Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital punishment is a highly controversial topic, with valid arguments on both sides. The idea that judges should have the discretion to determine the most suitable punishment for a criminal, including the death penalty if deemed appropriate, is often discussed. However, the judicial system is not immune to human error and bias, which can lead to the wrongful conviction and execution of innocent individuals. The morality of the death penalty has been debated for nearly a century in the United States, resulting in a moratorium on the punishment and changes to the application process.

The death penalty is a final and unforgiving punishment that raises concerns about the right to due process. Once a person is executed, they can no longer appeal their conviction, even if new evidence comes to light. This is problematic in a system that is fallible and prone to error, as evidenced by the appeals process. The existence of the appeals process in a system that values it so highly raises questions about the appropriateness of the death penalty as the ultimate punishment.

If the death penalty is considered cruel and the system is fallible, leading to the execution of innocent people, does this mean that the State is guilty of murder? Under a representative democracy, there is no absolute leader placed above the law. If the State has committed murders in a systematic manner, doesn't this imply that the State itself has murdered? Many argue that the State must be allowed to make mistakes because it is a human institution. However, if the punishment is absolute and final, shouldn't the State responsible for administering punishment also be fallible?

The idea of a State that can be wrong in convicting and executing its citizens goes against the principles the framers of the Constitution stood for. There have been cases of individuals proven innocent after their execution, highlighting the flaws in the system. For example, Carlos De Luna was executed in 1989 for a crime he did not commit. Larry Griffin was executed in 1995 based on questionable testimony and circumstantial evidence. Leo Jones was executed in 1998 despite evidence that raised serious doubts about his guilt. These cases, among others, demonstrate the fallibility of the system and the need to reevaluate the use of capital punishment.

The death penalty, with its potential for irreversible errors and the execution of innocent individuals, is a flawed system that should be abolished. The stakes are too high, and the possibility of executing an innocent person cannot be ignored. As Marquis de Lafayette once said, "I will believe in the death penalty when you will prove to me the

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 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.

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...

The position you basically want me to take is that there should be no death penalty, anywhere, anytime at all no matter the circumstances. I don't like it, but I will take it. Your position, if I have this correctly, is: The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. I expect objective reasoning and a good, well thought-out case. You can either make a few clarifications and start immediately (you'll also have to leave round 5 empty so that both you and I have the same number of rounds in total) or you can simply submit clarifications or acceptance of clarifications and have me start. Precautions: If CON trolls me for not defining the words within the resolution & my interpretation (such as making DNA -> Demonic Nambian Antelopes in a debate pertaining to DNA), then I expect a full 7-point vote from you, the voter.

