Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Criminals are deterred by the death penalty and fear death.

Supporters of the death penalty argue that criminals do indeed fear death, contrary to what abolitionists may claim. If criminals were truly indifferent to the consequences of their actions, one might wonder how law enforcement manages to apprehend them without resorting to lethal force. In most instances, when a police officer points a gun at a suspect and orders them to surrender, the suspect complies. This compliance suggests that, despite popular belief, criminals are not impervious to fear. Fear is not a complex thought process but an instinctive response to the presence of lethal power. The following examples illustrate this point, debunking the myth that fear requires a conscious decision-making process.

I appreciate my opponent's clarity, and that he took the time to define the terms he used. Jonathon defines murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being to another" - I feel that premeditated should be a keyword as well; preï¿½medï¿½iï¿½tate: to meditate, consider, or plan beforehand: to premeditate a murder. I mentioned in my previous argument that killings can happen for different reasons and is certainly immoral. But, in some cases people who commit a murder do so in self-defense, from emotional trauma caused by that person, or mental, physical, emotional, or even sexual abuse. Those people deserve something less severe than capital punishment and some need to get themselves help instead of being punished. Jonathon mentions in Contention 1 "One may argue that execution is wrong but how righteous is the killing of an innocent human being?" - that is one of the points I am trying to make. As mentioned, our justice system is far from perfect. Sometimes it is biased, corrupted, lawyers use trickery on the jury, the jury is not always trustworthy with choosing one's fate, innocent people are wrongfully accused for crimes they did not commit, some spend decades in jail until the truth finally comes out, and unfortunately, some die from execution before and if it does. Also in this paragraph, it is mentioned that the only "clear" solution is capital punishment, however, jail time for whatever is deserved of that crime seems like a fine solution, too. In Contention 2, he mentions that the death penalty is proportional because it is taking the life away from someone who took another's life away. But again I say, does killing someone for killing really teach a lesson? What if we were to rape a rapist for raping or kidnap a kidnapper? Killing someone for murder does not bring back the person(s) murdered. Also, lethal injection is not the primary punishment for all states that permit the death penalty; some still allow electrocution, lethal gas, or the firing squad, which all inflict much more pain than putting someone to sleep. Adding on, the suffering of a lifetime in jail is just as bad if not worse than capital punishment. In all seriousness, it is like when you were a kid, your parent told you to "go to your room and think about what you've done" but for several years, if not a lifetime. I realize that some criminals show no remorse for their crimes, but a large portion keep that guilt with them for the rest of their lives and constantly think about the harm they have done; guilt can truly eat a person alive, and even push someone towards killing his or herself or having suicidal thoughts. Plus, though they have a bed and 3 square meals, they have completely lost their freedom, families, jobs, and chances of improving their lives. On top of that, they are surrounded by criminals and possibly in fear of their own lives everyday. Furthermore, jail time is a better punishment than the death penalty and non-hypocritical as well.

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

Firstly I will defend your arguments "How could this man possibly just go to prison."Very easily, he could be given a life sentence and you would never see him again. Some would argue life in prison is worse than death "He took innocent lives so why shouldn't a fair punishment for him be the death penalty." Because death penalty is costly [1] and the person who they find to be the murderer may be the wrong person [2]"An eye for eye, right?"Wrong. Many well respected people (ahem Gandhi) didn't believe this to be true "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."Actually, the chances of being falsely accused of the death penalty are 0.897226753670473% (although this is only based on cases that we suspect, there is undouptably countless other cases that we haven't suspected) and the chances of being killed by meteor are 0.00039999999999999996% so the chance of being killed by accidentally accusation is much higher.[3] "The death penalty offers more reward than risk."What are these rewards? "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."Based on what evidence? Now onto my arguments Argument 1- It costs so much money to kill someone.According to my sources [1] it costs over 2.4 million taxpaying dollars to put someone through death penalty. I did that math and that amounts to approx. two billion nine hundred forty-two million four hundred thousand dollars being wasted killing people, and twenty-six million four hundred thousand of that was spent on killing innocent peopleArgument 2- It doesn't deter crime ratesStudies have shown that the death penalty doesn't deter crime, states without death penalty actually have lower crime rates (whether this is relevant or not is up to your interpretation) Argument 3- If the state is allowed to kill people whose to decide who they can't kill?If the state has the power to kill someone simply because their judges say so whose to say they can't falsely accuse an enemy of the state and kill them? [1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.wired.com...[4] http://www.deathpenalty.org...

