Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

We should reconsider the implementation of capital punishment. I appreciate Amphia's willingness to continue this debate; you've raised some valid points, and I'm eager to delve deeper into this discussion. My proposal for revising the death penalty is quite limited, and I believe you may not fully understand its scope. However, I'll explain it further, and you might still disagree, but I will defend my stance.

The primary concern is the cost of trials, but how do we determine "beyond a reasonable doubt"? In cases of mass shootings, it's usually quite clear who the perpetrator is. In this revision of the death penalty, we will focus on these cases, and not much else. It will also address children being tortured. I admit that in such cases, it may take some time, similar to the current system. However, once the person or persons responsible are convicted, they will face the death penalty within a week or two, rather than waiting for years. In the long term, this will still save money.

I understand that cases involving children being tortured might take longer, perhaps 2 to 4 years. But after that, the sentence will be swift. I don't understand why they should remain alive in prison for an indefinite period. It is morally wrong for them to torture children or others, and you still haven't provided a reason why they should be kept alive in prison. Keeping them in jail for the rest of their lives doesn't make sense financially, as it costs millions of dollars to feed, provide medical care, and medication for them.

Regarding serial killers like the Zodiac, justice can't prosecute without evidence. Not everyone will be caught, unfortunately, but these cases are rare. For instance, "He's blamed for 12 killings, 45 rapes, and authorities don't know who he is, but investigators have matched the East Area Rapist's DNA."(10) http://wgno.com... When and if they find this person, the evidence will be overwhelming, and securing a conviction won't be a problem. In cases of serial killers, it may take longer than two weeks, perhaps a year or two. But once they are found guilty, they will be sentenced to death within two weeks. Appeals are costly and unnecessary in my proposal, as we are focusing on mass shootings as the main concern.

You mentioned that "Black people are more likely to be accused and jailed for crimes they did not commit." However, my proposed system doesn't target everyday crimes; it's only concerned with mass

I'm afraid future responses won't be quite this fast. Introduction,Pro's argument is founded upon the idea that men deserve death if they have killed blatanly. Basically, justice requires men recieve their due. I would agree that death penalty makes sense morally, however in an imperfect world the death penalty does not serve justce. Let's take a closer look at the goals of the dealth penalty in my first main point. 1. The goals of capital punishment are deterrence and justice. Rachel C. King (J. D. Northeastern University School of Law, counsel for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives), “No Due Process: How the Death Penalty Violates the Constitutional Rights of the Family Members of Death Row Prisoners,” published by Berkeley Electronic Press’ Legal Series (Paper No. 1584), August 19, 2006 <accessed July 5, 2011> . http://law.bepress.com... “In its post-Furman jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has acknowledged several state interests that may support capital punishment. These interests include deterrence, retribution, [and] incapacitation, and denunciation and vindication of legal and moral order. Deterrence and retribution are the two most commonly cited reasons for maintaining the death penalty. ” However the dealth penalty fails in these purposes. To prove this, let's take a look at my next few points. Death Penalty does not serve Justice. 2. Innocent people sentenced to death Prof. Victor Streib (professor of law at Ohio Northern University, attorney specializing in violent crime and the death penalty, frequently cited by the U. S. Supreme Court), “CLASSIC ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY,” Elon Law Review (Vol. 1 Issue 1 pp 1-16),2009 . http://www.elon.edu... “The ultimate end result of discrimination, caprice, and just plain bad luck can be clear error: convicting and sentencing to death an innocent offender. The death penalty system is operated and controlled by human beings who are not immune to human error. [later, in the same context:]Over 120 innocent persons have been sent to death row in the current era (since 1973), and several other states have ordered a moratorium on executions until the causes of these fatal errors are found. ” The death penalty also has a violently negative effect on other innocent victims; the families of death row inmates. 3. The innocent suffer with the guilty Rachel C. King (J. D. Northeastern University School of Law, counsel for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives), “No Due Process: How the Death Penalty Violates the Constitutional Rights of the Family Members of Death Row Prisoners,” published by Berkeley Electronic Press’ Legal Series (Paper No. 1584), August 19, 2006 <accessed July 5, 2011> . http://law.bepress.com... “Many people lose the support of their friends and community when a family member is on death row. One woman whose brother was on death row said, “[a]ll my friends . . . just abandoned me. They didn’t support me at all during the years, and when I came down for [my brother’s] execution, not one of them showed any support. Not one of them called or came over, NOT ONE! ” This woman eventually developed high blood pressure, migraine headaches, depression and sleeplessness as a result of her brother’s arrest. ” Not only does the death penalty punish the innocent along with the guilty, but capital defendants are also given grossly incompetent legal representation, severely lessening their chance at a fair trial. 4. Capital defendants are given incompetent representation Prof. Scott Vollum (Ph. D. in Criminal Justice, Associate Professor of Justice Studies, James Madison University), Prof. Stacy Mallicoat (Ph. D. in Sociology, Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at California State University—Fullerton, CA), and Prof. Jacqueline Buffington-Vollum (Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at James Madison University), “Death Penalty Attitudes in an Increasingly Critical Climate: Value-Expressive Support and Attitude Mutability,” Southwestern Association of Criminal Justice, published in Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice (Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp 221-242), 2009<accessed July 2, 2011>. http://www.utsa.edu... “Organizations such as the American Bar Association, countless observers and participants in capital trials, capital jurors, and scholarly research studies have all testified to the grossly incompetent legal representation offered to many capital defendants during their trials and sentencing. In addition to the often ill-prepared, ill-equipped, inexperienced, or simply incompetent representation in many capital cases, numerous cases of mentally ill, drunken, and sleeping lawyers have been documented in recent years. ” These three points put together shows how capital punishment cannot serve its goal of justice. 5. Non-deterrence Prof. Scott Vollum (Ph. D. in Criminal Justice, Associate Professor of Justice Studies, James Madison University), Prof. Stacy Mallicoat (Ph. D. in Sociology, Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at California State University—Fullerton, CA), and Prof. Jacqueline Buffington-Vollum (Assistant Professor in the Political Science and Criminal Justice Division at James Madison University), “Death Penalty Attitudes in an Increasingly Critical Climate: Value-Expressive Support and Attitude Mutability,” Southwestern Association of Criminal Justice, published in Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice (Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp 221-242), 2009<accessed July 2, 2011>. http://www.utsa.edu... “In spite of decades of studies, researchers have failed to find the death penalty to be a general deterrent (i. e. , the death penalty has not been found to deter or stop other people from committing murder). ” The bottom line is this, the dealth penalty is flawed and does not serve justce. Nor does it deter future violence. A much more just sentence with less error woulfd be life imprisonment. I apologize for any mispelled words.