Thanks f16 (cool name by the way) now I'll do a point by point rebuttal of your case.1) Human rights violation--> No explanation as to how, how is killng someone for a crime committed different than imprisoning them which violates their right to liberty?--> No logical analysis, just the opinion of Amnesty International.--> Even if we accept the Death Penalty to violate human rights, that cannot outweigh the innocent lives saved. 2) Barbaric and Medieval--> Con claims that public support for the Death Penalty is declining--> First, no impact argued, who cares?--> Secondly, this is empirically untrue. Taken from a reliable, impartial source (Gallup polls), support for the Death Penalty has been static (and the vast majority) for the past decade[1]. --> Con argues that an eye for an eye is dangerous. This is pre-emptive of an argument I didn't make. I do not agree that poking the eye out of a person in revenge is the proper penalty, however I am not arguing for revenge. --> The Death Penalty is the only sure-fire way to ensure a killer does not strike again. My arguments are motivated by public safety concerns, not vengeance. 3) Costs more--> No impact argued, so what? --> Justice > Money. A 20 year sentence would be less costly than a life sentence, but not as just. --> Two of the states mentioned (California and Kansas) do not have a true Death Penalty. In the past 35 years Kansas has executed 0 people, and California has executed 13 (with 690+ on "death row"). Clearly when judging the cost of an execution in these states, it would be extremely high, because in California for instance, each man who's executed has around 60 others in his place who are not. I.E. the cost calculation is not an accurate assessment. --> The two states mentioned that DO actually execute, Maryland and Tennessee, the only thing mentioned is the case itself. No one is denying that the up-front costs of the Death Penalty are more than Life, it's the over all costs that are in dispute. (For states that actually execute like Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma, ect.)--> Here's a cost analysis showing that Life Without Parole costs "$1.2 to $3.6 million" more than the Death Penalty if the criminal is actually executed.[2]. (scroll about halfway down, to the cost section)--> This cost analysis ignores the use of the Death Penalty as a tool for Plea Bargaining. The Criminal Justice Legal foundation reports that defendants plead guilty (and get, on average, harsher sentences) 10% more in Death Penalty states than in non-Death Penalty states, avoiding the cost of a trial entirely.[3]4) Innocence--> No examples given, more than likely because no examples exist. --> Outweighed. The Death Penalty saves far more lives than one possible innocent. --> Why can we accept the thousands of innocent people who die yearly in car and airplane crashes for our own selfish convenience, yet we cannot accept a possible innocent dying for something much more selfless like public safety?--> He also falsely asserts that the mentally retarted are executed. The Supreme court ruled in Atkins V. Virginia that this cannot happen.5) Other Options--> He claims life w/o parole to have the same effect. That is false, look at the Allen and Taylor examples in my case. Also the Texas Seven escaped a maximum security prison[4], so life w/o parole is not as effective at keeping innocent life safe than the Death Penalty. 6) Does not help victim --> Con asserts that killing the murderer will not bring back the victim. True, but he hasn't explained how life w/o parole is capable of such a miracle either. If we must abolish the death penalty because it doesn't help the victim, we also ought to abolish all penalties for murder as well, no?--> He also states that it doesn't help the family. He gives no evidence or logical analysis for this. I will. Here's a list of over 350 quotes from families of victims in support of the Death Penalty[5].7) Cruel and Unusual--> Cons logic could also be used to make life w/o parole "cruel and unusual" as well. With the Death Penalty they are spending years waiting for the inevitable (death). With life imprisonment they are also spending years waiting for the inevitable (death) they just spend longer. The Death Penalty is, using my Opponents logic, the more merciful action of the two.--> The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Death Penalty is not cruel or unusual punishment. --> The vast majority (65%) of Americans disagree with my Opponent and believe that the Death Penalty is a moral action.[6]Conclusion: My Opponents arguments are outweighed and refuted. Please vote Pro. Sources:1. http://www.gallup.com...2. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...3. http://www.cjlf.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://pro-dp.appspot.com...6. http://www.gallup.com...

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

Thanks, will go down the rebuttals is some sort of chronological order. R1: Genesis does not affirm capital punishment My opponent claims that capital punishment is supposedly supported by the Bible. However, he inherently missed the point. While I did say that the bible can bring forth understanding, we do not weigh it in today’s round. I have already shown that a literal and figurative interpretation of the Bible is possible, regardless of what school of thought you are from. Remember, the Bible is an interpretation of an interpretation of god’s word, which is then translated into different languages. This means that taking a literal interpretation of the Bible is misguided due to the differences of context. If this seems inherently “ignorant” then I would like proof as to why I am wrong. My opponent has provided my no sources to prove once and for all that he is right, which disturbs me. R2: Con conceded a point My opponent has conceded a point by being quiet which has decreased his ability to win. He stated the following: “Thus, we should execute people who god says to execute.” However, he has not listed what crimes that should be punished with death. Many people who claim to be a religious claim that sodomy is a “sin” that should be punishable by death. The federal government of the United States has not once executed someone due to their sexuality. Not only this, but the argument you present seems to be contradicting your case as you state that people who disobey God’s law should be killed, which is not what this debate is about. We are debating whether the Federal Government should abolish capital punishment. The entire premise you present, in other words, is meaningless since we are not debating the biblical law, but federal law. R3: New testament affirms old testament My opponent offers the following verses as responses to my previous rebuttal: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. https://www.biblegateway.com... 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. https://www.biblegateway.com... I shall break down my response into 2 sub-points First verse The first verse I have cited does not prove anything that my opponent has tried to claim. The verse is in reference to the commandments as clearly shown in the bible which I have displayed for you using the verse you wrote in your response. Also, we need to look toward the fallibility of those who wrote the Bible, who are people, of whom the majority probably misinterpreted “God’s will.” B.Second verse The second verse has nothing to do with capital punishment, and my opponent has not explained why these apply to the debate. I would like my opponent to also elaborate on what crimes should be considered worthy of capital punishment. R4: State of the debate My opponent has used the ad hominem logical fallacy which is described as a logical fallacy that involves someone making attacks against someone rather than the contentions, according to Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com... I quote my opponent for the following: “And the OT is contradicted by the NT only in the minds of the ignorant and the reprobate. Which are you?” This is a dangerous habit to fall into. Remember, debate has nothing to do with personal attacks.It is logical and does not involve name-calling, or anger. Secondly, we look toward the fact that my original points are yet to be refuted, simply being pushed aside for arguments that do not pertain to the topic at hand. My opponent, for example, stated this: “Capital punishment should be made mandatory for 19 crimes because God says so, which is to say it is just.” Yet later, he responds as such: “The issue of what 19 crimes God commands mandatory capital punishment for is not relevant. The fact that He commands capital punishment alone is proof that it is just.” This is untrue. ViceRegent, with all due respect, do not simply bring up a point only to say it is not important later. You list no evidence to prove this, meaning you did not carry your burden of proof. You also do not seem to back up your points with support besides your own interpretation of certain passages in the Bible. I have already shown why there are multiple different interpretations of the bible, and why a literal translation is misguided. Thus, you show no evidence. Clearly, one should vote pro. If this post is later than a few hours it is because I did the majority of this at school and had to finish it at home. I await your response.

