Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

The death penalty should be abolished.

Let me begin by addressing a few points. Firstly, this is my first debate, so please bear with me if there are any stylistic issues. Secondly, I'm currently in the midst of my finals, so I apologize if my responses are delayed. Now, let's address your arguments.

The Death Penalty - Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. However, the act of executing someone with the death penalty is not considered murder by definition, as the government does not recognize it as such. Furthermore, the death penalty has been practiced throughout history and is even advocated in religious texts. You mentioned that it is not the government's place to murder people without war, but is it not morally reprehensible during war as well? We must consider what war truly is. It is when a country believes it has been wronged by another entity. If a country believes that an entity, whether it be another state, a terrorist faction, or a person, poses a significant threat to its citizens, it has the right to fight back and kill. Is this not essentially what the death penalty is?

You stated that nobody is afraid of the death penalty, making it ineffective. However, is it not redundant to say that humans inherently do not wish to die? As such, you don't hear people say "I don't want to get the death penalty" because everyone knows that no one wants to die. In effect, I disagree with your point. Crimes are not committed on a scale that would warrant the possibility of capital punishment because while people may not be so afraid of going to jail, they are indeed afraid of the potentiality of being put to death.

"It kills people instead of allowing them to pay for their crimes." Is executing them not a form of making them pay for their crimes?

"The appeal process is too extensive for a death penalty person. They can get acquitted wrongfully at any time." This is true for many criminals. A prisoner in jail has nothing better to do than research case law and look for reasons to appeal and eventually get themselves acquitted. However, this cannot happen if they are dead.

"Capital punishment is cruel and unusual... It is destroying American values." Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual. Every effort has been made to ensure that the prisoner does not feel any pain during the execution, which is a service that they may not have given to their victims. In fact, the invention of the guillotine, which aimed for a quick and painless death, was a step

My opponent fails to realize that the only punishment that Zimmerman can receive is "CAPITAL punishment". It doesn't matter what she thinks should happen, she views him as guilty, and if he is, he will be executed. Also, I've already established the fact that people are kept on death row for approximately 5-10 years. That is more than enough time to investigate. Courts don't like to dwell on claims of innocence after the defendent is executed. What's the point? To the best of their knowledge, the defendant was guilty. No, the government doesn't like advertising their mistakes, did my opponent advertise her mistakes? Did she elaborate on the fact that she dropped her contention? Also, who would want to share negative news? If someone wants to read depressing news, they can do so, but we shouldn't broadcast it for all to see. My opponent needs to look at her statistic 1/10 people are exonerated after their execution; 9/10 people are actually guilty. Judging by the principals of utilitarianism, founded by Jeremy Bentham, a theory that advocates the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, it's safe to say that the number of people who are guilty outweighs the number of those who are innocent. Sacrifices must be made for the betterment of society. My opponent speaks of Capital Punishment being vengeful, Capital Punishment is not revenge; if one of the victim's family members went and killed one of the murderer's family members, then yes, that would be vengeful. But fortunately we have a 3rd party(the government) making judgements as opposed to the immediate family members who would kill the murderer and not think twice about it. My opponent speaks of the FBI feeling that taxpayers should spend money on something other than Capital Punishment. Taxpayers' money also funds Solitary Confinement, which is almost the equivalent of housing a murderer. They are fed, bathed, and given a place to sleep, it sounds a lot cozier than the street. In a study, there were no executions in certain states who had chosen to drop the death penalty between 1968-1977; throughout these years homicide rates increased greatly. In 1967(The year before the death penalty was dropped) homicide rates were at an alarming amount of over 500,000 per year. By the time the death penalty was reinstated homicide rates had been raised to a shocking 800,000 murders per year. This is a 60% increase in murder. It was not until 2002 that the number of executions exceeded the number of homicides. Thus proving that Capital Punishment is effective. My opponent speaks of jails purpose. Does she wish to speak about purposes? Escorts are supposed to escort you to parties, but they end up being prostitutes. It's not about what the intentions are, it's about what actually happens. I urge the con vote for the following reason(s):-My opponent dropped her arguments about domestic violence, Casey Anthony, rape, Troy Davis, and CP being representative of cruel/unusual punishments.

