amount of racial bias. Consider the Scottboros Boys or Brown vs Mississippi or Lena Brown the only woman to have been executed in Georgia with electrocution because she dared to defend herself against a white kidnapper. Of course, it's not just blacks - plenty of whites have been screwed over as well. 5.) Now to address the point of deterrence - the death penalty has been shown to fail as a deterrence. There are many reasons for that, but the one that counts most is that the application of the death penalty is simply shoddy. Depending on location, race, gender, and socio-economics it's possible for someone who meets the requirements for such a sentence to be passed over in favor of someone who does not. It's also possible for evidence to be fudged or "lost" or simply discounted. And then there is the fact a conviction can be appealed for decades all on the tax payer's dime. For the person who would conceivably "deserve" such a punishment it's effectively a Paper Tiger rather than an actual punishment to watch out for. 6.) Which brings up another point - the cost. Maintaining Death Row, providing that final meal, the cost of the attendant form of execution, the cost of appeals, and such all lay a rather heavy fine on the tax payers many of whom aren't in fact okay with this sort of punishment. Is it really fair for money that could go to any number of more socially acceptable gains be instead used in the act of ending someone's life? No, of course not. 7.) Finally ... what right does anyone have to take a life? If it is wrong to murder, why is it okay to kill someone just because a judge and jury says so? If a lynch mob is wrong to hang a man based on their brand of "justice" then isn't it also wrong for the courts to kill a person? This is not like a war where one must kill or be killed nor is a form of self-defense. It is the conscious decision to deprive someone of their life and that can never be correct. Not if actual justices rather than emotional vengeance is to be served.

Hello all. In this debate, I will present several key arguments in opposition to the institution of capital punishment, or the death penalty. I will specifically refer to the situation in the United States.I believe the death penalty is a stain on American society. It shows that we are not as morally or fiscally concerned as we should be. I will attempt to show this with these three arguments.I. The Death Penalty is UnjustThe job of our government should be to eliminate injustice to promote prestige and a morally concerned society. However, with the existence of the death penalty, the government is failing to live up to this role. My argument to prove that the death penalty is unjust is as follows:Definitionsrevenge: the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands. (Google)just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. (Google)Argument1) The death penalty is based on revenge (as defined above).2) Revenge is immoral.3) Therefore, the death penalty is immoral. (From 1, 2)4) The death penalty is unjust. (From 3)On Premise 1The death penalty is based on revenge, as it is inflicting death upon criminals that inflict pain and suffering on others, instituted by the federal/state governments (I am referring specifically to the situation in the US in this debate).On Premise 2Revenge is widely considered to be immoral. The premise of revenge is to inflict near, identical, or even excessively more pain than the criminal caused the victim, and that is just escalating the amount of immoral action (think Gandhi's eye-for-an-eye principle).On Premise 3The death penalty, because it is based on an immoral principle (revenge), is an immoral practice.On Premise 4As 'just' includes the condition of moral fairness and righteousness, the death penalty can be concluded to be unjust.II. The Death Penalty is ExpensiveThe process of capital trial, containment on death row and eventual execution is more expensive than keeping the criminal in prison for life, as proven in numerous surveys. [1] This is clearly unfair for taxpayers, who end up paying a lot more than they would otherwise (if criminals that would be indicted of capital punishment would instead be sentenced to life in prison, the cheaper and more moral answer).III. The Death Penalty Does Not Deter CrimeCountless studies have shown that the existence of capital punishment as a penalty for serious crime does not add on to the deterrence effect of prolonged time in prison. Another study has shown that there is no correlation between the death penalty's institution and the murder of police officers.In fact, in states without the death penalty, there are lower rates of crime. Therefore, it is clear that the death penalty does not deter crime or add any sort of effectiveness to the fight against crime. [2]---------------------ConclusionFor all these reasons, it is clear that the death penalty should be abolished. First, it is clearly an immoral principle and should be treated as such; it is wrong for our government to institute a principle against basic morals. Second, the institution of capital punishment, capital trial and containment on death row awaiting execution costs substantially more than life in prison. Third, the death penalty is not shown to deter crime, or have any effect on the murder of police officers or the crime rate, in fact, states that have abolished the death penalty have lower rates of crime.It is resolved that the death penalty ought to be abolished.---------------------Sources[1] http://deathpenalty.org...;[2] http://deathpenalty.org......I affirm that both of these sources are credible, and are publications of veritable studies and data compiled by professionals.