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

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...

I think the death penalty should stay for the criminals that deserve it because first of all our tax money is paying to keep them in prison even after they did a horrendous crime and besides jail is not torture enough it barely even close enough homeless people come to jail all the time to get food and water and heating and another reason why there should definitely be a death penalty is because someone who is responsible on taking away lives from other people for no reason is just straight up cruel and evil and we should take charge and do something about it because innocent people don't deserve to die its not fair and these people need to learn and understand that what they did was not only wrong but monstrous and inhuman and it will also teach a lesson to others as well.


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment, in its modern form, involves a painless injection that ensures the individual being executed experiences no suffering. It serves as a stark warning to criminals about the consequences of their heinous acts. The prospect of never seeing one's family again is a sobering reminder to those facing the penalty. Their final moments are spent strapped to a chair, followed by a peaceful and painless end.

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

1. Self-Responsibility upon the Individual: Whose 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.2. 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.3. 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!4. 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.5. 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. 6. 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.7. Prevents Overpopulation within Prisons: Statedunder 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...

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

My opponent keeps dwelling on this, I did not imply Zimmermann deserves CAPITAL punishment, but to be punished for what he did. My point is the justice system is flawed and not always fair. People who deserve punishment, as in jail time, may not always receive it, and there are cases in which the wrongfully accused are executed. At times, this was because forensics and DNA testing were not as advanced, or even around yet. Therefore when cases are reopened investigators may discover new evidence that lead them to finding the accused innocent for their alleged crime. Courts usually do not dwell on claims of innocence after the defendant is executed. Also, the government does not like advertising such errors so the number is unknown and attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. The Northwestern University School of Law's Center on Wrongful Convictions documented 38 "reported" executions occurred since the '70s where compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt was found. Cases like Carlos DeLuna, Ruben Cantu, Larry Griffin, Leo Jones, Gary Graham, Claude Jones, etc have about a 10-20 year gap from the time the person was convicted, most likely meaning there was a lot of reasonable doubt and controversy. Approximately 1 out of 10 people executed are exonerated, again proving the justice system is untrustworthy. What if they weren't? Whether it is a 1 or 1,000 falsely executed, another life is taken away unnecessarily. The controversy with the death penalty is that both Pro-CP and Con-CP understand the value of life, and that taking another's is immoral. But taking one to be proportional or "get even" is just as bad, even vengeful - a personal feeling that civilized government should not engage in. Capital punishment is almost a contradiction in itself. The FBI has found the states that enforce the death penalty that have the highest murder rates. Since most of the states enforce it, that means violence is spreading not only there but throughout America. A national survey of police chiefs show that they feel the death penalty is the least effective way to reduce crime, behind curbing drug abuse, hiring more officers, lowering the barriers to prosecution, longer sentences, improving the economy, and gun control. They also feel that instead of spending taxpayers money on this it should be spent on more effective ways of reducing crime. Jail: place for the confinement of persons in lawful detention, especially persons awaiting trial under local jurisdiction - that is the purpose, not psychological torture, however one takes it is out of our hands. Regardless, if that occurs it's still less severe than death. My opponent defined murder as premeditated killing, meaning planned, just like these executions are. As a civilized society we need to work together to reduce crime and violence instead of killing off criminals. It is an effort to erase the problem instead of solving it, thus causing even more problems.