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

I thank my opponent for the opportunity he has provided me in this debate to show why the death penalty should not remain legal. As to his points: "The average cost per inmate (not on death row) in California costs the state 49,000 multiply that by 680 inmates charged with the crime of murder and you will get 33,320,000 the average cost of medicine per inmate is $6,935 multiply that by 680 you get 4,715,800 add that number with 33,320,000 you get 38,035,800(per year). As you can the price of holding a regular inmate exceeds that number." What about food? Clothes? Costs of keeping them under guard? Septic system costs? Administrative costs? Etc. Keep in mind that people on death row are kept in prison nearly as long as those in for life. On top of the ordinary costs, they also have to have greater supervision, plus costs for execution methods, plus added costs of appeals and heightened innocence investigations. "The fact of the matter is the reason that our current system is as costly as it is, is due to the lack of executions in California not because of them. In 30 years California has only executed 13 out of the hundreds of people on death row." Yes. They have done this because of errors in the system and the need to provide due process. In other words, because they have to in order to keep the death penalty just. "… putting a couple of bullets into the murderers the moment they are convicted of the crime [is] my idea of death penalty reform …" Then you have (hypothetically) just killed this man: http://forejustice.org... More to the point, the immediate application of a penalty without judicial review is a denial of due process, essential to justice, and smacks of radical anti-democratic authoritarianism. This is something the United States should never tolerate if it wishes to keep itself true to its ideals. "… every single person accused of murder gets a fair trial. That is exactly what due process is." This would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. The appeals and review process is a part of due process. It isn't just the right to confront your accusers before they take you out back and shoot you. Also, no, not every person gets a fair trial. See the above example for the unfair results that occur following prosecutorial misconduct. Remember that people run these trials, not God. Justice relies upon the hope that enough people in the mix will prevent anyone from playing God. What you are arguing is neither right, nor just, nor moral. "People who are convicted of murder obviously do not get to enjoy their right to life since they have taken somebody Else's right to life therefore they should be put to death immediately." What of people who are falsely convicted of murder? If you take that person's life, wouldn't that make you a murderer who needs to be immediately shot? Also, rights exist for the benefit of the right bearers … the dead are no longer around to demand justice, so at best we can argue that the social prescription of death for murder is intended to provide effect for the rights of those mourning the aggrieved. Their rights would just as well be served knowing that, for as long as the offender can be kept alive, the offender will suffer a loss as they have. "Yes, every study has a margin of error but how can you look at that graph I cited and not admit that the death penalty is working in some way[?]" Because I can provide any number of other events that occurred in one of the peaks, like 1990; I turned nine, for example. Oops, my bad. This isn't an issue of a margin of error. This is an issue of knowing how to read statistics. "On the national scale the graph I cited above shows that with more executions leads to less murders." No, it showed that a higher number of executions correlate with a lower number of murders. That doesn't mean having more executions results in fewer murders. Perhaps having fewer murders resulted in more executions, because more resources ordinarily devoted to handling new cases can be devoted to finishing the job on the old ones. "I tried reading your source but read nothing about the correlation between drugs and murder." The point was that the spike in murders occurred following the national crackdown on marijuana (check the dates). Using your logic that means the illegality of marijuana resulted in more people acting aggressively and committing murder. "Your source does not say we are killing them it simply states the number of people on death row." I will concede that. We just have more people *lined up* to be killed. That still means that the death penalty isn't deterring. "There is two reasons for that. 1.population increase in the U.S. and 2. there has been a decline in executions in many states such as the example I made with California." 1.If population increase was to blame, but the death penalty worked as a deterrent, we would not see population increases correlating with death row population statistics. 2.If declines in executions deter, then why is it that those states with no executions (less than less – none) have fewer murders than even California? Also – this: http://www.prisonactivist.org... "But, there is immediate threat how about those prison guards who are killed while watching inmates? The threat will always be there until they are rightfully put to death." Only until the next batch rolls in as murder has not been deterred. You're arguing incapacitation now, which is invalid for any number of reasons by itself, not the least of which is that there is no way to know who will reoffend. "Capital punishment is the punishment murderers receive." No, I meant … *groan* … you are comparing apples and oranges when you speak about people not having the ability to defend themselves and not being able to punish. One action is taken to prevent unjustified harm, the other to discourage further unjustified harm. You can not use the rationale for one in place of the other. They meet two entirely different objectives. "Whether that is true or not I am sure you will find that the most heinous crimes you can think of are on the rise. I am sure you can equate that to a moral decline." They are not. There is no ‘moral decline.' If anything, we are on a moral upswing and would be doing very well if not for some stupid economic decisions we've made over the past two decades. "North Carolina banned executions of the mentally ill. Giving people who aren't mentally ill a defense for claiming a illness they do not have." Also, it gives the mentally ill who are really mentally ill the clemency that they deserve. Which is more important: the few unworthy lives spared or the few innocent lives saved? If you're for victims' rights, you have to argue the latter. Yet to support the death penalty, you have to argue the former. That's outright hypocrisy. In conclusion, my opponent failed to show why the current death penalty system should remain. He then argued that there should be a new death penalty system, one that remains as unjustified but is more cost effective because it is unjust. I have argued for the system that is cost effective, just, and justified: life imprisonment. I now strongly urge a vote for Con, so that we citizens of the United States can move beyond this very silly and somewhat tragic moment in our history and move towards a new era of heightened civility and efficiency.