I appreciate your argument and after some research here are some of my points . 1) Cost - My worthy opponent has mentioned it is more cost effective to give life imprisonment than death penalty . But consider the following example "Both Central government of India and Maharashtra governments have spent around Rs. 29.5 crores on Ajmal Kasab to provide him food, security, medicines and clothes during his confinement in Arthur Road Central prison in Mumbai, official sources said on Wednesday. Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) deployed around 250 guards for Kasab in the prison since his arrest in November 2008 till October 2012 and expenditure on this count worked out to Rs. 26 crore, sources said. Maharashtra government spent around Rs. 3.47 crores on Kasab including food (Rs. 42,313), security (Rs. 1, 46,81,794), medicines (Rs. 39,829) and clothes (Rs. 1,878). The state government also incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2 crores on building a bullet and bomb proof cell especially for Kasab in the Central Prison at Arthur Road. The cell was connected to the specially made court (also bomb and bullet proof) by a tunnel which was fortified with iron walls and ceiling to ward off any terrorist strike with bombs." At first it was decided that this terrorist would not be given death penalty. But due to so much of expenditure on him , the court finally gave orders for his execution. So one can imagine that how much capital would have been wasted on this one man if he was given life imprisonment. If criminals like Kasab are allowed to stay in jail with others then he would have also caused harm to other inmates. So one should first think about the security of the people( although they are prisoners) before thinking about the cost. 2) Innocent or guilty- Capital punishment is not given abruptly to a person who is just suspected of committing a crime. It is a long process and each case of death penalty comes before the court at least three times and a death row usually lasts averagely for ten years. So it is well planned and is done after a lot of screening. The percentage of making mistakes in this lengthy process is very low. While giving exams we do have a fear of making mistakes but we still give our examinations right? Similarly only due to the fear of making mistakes in judgement one cannot not just do away with the whole system. 3) Racial bias- well this is a thing which had never crossed my mind while writing this debate. The country in which I live in doesn't have this problem . But yes, there is a distinction between rich and poor as richer people can always hire better lawyers, but the judgement of our supreme court is accepted by everybody as final. The Supreme court of our country is an independent body which is not at all under the influence of the president. But as this problem is prevalent in American and European countries I would like to say that death penalty is like a knife. You can use it to either cut vegetables or kill people. It really depends on your hand. Racial bias doesn't only affect the judgements of death penalty but everything. So one needs to get rid of racial bias not death penalty 4) Deterrence- Some examples that capital punishment does work well as a deterrent. 1: In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies 2: Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks." 3:A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. " 4: Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14). 5: For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor. So I conclude by saying that death penalty is indeed effective against murderers committing heinous crimes. citations [1]http://www.thehindu.com... [2]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [3]http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...

alright here goes so you say that all the death penalty does is basically go and murder more people and just cause more and more death. Well I really hope that your view isn't that someone who did some sort of heinous crime should get to have the chance of life, you may also say that they can probably change. that's great if they change. but it will not change the fact that, that person still murdered someone's father, mother, son or daughter. whatever they did they screwed up someone's family and could cause a whole world of problems for the victims family. that can and will not ever be cleared up.