Thank you, both for your thorough response and willingness to pick up such a hot debate. I was a little startled, though, that you "advocate the death penalty because ...with out [these convicted criminals] in it the world is a better place." That seems to me to be a bit of a rash statement, particularly given your statement that you are an "avid Catholic". Having attended a Catholic school for many years, I have repeatedly been told that, according to your faith and many others around the world, all people possess a human dignity given to them by God, the creator of all things. Anything created by God, which is anything and anyone on the planet, is therefore valuable. Even the most disreputable or those who have committed the most heinous crimes never deserve harm or the intention of harm from others. The gospel of Luke supports this strongly, as does that of Matthew. For instance, Matthew 13 contains a story called approximately "the weeds among the wheat". If you request, I can explain the story in detail, but its moral is that God is responsible for the punishment of souls, not us on earth. That being said, I also refuse to believe that even the worst criminals do not benefit the world in some way. I do not believe that this benefit is from their crime, or even anything related to it; but these are living human beings, with relationships, families, and friends. How can one choose to draw a line--for instance, second degree murder--upon a set of human lives? Such things cannot be classified upon a court sentence alone, as some may be capable of reform, some may have only aided in the crime due to personal suffering, and some may be innocent, even if the court has evidence that proves them guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where do you draw the line or even a chart showing when a life is no longer worthwhile, showing some dotted curve between unborn children and mass murderers? And who are we to draw that line at all? That being said, I do not believe that we should simply let them go; when damage is done, damage is done. But there are so many other, more responsible and less harmful punishments that can be used. Service hours have always been one of my favorites, though for some, a mental ward may be the only healthy setting. Regardless, while rape and murder may result in loss of life or dignity, more loss of life and dignity solves no problem.

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

First I would like to apologies for forfeiting one of the rounds. It was out of my hands. So let me start. Let us first picture a world without death penalty. Well, I see crime rates as high as ever, murders increasing everyday and innocent people not getting their rights back. Chaos roams the streets and people committing crimes to get money and in their heads they know that the worst that can happen to them is prison. For some prison might even be a relief compared to their living standards. So abolishing death penalty only encourages people to break the law and murder more innocent people. More gangs would form and assassinations increase because of the lower punishment received. Right now, some countries that have death penalty are very fragile. The only line between chaos and peace is death penalty. Some might say the cost of killing a criminal is not worth it. Well let me tell you one thing, is the cost of safety not worth it? Would you rather have a peaceful community and pay some extra taxes or would you rather pay less tax and live in a dangerous environment. One of the issues of death penalty is making a mistake in the trails. No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976. Therefore I believe that all the points provided by my opponent are weak and are not strong enough to outweigh the advantages to death penalty.