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

Sorry to post so late Off your case- I. You talk about the death penalty being the only true proportionate to a murder... An eye for an eye if you will... But what you have to see is that killing someone for killing someone is imprudently sinking yourself to the level of the murderer. In times like this you must ask yourself, "Why is killing bad?" The answer is obvious, you take away the rest of someones life... it is final. This takes away the chance of reversing the sentence (which I will extend on a little later), it also takes away the chance for the victim's chance of redeeming himself... Even if you don't believe in after life of any certain faith you do have to give into the idea of going out of this life on a good note. Certain people have "saved themselves" while being in prison... Why? because you give them TIME to THINK ABOUT IT... If you kill them you take away their right to that which can never be reversed. Being in prison FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE (w/o death penalty) IS the ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT. Killing someone is a easy way out for these people. The only way they are going to receive humane suffering is by being in prison. The death penalty has essentially taken away the whole suffering factor (lethal injection)... You claim "eye for eye", but when someone rapes, tortures, and kills someone, how can a poke in the arm get any sort of settlement out of that. The only way of receiving your "due" (your definition of just) is by having them "rot" in prison(humanly yet painfully). IIA. You talk about it being utilitarian... HA... You "protect" people, but when asked "which would you prefer, life in prison or a poke in the arm?" what deterrence is that? They both suck, but you have to give them time to rethink that night they ended someones life for them to suffer at all. Furthermore, you have to see all of the innocent peoples lives it kills. I don't have an exact number (after all, how can you be sure), but it IS common knowledge that people have been put to death when completely innocent. I HAVE seen statistics that plea bargaining has been responsible for half of the people that are on death row actually being innocent (half of EVERYONE)... 7-8 people are "saved" by the death penalty, but how many are killed? The sad fact is that no one will ever be sure, because as I've said, the death penalty is final. IIB. The death penalty ensures that the same crime will not be committed by the same person... Same as the innocent never being able to see light again. Furthermore, the only thing that would replace the death penalty would be life in prison without parole. This debate is about the death penalty being just or not... this argument is simply a justification (excuse) as to why to use something. If a guy spit on me I could kill him to ensure that he wouldn't do it again but that doesn't make it just. III. This third argument is mislead. The state is truly the police... "In the moment" can NOT be done in the judicial system of our government, only by police. Police to not give the death PENALTY. When they protect themselves, it is not a penalty and is NOT capital punishment. If a person is under arrest, self defense is not possible by the initiation of law. I stand ready for your responses! Thank You!

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

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...