Should the United States abolish the death penalty? That is the question I wish to answer in this debate. Note, from hereafter, Death Penalty will be abbreviated as "DP. "I wish my opponent the best of luck. *handshake*Contention 1: Execution is inhuman! C1.1) The Questionabl Methods of ExecutionBy questionable, I mean that it may be immoral as to how the DP is carried out. In the USA, there are 2 primary methods of execution. Electric Chair Lethal Injection The Electric Chair (EC hereafter)How does the EC kill? First, the electrocution causes the prisoner's muscles to spasm. This can cause dislocation and bone fractures. The prisoner defecates, tissues swell, and vomiting of blood is common. In all EC cases, a blindfold is applied. The reason is because the prisoner's eyes often pop out. Their body can emit smoke and in rare cases, may catch on fire. ". the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks. The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. The body turns bright red as its temperature rises, and the prisoner's flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner catches fire. .. .Witnesses hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the chamber. (Ecenbarger, 1994)" [1]Lethal Injection (LI hereafter)How does this kill? Let's take a look. the prisoner is bound to a gurney. The LI contains three primary drugs. They are: sodium thiopental This is a drug that paralyzes the victim and induces cardiac arrest. This finally ends the pain by stopping the heart. The anesthetic that is given first often wears off after about 7-10 minutes. What does this mean? This means that the second drug keeps them paralyzed while their heart is racing and they are in cardiac arrest. They cannot express their pain because of the paralyzation. [2]What does the United Nations have to say about this? "No-one shall be subject to torture or curuel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" [3]Questions for my opponent The United State's constitution clearly states that we are free and protected from cruel and unusual punishments. Does this sound cruel or what! C1.2) There is no fool proof method of preventing a botched executionSince 1982, there have been 43 botched executions! That is 43 bad execution in only 29 years! Let's take a few looks:Botched Execution 1: James Autery"Autrey took at least 10 minutes to die after the chemicals began to be injected. Throughout much of those 10 minutes, he was fully conscious and complained of pain. This was caused by the catheters clogging so delaying the transmission of the chemicals. It is also probable that the needle either did not enter the vein or passed through it. When the lethal chemicals enter the muscles instead, they cause considerable pain. "Botched Execution 2: James McCoy"McCoy had such a violent physical reaction to the drugs (heaving chest, gasping, choking, etc. ) that one of the witnesses (male) fainted, crashing into and knocking over another witness. The Texas Attorney General admitted the inmate "seemed to have somewhat stronger reaction," adding, "The drugs might have been administered in a heavier dose or more rapidly. " [4]Contention 2: The risk of killing an inoccent person is too greatSince 1993, 21 cases have been added to the list of wrongful executions [5. ]Is this really justice? How can we let an inoccent person die for a crime that they did not participate in. Isn't it much better if we abolish the death penalty so if we do have a mistaken case that it is reversable? | Summary |I have presented a good case that the curret methods of execution is immoral and that killing an inoccent person is too great of a risk. Back to you, con. I await your opening arguments. Sources1. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...2. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...3. . http://www.un.org...4. . http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org...5. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