First off, I never said that the Bible says specifically that capital punishment is justified. This debate is to show that if we really read the Bible, that God supports capital punishment. Second, my opponent used scriptures from the Old Testament, but the Jesus says specifically that he has come to offer a new testament. Therefore, because my scripture is from the new testament and his are from the old testament, his scriptures would be of lesser relevance than my scriptures. Third, in the Old Testament, there are many statements in which God tells people to kill others for their wrongdoing and says so in Lev. 24-17, that if you kill a man that you should be put to death. Now that is a pure example of capital punishment in the Bible. Here is my argument-God tells us to kill someone if they killed someone. Capital Punishment kills people who have committed murder,Therefore, capital punishment is justified according to the Bible. My opponent has supported my case by providing scriptures in which God has killed people for the things he dislikes which comes to my second argument-God tells us as a nation, to kill people for committing sins, or deeds that he doesn't like. In the Bible, there are several statements in which God tells us he doesn't like murderers. Therefore, we, as a nation, must kill murders. Because the nation is upholding capital punishment instead of us as individuals, therefore, capital punishment is justified according to the word of God. Now this is the part were God himself never said anything about Capital punishment being justified, as we all read my opponent verse he used as his proof as you can see GOD never spoke, the words that gave that away that a man wrote this, a man (human) wrote this say's FOR GOD, OF GOD. Them two little phrases themselves speak for it all that GOD himself never said such things. Then my opponent will say well god spoke through the man who wrote this, no there is no physical nor proven facts that GOD really spoke to this man or woman telling her to say such things, if there is physical proof then please post it up for all the viewers to see this proof. By stating these words, my opponent has ideally contradicted himself. He has seem to have stated that the Bible is not the word of God. Therefore, it is ideal that this man doesn't understand that he himself has refuted his own evidence because I could also say God didn't say Thou shall not kill! He wrote on a tablet Thou shalt not kill and told Moses to tell it to the Israelites. My opponent has merely posted this contradictory argument-The Bible is the Word of God. God didn't say that scripture. Therefore, that is not the word of God. This argument is not true at all. Heres more proof for this so call GOD said, now all my voters and my opponent take a good look at this, going through every single verse reading not once did god say such things about capital punishment only person who said something about capital punishment was the person who wrote the bible, since there like i said no physical evidence that god spoke such things to this person then the rulling of god saying that capital punishment is justified is truely false when god himself never took a pen and wrote all the words in the bible himself. If he did, the bible ill say something like this I am god and i say capital punishment is justify. But since no verse said such thing only the ones that said I am your father, or I am God the alpha and omega, there is still no proof as i explain that god never said capital punishment is justified in the bible. That man himself wrote the bible. My opponent broke the first rule in the other rules which clearly states that all biblical sources, scriptures, must be accepted as true. In the statement he clearly states that my source is not true by saying that it wasn't written by God but that is not true because it was written by an apostle of God named Paul. He has basically said that the entire word of God false by stating that Man himself wrote the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God, therefore he wrote it through people. I also can say that his scriptures are not true because he can't prove that God wrote it, but then I would be contradicting myself. My opponent has broken two rules already in this debate.

Well, my fine future opponent, be prepared for a beating as I am going to disprove the death penalty! A short snappy argument, a short snappy rebuttal (Optional). Rounds are as follows: 1 - Acceptance Round / First Argument From PRO (Cause I'm that kind!) 2 and 3 - Arguments Only 500 Characters!? Oh No! This time, we cut the crap and get straight into the discussion. Good Luck, You'll Need It!

I believe that the death penalty should be abolished in every state of America. 1. The death penalty is morally wrong and it contradicts the entire point of putting someone in prison in the first place. ( To learn from their mistakes and become better people. 2. In States where the Death Penalty is in place, murder rates are actually higher than those where there is no Death Penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 3. In some cases it is cheaper to sentence a person to life imprisonment, than to sentence them with death. (Court Costs) 4. More tax is needed to maintain the Death Penalty. 5. There is a chance that the lethal injection will be administered in the wrong order, or there will be something that goes wrong with during the process. This can cause the prisoner to feel the pain that comes with the lethal injection. 6. In a lot of cases that are sent to the supreme court, it depends more on the attorney that you have been appointed ( Most offenders do not have one so they are appointed one by the system ) than the actual crime you have committed. I look forward to this debate.

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


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

The use of capital punishment should be permitted. However, how is this justified? If the aim is to deter murder, it paradoxically makes no sense to execute individuals as a form of retribution. It's quite contradictory, don't you think?