Slogan: En eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Capitol punishment should be abolished because of a high possibility for error, the fact that it is an unethical practice, and its high cost. 1) Capitol punishment should be abolished because of its high possibility for error. By ruthlessly killing people who are convicted, prosecutors are completely obliterating any hope of correcting their mistakes if it turns out the prosecutors were wrong. According to a study done by Columbia Law School Professor James Liebman, 68 percent of all death verdicts reviewed from 1973-1995 were revised by courts due to serious error. Of those revisions, 82 percent ended in less harsh sentences, and 9 percent of those people were found innocent and eventually freed. Since capitol punishment was reintroduced in America in 1973, 99 death row inmates have been exonerated, raising questions about its validity and leading to mounting pressure among opponents for it to be scrapped or at least suspended. If these convicted people are sentenced to death, and then are later found to be innocent, the legal system has just murdered NINETY NINE people who didn't deserve to die. http://www.cbsnews.com... Wrongful conviction is also present in modern times. According to the nonprofit Death Penalty Focus, there have been at least four men wrongfully killed in the past two years. Also, 139 men and women have been released from Death Row nationally… some only minutes away from execution. How many more might have been released, had then not been executed? We will never know… and that's just the problem. Examples of this include Troy Davis, executed despite the fact that, according to Amnesty International, all but two of the state's non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony and many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis. Another example is Cameron Todd Willingham, wrongfully executed under the charge of setting his house on fire and killing his three daughters. Just imagine the horror his parents must have felt, having lost all three beloved granddaughters and then having to watch their equally beloved son be executed! http://www.deathpenalty.org... If an innocent person's life is taken, that is murder. Murdering innocent people is something that belongs within the confinement of the past. Slaughter belongs to war, and countries that oppress their people. We cannot continue a ruthless practice without looking deeper into our society and our values. Is this what is at the heart of America? 2) Capitol punishment should be abolished because it is way too expensive. Capitol punishment is much more expensive than life in prison without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. According to deathpenaltyinfo.org, in the Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, it states that, "The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 dollars per year per inmate. With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually." Also, using conservative rough projections, the Commission states that the annual costs of the present death row system to be $137 million per year. And that is JUST in California! This is yours and my taxpayer money that goes toward murderers. Even worse, what if a person is innocent? That's millions of our money down the drain. If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of "Life Without the Possibility of Parole", which costs millions less, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on things like our $14 trillion debt, education, public safety programs, health services, the possibilities are endless. 3) Capitol punishment should be abolished because it is immoral. Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". Most developed countries around the world recognized these rights have abolished capitol punishment or they are considering it. According to Amnesty International, in 1977, only 16 countries had abolished capitol punishment for all crimes. As of December 2010 that figure stands at 96 and more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished capitol punishment in law or practice. In 2010, only 23 countries used capitol punishment. http://www.amnesty.org... Deathpenalty.org lists the number of executions by country. In 2010, China led the world with over 1,000 executions, Iran had 252, North Korea had 60, Yemen had 53, followed by the US with 46. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... With capitol punishment in place, the US is consistent with countries that have horrible human rights histories with their people. Meanwhile, The European Union and the United Nations General Assembly have drafted rules to abolish capitol punishment. In order to keep up with democratic, modern, and civilized nations, it is neither wise nor moral for the U.S. to have capitol punishment in place.