I have to say my opponent is very specific and comprehensive in his arguments. So, I will respond in kind. I have two main sections: 1)Rebuttal & 2)Defense of my original arguments from my opponent's rebuttals.(I) REBUTTALC1. Capital Punishment saves innocent lives.SPA: Capital Punishment keeps a killer from striking again. As per Pro's own source 98.8% of those convicted of homicide were not rearrested. Only 1.2% were. And this was in 1994. Since Pro chose this year to make his argument, I am sure that even less were reaarested in years other than 1994. Of those rearrested, how many were actually convicted? Pro's source does not give the answer but this [1] source shows that the conviction rate for homicide cases is less than 10%. This means that about 0.12% of people released after committing a homicide were convicted again and 99.88% were not convicted of another homicide. The risk to the innocent public is extremely minimal at 0.12%. That is 1 in a thousand. The people on death row committed those crimes because they had nothing to lose. Once someone is sentenced to death, they have absolutely no reason to not try their best to escape and if necessary kill the police during the escape. They are already sentenced to death even if they behave. Where is the motivation.As for racial tensions between inmates and fatal fights in jail, they are common and not restricted to people who committed homicides.You mention that Clarence Ray Allen was sentenced to life without parole, he was released. How is that possible. What I am saying is that all people sentenced to the death penalty must be sentenced to life without parole. That means no release. To conclude SPA (what does SPA mean anyway? and C1?), life without parole also keeps a prisoner from killing if it is implemeted correctly. This should not be played around with and inmates sentenced to life without parole should not be released. So DP is not required to stop an offender from reoffending. Even if they are released, the chances of reoffending are miniscule.SPB: Capital Punishment has a deterrent effect.No, it does not! [2], [3], [4], [5]. You seem to be mixing coincidence with corelation. If you were right, then I could argue that it does not deter homicide because states with death penalty have a much higher homicide rate [3] and that executions make people want to kill. So, capital punishment does not save innocent lives because people who reoffend should have been locked up for life anyways and it doesn't deter other criminals from committing homicide.C2. The DP is a better punishment than Life without Parole.SPA: Life without parole does not always mean life.There may have been one case where one criminal sentenced to life without parole was eligible for parole. Whether he was actually paroled, pro's source doesn't say. In any case, taking the life of a person to safeguard against a possible future change in laws is an inhumane preemptive strike against life.SPB: Prisoners view the Death Penalty as harsh Firstly, the death penalty is not a punishment, it is a state sanctioned homicide. Secondly, of course the prisoners view dying as harsh. So, are you saying we should kill people so that others become scared? It is a reckless disregard of human life to kill in order to set an example for someone else. Besides this point seems too similar to the point about deterrence which I have already refuted in a more precise fashion.(II) DEFENSE OF MY ORIGINAL ARGUMENTS1) Human rights violation: Amnesty International is the supreme authority on what constitutes a human rights violation so pro can't just dismiss it as an "opinion." Also the United States cannot a police state which routinely abuses human rights for to save innocent lives or "for the greater good" as some other states like Zimbabwe and Nazi Germany might. Human rights are supreme and are not to be violated under any circumstances. 2) Barbaric and Medieval: The impact is that my opponent is saying "The vast majority (65%) of Americans disagree with my Opponent and believe that the Death Penalty is a moral action." and I am saying that support is actually declining. Secondly, medieval people are less civilized than modern people, hence modern people's abolition of the DP shows that it is a cruel medieval "punishment" just like drowning, iron maiden etc which will be abolished when people become civilized enough to do so. Thirdly, it is true that it is declining as my source shows. There is no reason to believe that Pro's source (Gallup polls) is any more credible or impartial than Amnesty International which is a sexy, top notch international organization. Galloping is something that horses do, so it is medieval. (okay, just kidding!)I agree that Con did not make those arguments. I made those arguments when it was my turn to provide opening arguments. 3) Costs more: My opponent's own source [6] says that the death penalty costs more. I'll take this point as a freebie and not waste time arguing further. Thank You thett3. :-)4) Leads to the death of innocent peopleHow dare Pro says that no examples are given since no examples exist?? <mock outrage> Again, Pro's own source says "Since 1973, 122 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Its imposition is irreversible which deprives an individual the right to benefit from new evidence that might lead to the reversal of a conviction." [6] There have been 273 post-concivtion exonerations in the United States. 17 of the 273 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.[7]And overall the U.S. has exonerated 138 death row inmates to dateI can't believe that my opponent would just let 138 innocent people die because of a miniscule possiblity that a future law change may cause someone who was sentenced to life without parole to be released and then commit a crime of which there is a 1 in a 1000 chance of hapenning. That is a blatant violation of human rights. Correction, this is genocide. 5) There are other optionsIf people escaped from prison, it only means that prisons should be more secure. That is the fault of the prison guards, not a reason to impose DP. 6) Doesn't help the victim or the victim's familyPro does not understand the point I am trying to make. I am saying that taking a life is wrong by any standards and even if we take a life in response to a criminal act, it is not worth it because the victim's life will not be restored and we will have two dead people. The prisoner's life is not taken when he/she is sentenced to life without parole. I think it was a miscommunication since my opponent and I seem to arguing two completely different things. Hope this clears it up.I saw the victim's families responses but the question remains: What do the victim's family get when the killer becomes the killed? 7) Cruel and Unusual punishmentThere is a difference between awaiting impending death in the near future than dying after living a natural life.Just because the supreme court says it doesn't mean that that's the way it should be. We are not debating what is, but what should be. Using the same logic, the vast majority 60% of Western Europeans are against the DP[7] so it proves that they don't consider it moral.ConclusionI have refuted all of my opponents points and defended my own against my opponent's refutation. Vote Con. Sources[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...;[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://www.enotes.com...[5] http://www.dartmouth.edu...;[6] http://www.globalpolitician.com...;[7] http://www.innocenceproject.org...;[8] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...;

the death penalty has put many criminals out of commision. The death penalty should stay it's not a bad thing it's the people. I do agree with part of your argument as they shouldn't execute innocent people. If the jury are not completely sure they did it should have an extra year to find evidence instead of completely getting rid of the death penalty.