Here's my defense against my opponent's rebuttals.Defense I : RightsMy opponent claims that, because of the time the Declaration of Independence was written, they'd never know how we'd punish criminals today. But this contradicts that statement:"This means that nobody - including the government - can try to end your life. It also means the government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life by making laws to protect you and, in some circumstances, by taking steps to protect you if your life is at risk. Public authorities should also consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or that affect your life expectancy." [1]There are only four exceptions to this and none of which would make the death penalty acceptable. "Article 2 is often referred to as an â€˜absolute rightâ€™. These are rights that can never be interfered with by the state. There are situations, however, when it does not apply."For example, a personâ€™s right to life is not breached if they die when a public authority (such as the police) uses necessary force to:"stop them carrying out unlawful violencemake a lawful arreststop them escaping lawful detainment, andstop a riot or uprising." [1]Here's another quote to really hammer in my point:"What the law says"Article 2: Right to life"1. Everyoneâ€™s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law."2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary..." [1]Defense II : CostsYes, a plea bargian will reduce the costs like my opponent said, but not every case will end in a plea bargain. That's a fact. Yes, it's a high number of 90% [2], but in no way is that all cases. The cost is high regardless.My opponent goes on to say that we aren't debating the current system, but the death penalty in general. Regardless, the cost is high. Can my opponent deny this?Defense III : InnocentsMy opponent claims that since the rates of the death penalty "gone down", the rates of innocent people being executed will surely go down. In fact, this notion is wrong. Why?"From 1973-1999, there were an average of 3.03 exonerations per year. From 2000-2013, there have been an average of 4.29 exonerations per year." [3]This shows that the rates have actually gone up. But that's besides the point. One in 25 innocents are killed with the death penalty. [4] This still proves my point that innocents are killed by the death penalty. My opponent can't deny this. With a life sentence, if the inmate is innocent, you can let them out. Can you do that is someone is killed with the death penalty?Defense IV: Racial Prejudice"According to a recently updated study by Professor Katherine Beckett of the University of Washington, jurors inWashington 'were four and one half times more likely to impose a sentence of death when the defendant was black than they were in cases involving similarly situated white defendants.'" [5]"From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims. All-white or virtually all-white juries are still commonplace in many localities." [6]Defense V: Closure"What does it mean to get over grief? It means not being in pain over our loss forever. We tend to think discomforts are permanent, and good feelings are only temporary. Pain can be temporary too. We don’t forget or stop loving the person we loved, but we don’t always have to grieve. We can love and remember without pain. Ultimately, grief does subside." [7]Grief doesn't magically go away. Like I said in my opening statements, only 2.7% of cases bring closure. And where do they get the money to support these families? How do we support them? Can't a life sentence be a viable option?Citations:[1]https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...[2]http://criminal.findlaw.com...[3]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4]http://www.newsweek.com...[5]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[6]http://www.amnestyusa.org...[7]http://www.judytatelbaum.com...

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

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?

"--> The death penalty takes away the life of a person which is most certainly not considered saving a life." I should say, the death penalty saves innocent lives. 6% of murderers repeat their crime. If they are executed, then they can't repeat their crime. That's saving lives. "-->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." Read this: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... "-->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." Generally murder is considered bad. I don't know about you, but I think murder is pretty immoral. Also, I'm looking at this from a utilitarian point of view. I am causing more good by executing this person, because I am saving innocent lives. Clearly execution is the way to go. "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.)" The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty numerous times. It is not cruel and it is not unusual. It is a legal punishment. "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." The system of appeals that we use for capital crimes is so thorough that inmates on Death Row are 6 times more likely to be let out on an appeal than they are to be executed. The odds of an innocent being executed are miniscule. 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. "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." 6% of murderers let out on parole repeat their crime. Face it, some things never change. "Killing a person, whatever the reason, is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right." Saving lives is most certainly just, and that's what execution does, it saves lives. It is not wrong to kill an evil person. Even if we look at it from a deontological perspective, we are justified in killing them, because we are still treating them as an end, albeit a bad one. I affirm the death penalty.

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.

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

Ok so for one your acceptance sounds like an argument.... My case: 1. The death penalty is a hypocritical punishment saying not to kill then killing. ( even if they are not innocent ). 2. The death penalty may kill innocents that have been convicted. 3.The death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment. My opponent says even rapists and pedophiles should get the death penalty, which in some states isn't possible. However my opponent is only wishing to destroy something he does not understand, the reason why these people do what they do. Most of these people need punishment and treatment not death. If the government is going to stand by the banner of a sanctity of life then we need to stop being hypocrites and follow that banner all the way.