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

I do understand that this is a sensitive issue, as we are dealing with human lives; but, I think we should avoid letting the emotional nature cloud our judgment.ClarityFor the purpose of the debate, I think it would be best if I outline my arguments in order to clarify my premises and conclusions. My main argument that the death penalty is not cruel or unusual rests on the definition of such a punishment which I outlined in my first post. If you recall, it states that a punishment is cruel and unusual if it is degrading, inhumane, or severe. (Since you did not dispute this definition, I believe it is safe to say that we are agreed on it). So my overarching argument at it's most basic form is as follows:Premise 1: A punishment is cruel and unusual if it is degrading, inhumane, or too severe for the crime committed. Premise 2: The death penalty is not degrading, inhumane, or too severe for the crime.Conclusion: The death penalty is not cruel or unusual.Now, if any of these premises is false, then my main argument will collapse, whereas if both are true, then my conclusion is true.. As I stated above, it appears that we are agreed on the definition of a cruel or unusual punishment; thus, my job is to prove that my second premise is true. Therefore, I focused my attention on 3 "minor" arguments for why the death penalty is not degrading, inhumane, or too severe. Now it is important to note that I am referring to the principles of the death penalty as a whole, which are a swift and painless death. These are the fundamental goals, and I believe that we are agreed on them. The arguments I presented are more inductive, and follow as:Argument 1:Premise 1: The execution is not ment to humiliate the individual, nor showcase his death.Conclusion: It is reasonable to think that it's goal is not to degrade the criminal.Argument 2: Premise 1: The goal is to execute the criminal swiftlyPremise 2: The goal is to inflict minimal pain.Conclusion: It is justified to think that it is humane.Argument 3:Premise 1: Capital punishment is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. Conclusion: It is rational to think that the punishment fits the crime and is not too severe.These are the arguments I presented in my first post, which attempt to prove the second "major" premise of my overarching argument.Your response:I believe it is safe to summarize your rebuttal as follows:Counter 1:Premise 1: The United states is playing God.Premise 2: It forces the criminal to endure a lengthy trial.Conclusion: It is reasonable to think that it is degrading.Counter 2:Premise 1: The criminals endure psychological torture from inmates and waiting as soon as they are sentenced.Premise 2: Stays of execution break their mental state.Conclusion: It is justified to think it is inhumane.Counter 3:Premise 1: The U.S. is in the top 5 of countries with the most executionsPremise 2: The countries above it have a history of abusing human rightsPremise 3: The U.S. is one of the only Western countries which employ itConclusion: It is rational to think that it is too severe.Now before we evaluate whether these arguments are sound, it is important to note that all of the counter arguments you provided are valid except for the third. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises; as a result, we know that it is not sound right off the bat, and can reject it as a counter for my third argument.Therefore, the only counter-rebuttals I was required to make were ones against your first two counters, not your third. My counter-rebuttals could be put succinctly like so:Counter-Rebuttal 1:Premise 1: The goal of capital punishment is justice, and not to "play God"Premise 2: The lengthiness of the trial is not intended to torment the criminal, but rather to be certain of guilt and decision.Conclusion: The conclusion of the counter argument is not justified.Counter-Rebuttal 2: Premise 1: Psychological torment is not an intention of the capital punishmentPremise 2: The inmates' lack of empathy cannot be controlledPremise 3: Stays of execution are not intended to mess with or torment the criminalConclusion: The conclusion of the counter argument is not justified.Counter-Rebuttal 3:Premise 1: The conclusion does not follow from the premisesConclusion 1: The counter argument is not sound.In my counter-rebuttal I also pointed out that there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Essentially, you are not focusing on cruel aspects of the principle of capital punishment, but rather the negative effects of specific parts of the current reality of it. This may point to the system as being cruel, but will not support a claim that the principle of the death penalty is cruel. In other words, my main contention is that you have to prove that the core principles and goals of the death penalty are cruel and unusual, not the results of the current process.----------Your main allegationYour third point brings about your first big contention with my overall claim, which is, that it has no foundation. You refer to my example of hangings to demonstrate that the state did not mean for this to be inhumane, yet it was found to be inhumane. Afterwards, you equate the example to the scenario of a drunk driver, who accidentally kills an innocent person. You then claim this to be evidence of a flawed foundation.Broken down:Premise 1: The state does not intend to be inhumane, but it is anywayPremise 2: The drunk driver does not intend to kill, yet doesConclusion: Neither should get off the hook.However, this analogy fails. First, we have to recognize that the drunk driver is already committing a crime before his accident. As a result, we can conclude that it is not identical to the first premise. The state is punishing the criminal to bring about justice, while the drunk driver is breaking the law, and consequently causes an accident. As a result, the drunk is not off the hook, and the state is the one that sets the hook. Therefore, the conclusion will not logically follow from the premises.But does my argument have a sound foundation? Remember, my main argument is:Premise 1: A punishment is cruel and unusual if it is degrading, inhumane, or too severe for the crime committed. Premise 2: The death penalty is not degrading, inhumane, or too severe for the crime.Conclusion: The death penalty is not cruel or unusual.But as I have just demonstrated, the reasons you gave for your contention turn out to be rooted in a bad analogy, and do not defeat any of my premises. Remember, if any of my premises is disproved, then my entire argument crumbles. At least your first attempt to do this has failed, and consequently my argument still stands.Counter-Rebuttal to "Counter 3" The issue with your response to my counter-rebuttal is that it is not addressing the fact of whether or not the the death penalty is too severe. Rather, you only further emphasize the human right violations of other countries. As a result the verdict from my "Counter-rebuttal 3" still stands.Study proves 4.1% innocent:As unfortunate as this is, it is only a flaw within the criminal justice system, and is a very emotional argument. I do not believe it does anything to undermine my "major" argument, nor my 3 "minor" arguments.European Statement:Although this statement may be relevant, you have to establish why it may be accurate, or "have it right". The fact that other countries see it this way does not justify that it is this way.Conclusion:The impression I get from this counter-rebuttal is that you are trying to find new chinks in my arguments, without addressing the counter-rebuttals I made concerning your original counter-arguments. You do address my second minor argument, but it does not refute the verdict from my second counter-rebuttal, and is actually rooted in a bad analogy. I do not mean to be harsh in my analysis of your arguments, as these are sensitive topics which can be emotionally heavy. But I do believe that I have raised some critical objections.