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

The Death Penalty should be abolished in the United States.
In this round, I will focus on refuting the weak contentions put forward by the opposing side regarding the death penalty. The first contention is that the death penalty should be allowed because there are no cases of wrongful execution. However, there are documented cases of wrongful executions, including Cameron Willingham, Carlos DeLuna, and the Meeks. The claim that there are no wrongful executions is not supported by the evidence.
Case 1) Cameron Willingham - the citation used was an article in the Chicago Tribune that cast doubt on the expert testimony of arson that was part of the original trial. However, the investigation by the Texas Forensic Science Commission also couldn't rule out arson. The investigation by the Tribune didn't rule out arson either. All these investigations did was look at the arson investigation techniques used at the time and never examined the inconsistencies in his story. It is telling that his lawyer, David Martin, said "There was no question whatsoever that he was guilty."
Case 2) Carlos DeLuna - the citation used is an article in the Guardian U.K. that pointed to a study by Professor James Liebman and 12 students published in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. However, Professor Liebman is a longtime anti-death penalty advocate and there are reasons to be skeptical given his other dubious studies on the subject. Such as his study finding "serious error" in capital cases. When you look at the details and the actual cases, what you find is not the unreliability of lower courts but the Supreme Court, which retroactively changes the rules.
Case 3) Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin - this is a case where two men were wrongly executed, but we're talking about a murder that occurred in 1913 and I don't think a century-old case is a sufficient basis to attack the criminal justice system today and further argue we end capital punishment.
The second contention is that the death penalty is necessary for public safety. However, there is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. In fact, states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty. The death penalty is also more expensive than life imprisonment without parole.
The third contention is that the death penalty is necessary for justice for the victims. However, justice for the victims does not require the death penalty. Life imprisonment without parole is a sufficient punishment for heinous crimes and ensures that the perpetrator will never harm another person again.
In conclusion

in 1971 the LosAngeles Police Department reported that half of a group of suspects under arrest for robbery stated that they had decided not to carry or not use weapons in their "work" to avoid any risk of a killing which could lead totheir own execution. 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. Moreover, Even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, That is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty. Finally, The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, This is a form of incapacitation, Similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, Either in prison, Or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, The death penalty helps to prevent future crime. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder. It should be the strongest punishment for deterring. For Religion I simply said that you can ignore the argument, But no you had to laugh. Great conduct

The death penalty should definitely not remain in place. What image are we portraying to others if we solve killing with more killing?

First of all, my opponent has claimed I believe rehabilitation is an ALTERNATIVE to punishment. This is not the case, I pointed out that people can change, and rehabilitation is available to prevent re-offending, and should be a part of the punishment for lasting affects. My opponent also claims with death you have EVERYTHING to lose. Let's have an example; A young boy given up for adoption as a child, passed onto many different foster parents, never settling into a family life. Over time takes on a life of crime. Eventually committing such a crime that sentence's him to death. This guy has no family, no real friends, no real life. He has nothing to lose, death isn't a worry to such a person, who has he to miss and who is there to miss him. Granted, not everyone will have such a story, but many criminals hold the same social and family issues. So just to state, I am not against punishment, just capital punishment. Saying that, I also believe stronger punishments will help to prevent future re-offending. My opponent has some pre conception of a state prison. Yes, you here many stories of some criminals living the life of luxury behind bars, but this really isn't the case. Here are a few links from many prisons, none of which state any such luxury's: . http://www.british-prisons.co.uk... . http://www.opsi.gov.uk... . http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk... . http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk... You must also take into serious consideration, no matter the crime or mental state of mind of any prisoner, every human has human rights. As a living, breathing person, one is entitled to fresh air and leisure time. It is just immoral to lock someone in a cage no matter the seriousness of their crimes. Prison security makes sure RIGHTS like these are handed out safely to prevent any risk of escape or further crimes being committed at that time. Now, my opponent seems to believe that capital punishment is in comparison to self defense! There is no denying a criminal should not be punished, but the punishment should under no circumstances be death. I accept that for the sake of the argument, and to save any confusion, we shall argue that murder is the primary target of this debate. My opponent has still failed in two attempts to state what good capital punishment does for society. Granted, if, after many years in prison and countless hours of rehabilitation does not change a person, letting them back into society should not be considered an option. But keeping that person behind bars until they die of natural causes, is just as effective in keeping society that little bit safer as killing them is. So what seems the fairer choice there? Another point, which has not yet been raised, there is always room for mistake. Many times, a law abiding citizen has lost their life down to their countries justice system, only for the true perpetrator of the crime to come forward many years later, when the outcome cannot be reversed. Let's face it, guilty or not, the majority of criminals will protest their innocence, who's to say that half of the inmates on death row as we speak are actually innocent of their apparent crimes? One thing that cannot be reversed is taking someone's life, and all too often, the jury are wrong in their decision. I believe this to be a very strong point to the argument and should not be bypassed. . http://www.commondreams.org... The death penalty is barbaric and belongs in the past. There is no evidence of the death penalty having any deterrent effect, life imprisonment without parole is just as effective a means of preventing re-offending, any system of capital punishment is bound to make mistakes, and who are we to take another human being's life in any case? Most countries have got rid of it already. However, a few - including China, the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - still regularly put people to death. They should join the civilised world and make the death penalty history. . http://www.squidoo.com... I hope everything I have stated is taken into consideration as well as my opponents lack of opposing arguments. The death penalty is inhumane, two wrongs do not make a right.