I like the point you are trying to prove. Rather clever and I would say I could agree to some extent. Although it sounds so easy when you put it that way. Cheaper costs, more cruelty to the criminal and happiness to the victims. But as you've mentioned, death is an eternal sleep and to some, it is an escape from their wretched lives. So in your prospective, dying is a positive thing because the person will not live anymore? As you've defined death for me, let me define life to you. Life is about seeing the world, learning about different cultures and expanding knowledge. Yes, having a person confined in prison will make their life a pain. But in my opinion, having their "lives" stunted from diversity and knowledge is basically enough to be a pain. Also, of course a criminal would be sentenced to jail but not every single criminal, whether it be a thief, a murderer or a rapist will be sentenced a LIFETIME of confinement. So why not imprison them to suffer (As your point to not believing in death penalty is so that the criminal will live a life of discomfort.) and then have them killed after they've served the number of years they deserve in prison? Further more, let's take a killer for example. Mark David Chapman. Famously known to be responsible for second degree murder on to John Lennon. This man was sentenced 20 years to a life time in prison. Let's say the circumstance was that they decided to let him go after 20 years. Yes he's rot in prison for 2 decades. But now he's out, what's going to stop him from killing someone else or commiting another crime? Now with this context of him happily out of jail, he can live his life and live happily with his family. Same goes for most criminals who are not sentenced a life time of imprisonment. They get to live their lives in the end once they've been let out. What I'm trying to prove is that criminals should be confined and then be punished with death. Leaving them no chance to explore the world, learn about cultures, and expand knowledge.

Well, I do see the morality issue that you have placed, which is quite intently the biggest proponent for anti-death penalty cases. However, I see that the death penalty should only be used for the utmost important and gravest offences. Petitioners, sentenced to die for the crimes they committed (including, in the case of one petitioner since put to death, raping and murdering an 11"month-old baby), come before this Court asking us to nullify their sentences as 'cruel and unusual' under the Eighth Amendment. Citing some sources from the American constitution and dppc.com; They rely on this provision because it is the only provision they can rely on. They were charged by a sovereign State with murder. They were afforded counsel and tried before a jury of their peers"tried twice, once to determine whether they were guilty and once to determine whether death was the appropriate sentence. They were duly convicted and sentenced... Not once in the history of the American Republic has this Court ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible. The reason is obvious: It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth Amendment provides that No person shall be held to answer for a capital...crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,' and that no person shall be 'deprived of life...without due process of law... Historically, the Eighth Amendment was understood to bar only those punishments that added "terror, pain, or disgrace" to an otherwise permissible capital sentence... I would not presume to tell parents whose life has been forever altered by the brutal murder of a child that life imprisonment is punishment enough. Which is why, due to the rare use of this penalty, there would not be much monetary problems that will ensue.

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


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

This House holds that the Death Penalty should be Terminated

Thank you for accepting the invitation to this discussion. I shall begin by stating that the death penalty is nothing more than a legalized form of murder. It involves the forcible termination of a person's life, which is inherently wrong. The concept of 'an eye for an eye' does not make the world a better place. The harshest penalty for crimes such as murder or kidnapping is often reserved to express society's disapproval. However, the death penalty is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder, executed in a cruel and calculated manner.

Moreover, once carried out, the death penalty cannot be reversed. This has been highlighted by the American Law Institute in a recent report. Judges and juries are not infallible, and legal systems worldwide are not immune to errors in crime investigation. There is always a risk that an innocent person may be wrongly convicted and executed. This is a grave injustice that cannot be rectified. Since 1973, over 130 people in the US have been released from death row due to evidence of wrongful convictions. Consider the case of Michael Richard, who was mentally disabled. On the day of his execution in 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on the constitutionality of lethal injection. His lawyers were unable to file a petition in time, and he was executed. Had the petition been filed, he might still be alive today.

Justice Harry Blackmun, in 1994, declared that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral errors in the justice system means that the death penalty must be abolished. It wrongly kills some defendants and fails to deliver fair, consistent, and reliable sentences of death as required by the Constitution.

Anthony Graves, a man exonerated from Texas' death row in 2010, argues that the system is not infallible and that many innocent men and women on death row are at risk of being wrongly executed. This is not only unjust but irreversible.

Furthermore, the death penalty is unfair. It is hypocritical for the state to murder a murderer when it does not punish other crimes in a similar manner. If the death penalty is justified on the grounds of 'an eye for an eye', then all other crimes should be punished accordingly.

Some argue that the death penalty saves taxpayers money by avoiding the costs of housing a convict. However, the cost of death penalty trials, involving endless appeals, legal wrangling

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

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

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.

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

=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...