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

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.

You know you don't need to put my name in quotation marks. Allright, my opponent's rebuttal was quite lengthy so I will answer each of his points in turn. "This tells us that "Harlan" agrees with my point of view, and would like to see the death penalty applied in some cases." This is false. Punishment does not necessarily mean death. Punishment can mean exile, jail, a fine, or even public service. You have twisted my words around so that the punishment means death. That's a cheap card to play, man. "I would like to point out that we are thoroughly educated when we are young. Police come to our schools to talk about what to do and what not to do. But does this serve any purpose?" I would like to clarify that I am in no way suggesting that education will completely eliminate all crime. And likewise, the fear of being punished will also (and does) not eliminate all crime. By citing a single incident of education failing to discourage a man from crime in no way proves that education is completely useless in the effort of decreasing crime. If I so pleased, I could do the same thing with your method of decreasing crime via fear, by citing incidents of people going on killing sprees despite the fact that they will almost certainly wind up in prison or in the electric chair. But regardless of the effectiveness of education when compared to fear, it must be acknowledged that education is a better foundation for society than fear. It creates a healthier atmosphere, and makes the populace moral people, rather than immoral people who are scared to act out their immoral ideas. And once more, I am not saying that punishment should be completely eliminated, I am saying that a balance should be made, with alot of emphasis on education, and less emphasis on punishment. "So what 'Harlan' is saying here, that the death sentence is in place to 'kill more people in order to get organs'. Thats what he's saying. The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment." Here you go again twisting my words. I never said that the death sentence is in place for any purpose. This is a hypothetical debate (see resolution), and has nothing to do with any death-sentence policy that exists in real life. I was merely responding to your hypothetical death-sentence ideas, which you happened to justify on the basis that "organs and body parts they have could be donated to those who need them" (see round 1). Those are your words, not mine. What you have done in the above quote is completely changed your argument to "The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment.", while completely ignoring my rebuttal to your original point (the one you just pretended you didn't make), which was that the felon's organs could be used. "This proves that he is feeling sorry for the criminal who has killed lots of people and thinks that this is dishonoring the person." It's not so much a matter of "feeling sorry", as you have twisted my words to say, as it is honoring every Human being's fundamental rights, regardless of their personality. Once more, 2 wrongs do not make a right, and with that in mind it can be said that it is not justified to deny a fellow Human being of his rights, no matter what the scenario is. I think using their organs against their will would be immoral and dishonoring. "Why doesn't 'Harlan' feel sorry for those who were killed?" Where could you have possibly made this conclusion out of anything that I said in round 1? Now you are simply making up stuff that I said. "I am not talking of prison break outs. I am talking of how people are released because their time is up and then they get put out into the public, and then they kill more people (which is almost always the case), and then they get sent to jail again, and then the cycle continues." Once more, this is a problem that has a simple and practical solution: don't release them. You have made it clear that the crux of the problem is not that they are alive, but that they are being released from jail when they shouldn't be. The same people who you are suggesting to be jazzed with electricity could simply be kept in jail for life. "Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe." Well, too bad. It's their job. "We are not trying to get rid of people." Neither of us said this. "We are not trying to find ways to donate organs or blood." Those were your words, not mine. "We are not trying to find ways of lowering a population." I never said this either. "We are just trying to find a way to fairly punish someone for what they've done." Fairness is a narrow-minded and naive way of punishing criminals. Punishment should never be about fairness. It should be about discouraging criminals, and (if the punishment is one compatible with this goal) possibly keep them away from society for practical reasons. I fail to see a reason to punish people for the sake of fairness. "And can I also say, that there are spelling and grammar mistakes in 'Harlan's' argument. Take the word "attrocious" for example. That was in 'Harlan's' argument." Fine, if we ARE playing that game, then I guess I'll play too. In the above quote, his first sentence did not need a comma and should have had a quotation mark instead of a period, since it was phrased as a question. Also (I wasn't going to say anything, but I suppose I will), he misquoted Al Capone earlier. -Harlan