Paragraph 1- My opponent fails to realize that she has agreed to the fact that George Zimmerman deserved to be punished, the only possible way that he would be punished is through Capital Punishment. She's advocating that it was wrong for him not to receive it. Thus she is contradicting everything she is standing against. He won't get jail time, he'll be executed. As much as she's like to disagree, she said it herself. "Those who deserve punishment do not receive it." she believes he deserves to be pusnished. The only way he will be punished is through Capital Punishment.Paragraph 2- I'd like to see a statistic stating so.Paragraph 3- There is a significant difference between torturing someone and putting them to death. Torture is longer and inflicts more pain upon a person, and that is not the goal the government is trying to achieve. The government is attempting to keep things proportional and execute the murderer. Torturing them would be doing too much. That's the same as smashing someone's brain and forcing them to live life with it, they can't do anything and they would just sit there, doing nothing. Why would you want someone to suffer? That's immoral. She even argued earlier that people wil psychological disorders should not be punished for murder, so why turn a murderer into one of them? Paragraph 4-My opponents argument falls.Paragraph 5- I'm sorry that you were raped, and I'm going to sound somewhat insensitive, but I'm just debating. In other words, don't take this too personally. The reason murder outweighs rape is because when a life is lost, the victim no longer has the ability to feel anything. They no longer have the ability to breathe. They don't get to feel anything. With rape, there is a chance of recovery. Knowing that my opponent is human, I can safely say that my opponent has probably smiled or been happy since the rape occured, sure it's a horrible memory, but she has the freedom and liberty to choose whether or not to dwell on it or not. Attitude is everything. Self-esteem, self-worth, peace of mind, trust in others, etc. that can all be rebuilt. A life, cannot. Which is why we provide such a heavy consequence for murder. Rape victims, they can at least feel happy again, they can laugh, they can participate in activities that they enjoy. But tell me, what do dead victims get to do? Paragraph 6- If a person is a truly hearted killer and they show no remorse for their murder for as long as 10 years, it is easy to see that they probably won't change. Also, in her next paragraph she peaks about cruel and unusual punishment, but apparently psychological torture isn't? Paragraph 7- Capital Punishment does NOT represent days where corporal punishments were common punishments. By that logic, I would assume that people of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are representative of 9/11? No. They were not responsible for what occured. That's like me blaming every white person today for having ancestors who once owned my ancestors. It's not their fault.