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

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

Hello, I would like to address a few of your points. While your wording is precise, and fancy it isn"t addressing the issues I present, at all. For example you saying your rebuttal "In order for the punishment itself to be cruel or unusual, it would have to intend for this kind of thing to happen; and quite frankly, we cannot expect all of the other inmates to behave or act compassionately" It doesn"t matter if the state wants psychological torment to happen or not, it happens in almost all cases. This makes it inhumane. For example, the US hung people when putting them to death, they then found this to be inhumane even though the state was not trying to be inhumane. So, your argument has no foundation. That is exactly like killing someone while driving drunk. The drunk driver has no intent to kill anyone yet when he does that doesn"t mean he gets off. On that basis your argument is flawed from the foundation. Just because the government may or may not intend to doesn"t mean that they can"t be held accountable for their actions.. It"s simple law 101 Next, your counter to my arguments based on my findings of statistics on the death penalty. "The flaw here is that this simply does not relate to the subject of whether or not the punishment is to great for the crime. On the other hand, the first bit mentioned here is simply a false analogy. Just because some countries have a history with abusing natural rights, does not mean that all of their principles do so" Sir, you seem very smart, and so in the most respectful way I"m truly puzzled because this statement really makes me judge your knowledge on this subject" China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are known human rights abusers".1,2 So I don"t feel at all secure in our government being a list with those countries do you, and if you do I would say the average reasonable American would not. Finally according a study found that 4.1 percent of death row inmates were innocent. That means that one in twenty five were killed for no reason.3 So I ask you, if that was a loved one and they were put to death and new evidence came out that they were innocent would you still take this stance? If one of twenty five of those inmates were falsely accused and murdered by our government I don"t think it"s even a discussion if this is cruel or unusual. 4 This is the official stance of the EU on the death penalty "The death penalty is incompatible with human dignity. It constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment, does not have any proven deterrent effect and allows judicial errors to become irreversible and fatal." All of this is one hundred percent true, and if my opponent has anyway the death penalty, which starts at sentencing, is humane then please share it. I have not even gone into the botched death penalty proceedings. If we are the last first world country to practice this of all the countries, I am going to side with the other countries. And also, on your last paragraph.. I agree capital punishment is not an eye for an eye. It is the prolonged psychological torture and forced isolation that ultimately after years of false hope leads to the death of a civilian by the government that has the duty to protect them. In this case I could argue, that it is worse than some of the crimes committed by the inmates. 1http://www.independent.co.uk... 2https://www.amnesty.org... 3https://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4https://eeas.europa.eu... Please answer my arguments directly as I did yours, and good luck.

Thank you, both for your thorough response and willingness to pick up such a hot debate. I was a little startled, though, that you "advocate the death penalty because ...with out [these convicted criminals] in it the world is a better place." That seems to me to be a bit of a rash statement, particularly given your statement that you are an "avid Catholic". Having attended a Catholic school for many years, I have repeatedly been told that, according to your faith and many others around the world, all people possess a human dignity given to them by God, the creator of all things. Anything created by God, which is anything and anyone on the planet, is therefore valuable. Even the most disreputable or those who have committed the most heinous crimes never deserve harm or the intention of harm from others. The gospel of Luke supports this strongly, as does that of Matthew. For instance, Matthew 13 contains a story called approximately "the weeds among the wheat". If you request, I can explain the story in detail, but its moral is that God is responsible for the punishment of souls, not us on earth. That being said, I also refuse to believe that even the worst criminals do not benefit the world in some way. I do not believe that this benefit is from their crime, or even anything related to it; but these are living human beings, with relationships, families, and friends. How can one choose to draw a line--for instance, second degree murder--upon a set of human lives? Such things cannot be classified upon a court sentence alone, as some may be capable of reform, some may have only aided in the crime due to personal suffering, and some may be innocent, even if the court has evidence that proves them guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where do you draw the line or even a chart showing when a life is no longer worthwhile, showing some dotted curve between unborn children and mass murderers? And who are we to draw that line at all? That being said, I do not believe that we should simply let them go; when damage is done, damage is done. But there are so many other, more responsible and less harmful punishments that can be used. Service hours have always been one of my favorites, though for some, a mental ward may be the only healthy setting. Regardless, while rape and murder may result in loss of life or dignity, more loss of life and dignity solves no problem.