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.


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital Punishment
In response to the argument that the death penalty should be legal, I present two main points to challenge this view. First, I will address the effectiveness of the death penalty in deterring crime. Secondly, I will share my main opinion on why we should abolish the death penalty altogether.

To begin with, the argument that the death penalty reduces crime rates is flawed. While crime rates have been declining, this decrease cannot be attributed to the use of capital punishment. According to FBI statistics from 2012 to 2013, violent crime rates decreased by 4.4 percent. However, this reduction was observed in both states with and without the death penalty. A map of the U.S. shows that the majority of states have legalized the death penalty. Yet, according to the Huffington Post, 8 of the top 10 most dangerous states have the death penalty, with Tennessee having the highest violent crime rate of 643.6 incidents per 100,000 people. Furthermore, the two safest states in the U.S. do not have the death penalty. Comparing crime rates between the U.S. and Canada reveals that Canada has significantly lower crime rates, including a murder rate 23 times lower and a rape rate 16 times lower. This suggests that the absence of the death penalty does not necessarily lead to higher crime rates.

The second point concerns the underlying motivation for supporting the death penalty. Some people believe it should be allowed as a means of revenge against the criminal. However, this reasoning is flawed. Executing a criminal will not bring back the victim or rectify the wrong committed. How can we claim that murder is wrong when we, as a society, resort to killing criminals ourselves? A more humane alternative is life imprisonment with strict restrictions on activities, such as only allowing work, sleep, and eating. This approach would allow us to address capital crimes without compromising our humanity. Moreover, there have been cases where innocent people have been wrongly executed. Eliminating the death penalty would prevent such miscarriages of justice. Additionally, death penalty cases are significantly more expensive than life imprisonment cases, with costs estimated to be around twice as much.

In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished because it does not effectively deter crime, and executing criminals in the name of revenge contradicts the message that murder is wrong. Instead of relying on capital punishment, our society must work together to lower crime rates in a humane and rational manner, while also promoting awareness and education about

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

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.

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

For the final round, I shall do final Rebuttals toward my opponent while my opponent can only state his or her conclusion. Like stated in the "Structure" section, on Round 4 I get to rebuttal and Con cannot but only state his or her conclusion. Anyways to my final Rebuttals and conclusion on the usage of the Death Penalty.1. InnocenceIn this last round, my opponent argues that there still may be a possibility of innocence within the execution. Once more, I brought up an analogy last round that expressed this "I like to compare this same scenario as getting ran over by a car. Does it stink? Yes, but stuff happens. Just because one car killed one innocent bistander does not mean that society should ban cars now. Stuff happens, and we move on; and the same can be said about the Death Penalty". Once more just because a system may have the chance of doing wrong does not mean it is the worst system. Systems aren't perfect in society, and shouldn't be banned because of one mistake.2. Deter's CrimeMy opponent then states the following: "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". First off, I like to please present that my opponent has only used one source to represent this claim. While I presented two, and now three where according to Robert Tanner (1) the Death Penalty does deter crime. It is clear that my opponent only states one source within his argument about how it doesn't deter crime, while I present more.3. CostlyMy opponent argues that the Death Penalty is costly by referring back to his main argument, but this point was disproven in the third round. With even a graph to represent the costs of having it and not having it.4. Bible ArgumentAdmitedly the Bible argument is a little touchy, and will drop this point for my opponent to win this section. Personally, I don't remember what I was thinking at the time.5. Death Penalty is JustFollowing the defintion of "just" being: "Treating people in a way that is considered morally right". The sub-definition of "morally" or "moral" is: "Conforming to a standard of right behavior". Is it wrong to help deter crime, or is it wrong to be economically beneficial with the Death Penalty? It isn't, and proves to be moral in this way leading it to be just (2 & 3). Also my opponent also argues that the Bible is immoral. How is it immoral, when it teaches a majority of Christians to "Love thy neighbor like thyself"? It isn't, and making a claim about the Bible being immoral does not in any way follow the topic on the Death Penalty. For this reason voters, I like to consider this a possible loss of conduct points.6. Environmental Friendly and reduces OverpopulationI'm combining both of these arguments to make it easier to follow. Firstly, my opponent makes the claim that murders do not happen in prison, yet does not provide a source. I will gladly provide a source to prove this statement, where according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (4), it states the following statistics od deaths caused by other prsioners. Pretty high numbers, and it is even proven that murderers who are set in prison behind bars are still capable of murder. Putting more risk of lives to those who did petty crimes, than a simple execution of these murderers and such. "The homicide rate in local jails nationwide hovered around 3 inmates per 100,000" (5). Also I will answer my opponents question. We are more so arguing about the Death Penalty is general, if the topic was a specific setting of the Death Penalty; then you could have a point.Before concluding this argument, I like to please present a statistic about the types of crimes done in prison. Stated under the following (6), it shows that the majority of crimes done throughout the years are related to violence. Why keep the violent criminals behind these bars, and risk the lives of the petty crime prisoners?ConclusionTo conclude this argument, I urger voters to vote Pro for this debate because of having a more solid argument. My opponent provided some points, but his overall argument were many claims without any further evidence. Just because he used one source of evidence does not mean he won the argument, but instead he needed to further that evidence with more evidence. While I did further my arguments, and even provided a solution to gaining the benefits of the Death Penalty. For this this reason, I urge voters to vote Pro! Also, I thank my opponent for this debate!Sources (All):Round 2: htp://www.biblebelievers.com.........http://www.theguardian.com.........http://www.washingtonpost.com.........http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.........http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org.........http://www.nytimes.com........./www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mljsp0012st.pdfhttp://www.bjs.gov.........http://thinkprogress.org.........http://www.heritage.org.........http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu.........http://www.vice.com.........http://www.theonion.com.........http://www.seattletimes.com.........Round 3: http://dictionary.reference.com......http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......http://dailysignal.com......http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... Round 4 (This Round):1. http://www.washingtonpost.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...4. http://www.bjs.gov...5.http://www.slate.com...6. http://felonvoting.procon.org...