=== INTRO === I am debating as Pro for the elimination of the death penalty in the United States. I will list the reasons why I support its elimination below. === Ethical === I contend that the death penalty is ethically/morally wrong due to the inalienable rights that all people reserve. I feel that every human being has an inalienable right to live, regardless of past crimes. State sponsored murder is unjust in a civilized society that has the capability to safely detain criminals without killing them. To react to murder with murder is unethical. As Gandhi said, if everyone took an eye for an eye, the world would be blind. === Logical === I contend that the death penalty is inherently illogical. To show that murder is wrong by murdering the perpetrator is contradictory. It would be as if someone stole from me, which is wrong, so I decided to steal from him/her. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the death penalty for murder cases is especially ironic in that sense. === Practical === A) Cost: I contend that the death penalty is impractical due to high costs. In California, the death penalty currently costs $137 billion per year. If this was replaced with a life sentence, the cost would be $11.5 billion.[1] Many other states yield nearly identical comparisons, along with nationwide death penalty trials averaging 8 times the cost of a normal trial.[2] The overwhelming majority of reputable empirical studies reinforce these findings.[3] B) Ineffectiveness: I contend that the death penalty is ineffective at being a crime deterrent. In fact, the states that utilize capital punishment the most have the highest crime rates.[4][5][6] Additionally, 88% of criminologists do not view it as an effective crime deterrent either.[7] C) Innocence: I contend that the death penalty should be eliminated because innocent people can be killed by its usage. If a convict is imprisoned, but later found to be innocent, he/she can be provided with reparations and compensation for the state's egregious mistake. However, with the death penalty in play, an innocent inmate can receive no compensation once executed. A list of freed inmates on death row: [8] D) International Opinion: I contend that the death penalty does damage to America's image. Most US allies such as Australia, Germany, and Italy frown upon capital punishment, which doesn't help with America's image when viewing the matter from where they stand.[9][10][11] === CONCLUSION === The death penalty should be eliminated due to a combination of reasons, which include the ethical, logical, and practical dilemmas associated with its usage. === Sources === 1. http://www.deathpenalty.org... 2. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... 3. http://deathpenalty.procon.org... 4. http://www.amnestyusa.org... 5. http://tech.mit.edu... 6. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... 7. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org... 8. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 9. http://www.angus-reid.com... 10. http://www.roymorgan.com... 11.http://en.wikipedia.org...