The death penalty is not punishment, such as prison, because the main point of punishment is to bring a person to do the right thing. The death penalty is removing the the possibility of the criminal being able to change. Its unfair, as well, that the government is allowed to do the exact same thing that the criminal did. The death penalty is revenge, not safety and demonstrates exactly what the quote, "An eye for an eye," means.


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital Punishment
I oppose the death penalty. Capital punishment is ethically wrong and can result in the execution of innocent individuals as well.

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

If someone has enough nerve to take the lives of others, then they too should have their life taken from them. Those are the people that simply do not deserve to live. Life is our most precious possession. this is exactly what Capital punishment does. Capital punishment lets all murderers know that they will have to abandon their lives if they take the life of someone else. More than 20,000 people are killed each year and to let the animals (you can't even call them humans) survive is unjust. The stricter our state is with its punishment, the more people will know not to commit murders. American citizens need to know that chastisements are proportionate and fair. For each killing that occurs, 8 possible victims are spared. We can't risk the chance that execution does not save the lives of potential victims. Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws. If the laws are not strict enough, as the Death Penalty is, it is too enticing for our criminals. Therefore making it easier for criminals to kill. Harsh, severe laws provide an important measure of society's values and morals. How can the government be "soft on crime"" How can they let others kill innocent people? We have to enforce the Death penalty, because once again, life is the most precious thing one can receive.

I do, however, want to warn him of something before we begin debating. One specific rule I have implemented states that "[p]roper spelling and grammar will be used. " My opponent has already broken a crucial rule. I will give my opponent an opportunity to better himself. I will, however, continue doing what I do best: debating. Main ArgumentI will put aside political affiliation and focus on the facts. Before I begin, however, I would like to state my philosophy: It is not our right to choose who lives and dies. That is fate's duty. My opponent's philosophy is clearly "kill and be killed. " Granted, when you murder someone, there must be punishments put in place. However, death isn't a punishment. It is an inhumane act. Instead of the death penalty, a suitable punishment would be life in prison. Also, the justice system in the United States is flawed. Often, completely innocent individuals go to prison and sometimes even are put to death. This is injustice. I am a firm believer in the principle of democracy. Deathpenaltyinfo. org states:Support for the death penalty has fallen sharply by 23 percentage points since 1996, reaching its lowest level in almost two decades, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center. The 2013 poll also found a 10 point drop in just the last 2 years in respondents who say they "strongly favor" the death penalty, from 28% to 18%. The percentage of Americans who say they oppose the death penalty has risen to 37%. In 2011, Pew asked respondents about the reasons behind their views on the death penalty, finding that the top two reasons for opposition to capital punishment were the imperfect nature of the justice system and a belief that the death penalty is immoral. The drop in public support coincides with an overall decline in use of the death penalty during the same time period, with both death sentences and executions falling dramatically since the 1990s. Six states have repealed the death penalty in the last six years, and three governors have recently imposed moratoriums on executions. Don't you believe in democracy? Don't you believe in the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The death penalty is a direct violation of the rights acknowledged by the Declaration of Independence. If you are at all human, you will understand that all of us have basic rights. If you at all empathize with your fellow members of humankind, you will acknowledge the fact that the death penalty does not serve true justice; it serves injustice. Often, innocent people who have never committed a wrong are put to death because of a mistrial. Can you let this pass? I say no. And even when the person has committed murder or another hideous crime, the death penalty is out of the question. Life in prison is the suitable punishment. I have a challenge for you: refute my points. MLA Citation "National Polls and Studies. "DPIC. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org...;.