Ha ha ha, I can already tell that I should have made this debate longer than 3 rounds. My statistics about the death penalty came from The Death Penalty Information Center (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org). Please do not accuse me of making up statistics as I find it to be horribly insulting to both my intelligence and my integrity. It is true that the murder rate in states without the death penalty is lower than in states with the death penalty. I also agree with you that many ancient practices are good. But of course when I think of good ancient practices I think of all the wonderful innovations that the Ancient Greeks and The Romans gave us. Some ancient practices should be disregarded such as burning heretics at the stake or crucifying people. I said "However, it is far better to keep a murderer locked up like an animal than to murder and become animals ourselves." You said "Have you ever experienced either of these things? I doubt it; so how do you have the authority to say what is better? " I am of Jewish Heritage and many members of my family died in the Holocaust at the hands of the Nazi menace. My great aunt is a survivor and towards the end of the war in Europe her concentration camp was liberated by allied forces. A group of allied soldiers led her and some other Jews into a field along with some captured german soldiers. A soldier gave my great Aunt a hand gun and gave her the chance to shoot one of the Nazi prison guards but she could not do it. As much as she hated the Nazis she could not bring her self down to their level. I, like her, think that death should not create more death. To punish death with death is to become a murderer yourself. Like I said before, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind! I am not saying that we should let murders run free but I am trying to say that it is hypocritical to punish murderers by murdering them. You don't see anything barbaric about that? P.S. Being that I mentioned something as touchy as the Holocaust (and family of mine who were victims/survivors of the Holocaust) please be tactful with your rebuttal. Thank you.

Rather than divide my case into traditional contentions, I'm trying a new approach and I hope it works out. Death Penalty- The punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime=Practical argument against the Death Penalty=1. The Death Penalty has few if any unique benefits.2. The Death Penalty has many unique harms.3. Therefore, the Death Penalty should be abolished. Premise one:This is quite obvious, the only true benefit I can see offered by the Death Penalty in the United States is that it permanently incapacitates a murderer. While this is clearly a good thing, due to the absurdly slow and cumbersome nature of Capital Punishment in the United States, said benefit is largely reduced. Indeed, with the resources saved by abolishing the Death Penalty, the benefits reaped would largely outweigh, which leads to premise two. Premise two:The Death Penalty has severe negative affects. one example is cost. Here are some examples: "Since 1983, taxpayers in New Jersey have paid $253 million more for death penalty trials than they would have paid for trials not seeking execution" "A recent Duke University study of North Carolina's death penalty costs found that the state could save $11 million a year by substituting life in prison for the death penalty""The Tennessee Comptroller of the Currency recently estimated that death penalty trials cost an average of 48 percent more than trials in which prosecutors sought life sentences. ""A Florida study found the state could cut its costs by $51 million simply by eliminating the death penalty. ""Overall, according to Dieter, the studies have uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole. "[1]All of these statistics were found from Fox News, so any possibility of bias is highly illogical, if anything Fox News would be biased in support of the Death Penalty. Innocence is another one of these negative effects. Death Penalty information center shows 138 individuals sentenced to die who were later found innocent. [2] They also list nine executd individuals executed who's guilt is seriously questionable. Are we supposed to accept this? Over 100 innocents sentenced to die, for a punishment that does not even have any benefits? Capital Punishment also brutalizes society, studies say, causing murder to actually increase! [3]. Indeed, “disturbed persons learning about an impending or completed execution, interpret the execution as governmental modeling of killing, suggesting to their minds that killing therefore becomes an acceptable means of righting wrongs”[4]Premise three logically follows. I reserve the right to bring in more examples and sources for this. =Moral argument=1. Murder is the premeditated killing of a human being by a citizen, which is immoral.2. The Death Penalty is the premeditated killing of a human being guilty of a crime by a government.3. If an action is immoral, it matters not who performs it.4. The guilt of a person is not enough to turn an immoral action into a moral action.5. Therefore, the Death Penalty is immoral. Of this, I feel that the only true debate will take place on the morality of Capital Punishmen, so I will now justify my argument. Why Capital Punishment is immoralCapital punishment is an ancient, and curious, method of punishment. Rather than attempt to help a criminal become a working member of society, we are simply dismissing them as worthless, and extreminating them. It may be thought that Capital murderers are beyond rehabilitation, and to dispute this I would like to bring in the example of Stanley Williams, executed in 2005. His crimes were indeed heinous, however this is proof that even the worst of criminals can stll be rehabilitated. While on Death Row he became a christian, wrote books, and founded programs for peace and anti-gang violence. [5]So let's take this in perspective. We are taking a man who has shown us that he has repented for his crime, rather than making him a useful member of society (even prison society, he could be used as a perfect example) we're using a punishment on him that not only costs us massive amounts of money, but is suggested to brutalize society and cause even more violence? Not to mention how backward it makes us look compared with most other nations who have abolished the Death Penalty. This simply makes no sense. If my Opponent wants more examples of repented murderers, I would be happy to give him some. I greatly anticipate Con's reply, and am looking forward to this debate. Sources:1. . http://www.foxnews.com...2. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...3. . http://web.rollins.edu...4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...