Excellent arguments, Uchi. I will now rebut every one of them. http://www.youtube.com...1. The Death Penalty is Fair?Now, as I said before, one life for one life might be fair. Might, not is. The death penalty might be fair for those who have only murdered one person, but what about one life for 10 others? 15 for that matter? Then....the quote from Escape Plan comes in and applies to this situatio:. "Taking a man's life is nothing. Taking away his family....that's everything." (See video for source) You see, it's simply not enough to kill a mass murderer of many. He must have a greater punishment. And taking away his family is the gravest punishment possible, much greater and more fair than the Death Penalty. You are torturing him from the inside, letting him suffer for all his horrid deals, and you let him live, the real punishment, instead of simply letting him die. The death penalty is just too quick, too fast, it's nothing in comparison to keeping him in prison and taking away his family. "Can anyone honestly claim that the men who committed such atrocities deserve anything less than the most serious possible punishment that the government can feasibly administer?" See? Even my opponent agrees. This argument, I agree and rest my case. 2. Deterrencea. DP effect is neutral? It might be, but life sentence is obviously more leaning towards the positive side.b. DP deters crime? Then why is it less effective than life sentence somehow? There is some morals and philosophies at work here. Either those other states have amazing police (which is likely not the case), or those crime-commitors actually fear the life sentence more. 3. RecidivismMy opponent tries to talk about the release of prisoners. But--have these people been forced to labor in the prisons? No? Then I rest my case concerning prison cheap labor.My opponent also talks about the murder rates within prisons the same as in the average American town. Well, if the Death Penalty was justified for these dudes anyways, these prisoners actually saved us money. Thank you, thank you. My case is still sleeping here.CONCLUSIONI've effectively rebutted my opponent's case, and my previous massive round (extroardinarily effectively using up the character space all the way until only about 20-or-so characters) still powerfully remains strong, buff, and gloriously shining on the mountain of awesomeness. Death Penalty is still unfair, it still costs way too much, it can kill the innocent, is discriminating, does not help to contribute to the deaths, and labor would be able to punish these evil-doers even further while earning back the funds we spend on prisons and the federal cases.The end.PSYCH!! That's not it. Uchi has yet to rebut my religious arguments, and the fact that all my sources point toward the ineffectiveness of the death penalty. Just in case my source is attacked in my opponent's rebuttal, I shall, right here, provide another source clearly showing how ineffective the death penalty really is.http://www.dailyiowan.com...Tada!! There we go, a professional law attorney upping what I said about the death penalty releasing the murderer rather than actually giving him a punishment. In fact, most prisoners actually prefer death to life sentence as my source confirms. So Ray Breslin was right. Taking away your life really IS nothing if all you did was take a life. However, taking away your family....that's everything.Back to you, Uchi. You'll have to try harder than your last round to rebut my round AND restrengthen your arguments. Good luck.

Hello all! This debate is on the abolishment of the death penalty. This is one of my favorite debate topics, so I hope for a great challenge!Definitionsdeath penalty: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. abolishment: to end the observance or effect of LayoutRound 1: acceptanceRound 2: ALL arguments presentedRound 3: rebuttal (no new arguments)Round 4: rebuttal pt. 2 (no new arguments)Round 5: conclusion/closing statements (no new arguments)Please note that this debate will be carried out in a formal manner, with extensive arguments that are expected to be well-written and respectable.--------------I will argue on the pro side, claiming that the death penalty should, or ought to be abolished. I await acceptance of this debate.

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

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.

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


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital punishment
Affirmative, as it is a fair measure that ensures rapists and heinous criminals cannot continue to inflict harm on our society.

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

I, am for the death penalty being totally abolished. I now give my opponent the opportunity to argue: - Why the death penalty is necessary in ALL cases - What possitive effects it has on society - Where and why the death penalty is called for reasonably - Why taking away a persons life is a fair punishment I now hand the debate over to my opponent.

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

I 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...