I agree with the terms he set up. Here's my rebuttal of his arguments. Rebuttal to Contention 1: Deterrent EffectActually, in another study Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. LaCock in 2007, a large consensus among criminologists was that it added no deterrent effects that a life sentence couldn't already achieve. [1]"Richard Berk noted that the execution figures by state by year for the 1977 to 1997 period were highly skewed. Berk specifically noted that most statesâ€"accounting for 859 of the 1,000 observationsâ€"had zero executions in a given year, and only a few states had more than a handful in a few years, with most of these being from Texas. He used a straightforward procedure to assess the implications of this skewed measure: using Mocan and Gittingsâ€™s original data set, he removed the Texas data and ran the model exactly as the original authors did, albeit only for the other forty-nine states. The deterrent effect of executions disappeared. Berk concluded that 'it would be bad statistics and bad social policy to generalize from the 11 observations to the remaining 989. '" [2] The study shows the flaws in previous studies conducted about deterrence in a death sentence. But let's just assume that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. My opponent goes on to say that being tough on crime sends a message that crime doesn't pay and criminals will feel the consequences of the crime. He also says that capital punishment will shows them that they'll receive even more problems in prison. But the death penalty reinforces that killing is fine, as long as it's the government doing it. "The death penalty is used to deter killers, but it models the very behavior it seeks to prevent. It teaches the lesson that it is acceptable to kill, as long as the state is the one doing the killing. Hence the term 'capital punishment. ' This is somewhat paradoxical. As my friend Jed said, 'We don't like people who kill other people, so to show everyone how much we don't like people who kill people, we are going to kill people who kill other people. It seems like capital punishment pretty much goes against everything it claims to be for. ' The death penalty answers violence with counter-violence. As American novelist Wendell Berry said, 'Violence breeds violence. Acts of violence committed in "justice" or in affirmation of "rights" or in defense of "peace" do not end violence. They prepare and justify its continuation. '" [3]So why should the death penalty be used as a deterrent if the government is using it in a hypocritical way? My opponent then says that, since we haven't had many executions, the rates of murder have gone down, but the rates of aggravated assault and rape has gone up. But, according to the list of crimes that the death penalty applies to, rape and aggravated assault aren't on there. [4] The rise of rape and aggravated assault is irrelevant to the argument. Let's get back to when my opponent said that the rates of murder actually went down since we've had less executions over the years. This is a defensive argument and proves the point that the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent. Rebuttal to Contention 2: Lack of AlternativesMy opponent says that Psychology Today states that conditions such as psychopathy are prevalent in criminal activity and that there's no cure. He never linked to the article, he just linked to the same FBI crime rate statistics from his last argument. This is probably a mistake, but without the proof, this can be thrown out as a bare assertion. Then, he says that 5% to 10% of death row inmates suffer from severe mental illness. So are you saying that we should punish them for being mentally ill or for the crime they committed? My opponent goes on to say that it isn't necessarily treatable and that many dangerous criminals show very little empathy or remorse. But we shouldn't kill them because they might be psychopaths. This is punishing someone they have no control over. Proof? "In 2012, Dr. Kent Kiehl, a psychologist at the University of Mexico and one of the foremost experts on psychopathy, discovered that psychopaths have reduced gray matter in the paralimbic system of the brain. His longtime suspicions were confirmed: Psychopaths -- who are unremorseful and antisocial -- have fundamentally different brains than the rest of us. The finding was replicated in psychopathic youth the following year. While the link between brain structure and psychopathy is correlational, the youth data strongly suggested that the stunted paralimbic system is present from birth. " [5] Yes, they should be held responsible for their actions, just like anybody else with a mental illness, but my opponent's third paragraph of Contention 2 implied that we should kill them because they're psychopaths and not for the crimes they commit, which somewhat goes against his argument. After this, my opponent brings up the cost of maximum security and the cost of all prisoners, which are both very hefty prices. But I found a comparison of maximum security and death row inmates, if you take cost into account. "In Texas, one death penalty case costs the state about 2.3 million dollars. This is three times higher than what it would cost to imprison one inmate in the highest security prison cell available for 40 years. " [6] Does this not prove that maximum security costs less than death row? Let's get back to the second half of my opponent's argument where he says that the cost of all prisoners in the United States is $190 million. Wouldn't death row inmates be combined in that cost? Look back at the quote comparing death row costs to maximum security, at least in Texas. The cost would be reduced if we didn't have the death penalty in the first place. After all, like my opponent said, this money could be used to help the American economy. Then, he says that federal reform can't fix this problem because there are ways for prisoners to escape. But people waiting for death row can still escape from prison. The average time inmates wait for execution is just under 16 years. [7] This is still plenty of time to escape. Rebuttal to Contention 3: CostMost of my opponent's arguments revolve around plea bargains, so I'll also focus on that my my rebuttal. Plea Bargain- an arrangement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge in the expectation of leniency. [8]Yes, I agree that the plea bargain will greatly reduce the costs of the case and prosecution, but not every criminal will take a plea bargain. Regardless, the costs of the death penalty are still very high, which my opponent points out. Again, this makes for a defensive argument and proves a point I'll provide in my opening statements. Rebuttal to Contention 4: Reforms NecessaryIn this argument, my opponent goes on to say that we could give more funding to the judicial system, the police force, and defense. Mind you, in my opponent's last argument, he quotes the following:“Defense costs were about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution costs were as much as four times higher than for non-death penalty cases. ” [9] Too much money goes into the death penalty already, as I'll prove in my opening statements. My opponent said earlier that $190 million goes into prisoners already. Why add to the high cost by funding them more when we can get rid of the death penalty and save money. Thank you and good bye. I look forward to my opponent's defense. Citations[1]. http://deathpenalty.org...[2]http://www.deathpenalty.org...[3]https://www.psychologytoday.com...[4]https://www.google.com...[5]https://www.google.com...[6]http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com...[7]http://blogs.findlaw.com...[8]https://www.google.com...[9]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

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.

alright here goes so you say that all the death penalty does is basically go and murder more people and just cause more and more death. Well I really hope that your view isn't that someone who did some sort of heinous crime should get to have the chance of life, you may also say that they can probably change. that's great if they change. but it will not change the fact that, that person still murdered someone's father, mother, son or daughter. whatever they did they screwed up someone's family and could cause a whole world of problems for the victims family. that can and will not ever be cleared up.

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.

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...