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

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

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

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


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital Punishment
In my view, capital punishment is unconstitutional as it infringes upon human rights. As a Christian, I find it at odds with the Ten Commandments, but this is merely my personal perspective.

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.

"Okay, that's fine argue with statistics that show that you are wrong. .. like the one I just posted. The death penalty deters 8 murders from occurring. " --> These statistics are completely sound. When a criminal planning the murder of someone, the criminal obviously doesn't expect to be caught and therefore would have no regard of the punishment (in this case, capital punishment). However, if the possibility of being caught was increased, there would be a greater chance that the criminal is deterred from committing the crime. Therefore, preventing murders is not done by increasing the harshness of the punishment but by increasing the possibility that the person responsible for the crime will be caught. "Murder, at least in a philosophical sense, is the intentional killing of an innocent, and you brought up a philosophical matter. " --> What is murder if it is not the intentional killing of an innocent? If the intentional killing of an innocent is defined as murder, then I do not see what the fuss is about. Uhh. .. yeah. .. no. The people who rejected Copernicus were uneducated peasants. The Supreme Court is comprised of brilliant men and women. " --> They were not all uneducated. They were humans who carried some prejudices and biased opinions. The same can be said of Supreme Court judges. They are human and are therefore liable to error and the other faults of humans. They may not be extremely biased or prejudiced, but are still a biased to a certain extent. Indeed, this can be proved through the fact that statistics show that two-thirds of any case involving a black or hispanic killing a white result in the death penalty. Overall, a black person is 5 times more likely to get the death penalty. "Life imprisonment, a) does not deter as well, and b) it allows criminals to cause more harm, my mother, a psychologist has treated many prison guards who have faced emotional challenges after injuries resulting from prison breaks. " --> I'll say that life imprisonment deters just as well as the death penalty. Spending a life time in a small cell v. getting a quick death both sound pretty grim to me. The reason for prison breaks is because of the faults with security, not because of the faults with the punishment. Since the death punishment is currently legal, those criminals who caused emotional challenges to guards were not sentenced to death for a reason. Therefore, with or without the death penalty, the same prison breaks that have occurred in the past would still have occurred. "And I already stated that you're wrong, sacrifice is necessary. Life imprisonment won't deter as well. " --> I have also stated that both will deter the same amount. Both life imprisonment and capital punishment are grim consequences. There is no difference. The true way to deter criminals is to increase the possibility of them being caught. "I am saying that the death penalty should only be applied to murder 1, and this was a murder 2 case, and should not have been made a capital offense. I only have to affirm capital punishment, I can choose the conditions. " --> You are saying that only murder 1 should get the death penalty. Yet, in this case, murder 2 also got the death penalty. Therefore, this shows that either a) my opponent's definition of the crimes deserving the death penalty is faulty, or, b) that human fallibility can cause errors when judging and do not always judge both fairly and according to the rules laid out, or, c) both of the above. Therefore, the death penalty is a fallible form of punishment and there are other alternative punishments that would work just as effectively in both preventing murders from happening and assuring the safety of innocents.

I accept JohnnyDoe's challenge and will argue as the Con of this debate.To clarify, I will be arguing against the Pro's resolution,that In the United States, capital punishment should not be outlawed, but rather, continued.For more clarification, the definition of Capital Punishment-- the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. I, too, look forward to a fair, civil, and overall good debate.

I do not think that the death sentence should continue in the future. The second you realize you've executed an innocent person your mindset may turn from laying in your backyard with an utmost serene mood to realizing you just murdered an innocent person. The criminals also need time to reflect and change their ways, I'm not saying I'm a fan of criminals (in fact criminals irk me a lot) but to not get time to reflect is bizzare. Our system doesn't even give people a chance. What eccentric penalty are we going to do next blow criminals up with dynamite.