I believe it's rebuttals, so here goes nothing. I'd like to take them in the order they were presented. 1. The fact that my opponent presents the possibility of the execution of an innocent person, is morally reprehensible. As of July 1st, 2015 there are 2,984 people on death row in the United States. if 4 percent of them are innocent that means that approximately 119 innocent people are killed. 119 families stripped of their loved one, simply because there is a kink in the system (the death penalty. 2. If my opponent wants to talk statistics, if you click my second link, you can see very clearly that homicide rates in places without the death penalty are significantly lower than places where which the death penalty exists. To quote the same article, " A 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder." 3. I covered the fact that it costs significantly more to execute, than to keep someone in prison for life in my initial argument. 4. I don't see how the bible can be taken as an argument for anything outside of theology. If we're going to execute anyone that the bible tells us to that would include, adulterers, thieves, anyone who works on the sabbath, non-believers, the entire town if one person worships another god, people who pull out during intercourse, people who do unnecessary actions, foreigners, skeptics, and so on. 5. How can my opponent say that the death penalty is just when 1) Innocent lives are at stake, and the same effect of wasting someone's life could be had with a life sentence. What is considered just is subjective to the person you're asking. 2) My opponent advocates the teachings of the bible, which is one of the most immoral documents ever to exist. 6. "How? By the usage of the Death Penalty, which eliminates all the threats of murders within the prison." This is a quote from my opponents opening statement in their "C6." argument. Their argument here is faulty from the beginning, because it makes an unfounded assertion, builds upon that assertion, and suggests reform to the death penalty which I remind the audience, is not what we're arguing (correct me please if i have misinterpreted the premise.) Of course, I would advocate reform in the way of total abolition of the death penalty. 7. Finally, if you'll take the time and look at my fourth link, an astronomically low amount of executions actually take place, largely because the state gets more tax revenue from people on death row being on death row, so it's more a money scam than population control. Also, my opponent presents the alternative instead of the release of non-violent criminals, they propose mass genocide within the prison system. To conclude my rebuttals, if you'll look at my last link, contrary to my opponent's assertions the top three crimes in the U.S. are predominately non-violent. In order of "popularity" 1) Larceny-theft 2) Burglary (This is why I said predominately, but most burglaries don't end in violence.) 3)Motor vehicle theft. I ask us all, are these worthy of death as my opponent would have you believe? I will conclude by saying that i feel i have shown my opponent's argument to be faulty to the extreme. Vote con https://www.google.com... http://www.amnestyusa.org... (it's in there somewhere with verses cited) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com...

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

Here are my arguments against the death penalty:1) Human Rights ViolationsAccording to Amnesty International, "The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights." [1]2) Barbaric and MedievalPublic support for the death penalty is declining. As people become more civilized, their support for this barbaric, cruel and unusual punishment is declining. [2] The eye for an eye philosophy is dangerous. If a criminal literally plucks someone's eye out or cuts off the victim's foot, would the appropriate punishment be to take the criminal's eye/foot as well?3) Costs moreIt has been shown that the death penalty costs more than life without parole. [3]4) Leads to the death of innocent peopleLeads to the death of wrongly convicted as well as mentally retarded people.5) There are other optionsLife without parole in a maximum security prison does the same thing that a death penalty does by keeping the offender away from society.6) Doesn't help the victim or the victim's familyExecuting a murderer will not bring the victim back to life. When the victim can magically be brought back to life through execution of his/her murderer, that is when I will support the death penalty.7) Cruel and Unusual punishmentThe fact that most inmates spend years on death row waiting for the inevitable with nowhere to go wrecks havoc on their minds.Sources[1] http://www.amnestyusa.org...[2] http://www.amnestyusa.org...[3] http://www.amnestyusa.org...[4] http://www.philforhumanity.com...

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

I 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.

"--> The death penalty takes away the life of a person which is most certainly not considered saving a life." I should say, the death penalty saves innocent lives. 6% of murderers repeat their crime. If they are executed, then they can't repeat their crime. That's saving lives. "-->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." Read this: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... "-->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." Generally murder is considered bad. I don't know about you, but I think murder is pretty immoral. Also, I'm looking at this from a utilitarian point of view. I am causing more good by executing this person, because I am saving innocent lives. Clearly execution is the way to go. "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.)" The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty numerous times. It is not cruel and it is not unusual. It is a legal punishment. "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." The system of appeals that we use for capital crimes is so thorough that inmates on Death Row are 6 times more likely to be let out on an appeal than they are to be executed. The odds of an innocent being executed are miniscule. 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. "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." 6% of murderers let out on parole repeat their crime. Face it, some things never change. "Killing a person, whatever the reason, is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right." Saving lives is most certainly just, and that's what execution does, it saves lives. It is not wrong to kill an evil person. Even if we look at it from a deontological perspective, we are justified in killing them, because we are still treating them as an end, albeit a bad one. I affirm the death penalty.

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.