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

My question "where is the justice in that?" does not imply that I "clearly" believe he should be put to death. If I did, I would not be pro in this debate. By mentioning the tragic controversy occurring in our country involving Trayvon Martin's death, the point I was trying to get across was that the justice system is obviously not perfect, and those who deserve punishment often do not receive it. If proven guilty, even though in my eyes he is, then he definitely deserves time in jail for such a crime. However, that does not mean he or anyone else deserves to die for killing; killing one for killing another is extremely hypocritical of our society, immoral, and though it may seem "proportional", it does not teach a lesson about the seriousness of taking another's life if one is going to do the same thing - even for revenge purposes, or whatever it may be. I would like to point out that I do think it is a good thing that my opponent states that in Texas there were 138 people exonerated and released after being wrongly accused of a crime. However, capital punishment is legal in over 60% of the United States. With that being said, there are still too many people killed before they are truly proven innocent of the crime. He also states most murderers are sentenced to solitary confinement and, as a result of this, deal with their own insanity, anger, and overall become psychologically tortured. Obviously, this is a bad thing. But, if people feel that they deserve death for their crime, what makes growing psychological problems worse of a punishment? It clearly is not, plus, prisoners deal with this as well. Yes, I was uninformed about the use of the Battered Spouse Syndrome as a defense and how crimes associated with self-defense are dealt with in general. I am glad that these cases are handled differently. I also believe that the raping a rapist argument is relevant because he says the death penalty is proportional. So much more than virginity is taken from a rape that I don't think my opponent is aware of; one's self-esteem, self-worth, peace of mind, trust in others, future relationships, physical and mental health, and so much more are permanently damaged. Being a victim of rape, I know it all too well. If the person is truly a cold-hearted killer, he/she deserves the psychological torture, and to suffer for what they have done, but certainly not be murdered themselves. I constantly mention this to the point where it is becoming redundant, I'm not contradicting myself. Lastly, I'd like to mention that overall, capital punishment displays cruel and unusual punishment: it represents the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were common punishments and like those barbaric practices, executions should have no place in a civilized, industrial society. Furthermore, it is unfair to forever deprive an individual of the opportunity to benefit from new evidence or new laws that could change their fate.

1. Self-Responsibility upon the Individual: Whose 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.2. 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.3. 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!4. 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.5. 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. 6. 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.7. Prevents Overpopulation within Prisons: Statedunder 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...

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.

Overall I believe the death penalty should be legal for a variety of reasons. A. People may be under the impression that the death penalty is racially bias. But according to the NAACP, 56% of all executions in the US since 1976 are white men and woman. The other 44% is a variety of other ethnicity's. B. Many say that the death penalty is the reason for debt in the US but according to Edwin H. Sutherland, PhD, late President of the American Sociological Society, and Donald R. Cressey, PhD, late Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the 1974 revised edition of their book titled Criminology, wrote: "It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher." Edwin H. Sutherland, PhD, late President of the American Sociological Society, and Donald R. Cressey, PhD, late Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the 1974 revised edition of their book titled Criminology, wrote: "It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher." C. In addition to, many people say it goes against our 8th amendment. "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" This is not considered cruel. According to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... none of the execution methods are cruel. There is no pain involved. LETHAL INJECTION Two needles (one is a back-up) are then inserted into usable veins, usually in the inmates arms. Long tubes connect the needle through a hole in a cement block wall to several intravenous drips. The first is a harmless saline solution that is started immediately. Then, at the warden's signal, a curtain is raised exposing the inmate to the witnesses in an adjoining room. Then, the inmate is injected with sodium thiopental - an anesthetic, which puts the inmate to sleep. Next flows pavulon or pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the entire muscle system and stops the inmate's breathing. Finally, the flow of potassium chloride stops the heart. ELECTROCUTION At postmortem, the body is hot enough to blister if touched, and the autopsy is delayed while the internal organs cool. There are third degree burns with blackening where the electrodes met the skin of the scalp and legs. According to Robert H. Kirschner, the deputy chief medical examiner of Cook County, "The brain appears cooked in most cases." (Weisberg, 1991) THE GAS CHAMBER The gas chamber is no longer an option due to the horrific history of the cruel death of innocent members in Germany, and other countries. FIRING SQUAD The person shot loses consciousness when shock causes a fall in the supply of blood to the brain. HANGING Is now only used in Delaware and Washington, but the rope snaps the second vertebra and "shuts off" the heart SOURCES R. Bohm, "Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States," Anderson Publishing, 1999. W. Ecenbarger, "Perfecting Death: When the state kills it must do so humanely. Is that possible?," The Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine, January 23, 1994. "Executions - Preparing Staff for the Hard Task Ahead," The Corrections Professional, Vol. 1, February 16, 1996. H. Hillman, "The Possible Pain Experienced During Executions by Different Methods," 22 Perception 745 (1992). J. Weisberg, "This is Your Death," The New Republic, July 1, 1991.

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...