First off, I would like to say that I am aware that 34 out of the 50 states allow the death penalty and this is appalls me. However, I did notice that my opponent lives in one of the states that allows it, Texas, and I am from New Jersey which does not. So, I recognize that possibly being a reason for our opposing views, but am still respectful of my opponent's views as well. I have noticed in my 18 years of life, that the justice system in our country is far from perfect. But, it is ridiculous how guilty people can walk free at times and the innocent can be executed when they are wrongly accused of a crime. Recently, a 17 year old boy named Trayvon Martin apparently looked "suspicious" and was murdered - even when young Trayvon was begging for his life. All the poor boy had on him was skittles, an iced tea, the clothes on his back, and a cell phone! The man who murdered him, named George Zimmermann, was part of the neighborhood watch in Florida, an area where the death penalty is allowed, and this man walks free for murder. Where is the justice in that? What about Troy Davis? He was executed by lethal injection in Georgia for a crime he "apparently" committed over 20 years ago, which was the shooting of an off-duty Savannah officer named Mark MacPhail. From the moment he was accused to the last minutes of his life, he still swore his innocence and was not even carrying a gun that night. Plus, there was the Casey Anthony trial, also in Florida. All of the signs pointed to her killing her baby, Caylee, but she walks away free, too. To this day, I still feel that cases like these are determined by bribery, tricks played by the lawyer, or by even racism, and Casey Anthony is an attractive, young, Caucasian female. These events are not the first times things like this has occurred in the U. S. It happens way too often, which is why we should not execute any criminals. After all our country has done to fix and improve "the system", these outrageous events should not still be occurring. Since, the legal system often has flaws, who is anyone to truly say whom deserves capital punishment and whom does not? More importantly, what exactly the justice of killing a killer? He or she should rot in jail for their crime if they commit such a murder. Plus, there are some people who kill out of crime of passion, not being able to take someone's physical/mental/emotional abuse anymore, to protect themselves, or because they have psychological problems and could not control themselves. Not saying that this makes what they have done alright at all, however, they deserve less of a punishment or possibly hospitalization and treatment for mental illness. Some are even executed for other things not even as severe as murder, which isn't even fair. So, what is it that makes capital punishment alright?

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

He firmly believes in the preciousness of life, as do I. That is a good thing. However, my opponent has failed to recognize that causing the death of another is immoral in any case. It is a direct violation of the unalienable rights acknowledged by our Founding Fathers and our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. .. " The death penalty does not protect life. It does not protect liberty. It does not protect the pursuit of happiness. Frankly, it protects nothing. It is an immoral act; an action of injustice. The "life for a life" logic is, frankly, quite heinous. The notion of taking any life for any reason is nefarious. We should not be in the position to choose who lives and dies. That should be the duty of fate. This is both a question of morality and democracy. As you have seen in my main argument, less and less people like the death penalty. This is for good reason. For one, the justice system is flawed in the United States and, as I have emphasized continually, taking a life is immoral. Two wrongs do not make a right. I await the beginning of the voting period.

Sorry to post so late Off your case- I. You talk about the death penalty being the only true proportionate to a murder... An eye for an eye if you will... But what you have to see is that killing someone for killing someone is imprudently sinking yourself to the level of the murderer. In times like this you must ask yourself, "Why is killing bad?" The answer is obvious, you take away the rest of someones life... it is final. This takes away the chance of reversing the sentence (which I will extend on a little later), it also takes away the chance for the victim's chance of redeeming himself... Even if you don't believe in after life of any certain faith you do have to give into the idea of going out of this life on a good note. Certain people have "saved themselves" while being in prison... Why? because you give them TIME to THINK ABOUT IT... If you kill them you take away their right to that which can never be reversed. Being in prison FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE (w/o death penalty) IS the ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT. Killing someone is a easy way out for these people. The only way they are going to receive humane suffering is by being in prison. The death penalty has essentially taken away the whole suffering factor (lethal injection)... You claim "eye for eye", but when someone rapes, tortures, and kills someone, how can a poke in the arm get any sort of settlement out of that. The only way of receiving your "due" (your definition of just) is by having them "rot" in prison(humanly yet painfully). IIA. You talk about it being utilitarian... HA... You "protect" people, but when asked "which would you prefer, life in prison or a poke in the arm?" what deterrence is that? They both suck, but you have to give them time to rethink that night they ended someones life for them to suffer at all. Furthermore, you have to see all of the innocent peoples lives it kills. I don't have an exact number (after all, how can you be sure), but it IS common knowledge that people have been put to death when completely innocent. I HAVE seen statistics that plea bargaining has been responsible for half of the people that are on death row actually being innocent (half of EVERYONE)... 7-8 people are "saved" by the death penalty, but how many are killed? The sad fact is that no one will ever be sure, because as I've said, the death penalty is final. IIB. The death penalty ensures that the same crime will not be committed by the same person... Same as the innocent never being able to see light again. Furthermore, the only thing that would replace the death penalty would be life in prison without parole. This debate is about the death penalty being just or not... this argument is simply a justification (excuse) as to why to use something. If a guy spit on me I could kill him to ensure that he wouldn't do it again but that doesn't make it just. III. This third argument is mislead. The state is truly the police... "In the moment" can NOT be done in the judicial system of our government, only by police. Police to not give the death PENALTY. When they protect themselves, it is not a penalty and is NOT capital punishment. If a person is under arrest, self defense is not possible by the initiation of law. I stand ready for your responses! Thank You!

in 1971 the LosAngeles Police Department reported that half of a group of suspects under arrest for robbery stated that they had decided not to carry or not use weapons in their "work" to avoid any risk of a killing which could lead totheir own execution. In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Moreover, Even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, That is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty. Finally, The death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, This is a form of incapacitation, Similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, Either in prison, Or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, The death penalty helps to prevent future crime. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder. It should be the strongest punishment for deterring. For Religion I simply said that you can ignore the argument, But no you had to laugh. Great conduct

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