For this debate, since I have not debated in a while, I will argue the Pro side of the Death Penalty. My opponent will argue the opposite.Rules: No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game. No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other. No Trolls please! If you use a source, post its link in a "Source Category". Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rulesStructure:Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section). Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Con can Rebuttal this round if they choose.Round 3: Both sides RebuttalRound 4: Pro Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion and can Rebuttal if they choose to do so, while Con will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.Any breakage of the structure is either a penalty or automatic disqualification. Depends on how serious the breaking of the structure was. Definition:Death Penalty: The punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a serious crime.Good luck to whoever accepts!

Have you heard of an eye for eye? Well that's exactly what the death penalty is doing. It may seem wrong and brutal to kill someone but to not kill the killer is wrong. Death penalty's are done in a humane way and is not as unusual and cruel as it looks. The prisoner is blindfolded and then executed. It is pretty much like putting down an animal. If animals can be put down why can't humans be put down? It's all the same. Both animals and humans that stand on this Earth is meant to die. By executing prisoners you only end their lives shorter but sooner or later they will die. Death penalty's should be done if you are to stop mass murdering or brutal killing of a man. As I mentioned in my previous arguments, without the death penalty, there will be no fear to kill and killing is what will happen if you don't create the fear. It will keep going until it can be stopped and unless you find a proper way to stop the criminals instead of execution, then you should keep the punishment. I thank the opposition for his argument and I hope l changed what you think of the death penalty

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

The death penalty is useless. It is morally wrong, inefficient, and observably ineffective in accomplishing several key goals. Historically, there have been five presumably legitimate purposes for punishment: (1) Retribution, (2) Deterrence, (3)Rehabilitation, (4)Incapacitation, and (5)Public Education. [1] For a punishment to be morally permitted, it must justify itself by fulfilling at least one of the aforementioned criteria. The death penalty is justified only under one criterion, and that criterion is not enough by itself to justify any punishment. (1) Retribution The death penalty does provide retribution. It provides retribution at a cost of an additional $90,000 per inmate on death row. [2] Life imprisonment is less costly, and an equally valid form of retribution. Even assuming that retribution is valid, the death penalty is still inefficient compared to life sentencing, an equally valid alternative. Where two processes are proposed to meet the same end, assuming the same result, the more efficient process should be favored. Life imprisonment and the death penalty both remove the freedom of an individual to act. One method is simply more costly and eliminates all of the offender's potential value. Therefore, the death penalty is the worse of two methods of accomplishing the same ends, and must be discredited under a theory of retribution. (2) Deterrence The death penalty does not deter. [3] (3) Rehabilitation The death penalty does not rehabilitate, obviously. (4) Incapacitation The death penalty does incapacitate. Incapacitation, however, is an invalid goal by itself. If incapacitation alone could justify the death penalty, then it would be proper to extend it to every instance of every criminal act ever conducted. After all, the argument goes, they wouldn't reoffend. Similarly, most people who argue for prison reform are concerned for rising costs. Life imprisonment is just as valid a form of incapacitation. It is also less costly. If incapacitation is the goal, then life imprisonment is still the better alternative. (5) Public Education If the death penalty does educate the public, it doesn't do it in the way it aims to. [4] [5] By increasing the incidence of homicide, the death penalty clearly could not accomplish its ends under this criterion. Conclusion The death penalty is therefore not justified. If the death penalty is not justified, it is the unjustified taking of another's life. The unjustified taking of another's life is murder. Murder is morally wrong. Therefore, the death penalty is morally wrong. The death penalty is therefore inefficient, ineffective and morally wrong. It should be discarded. Sources [1] http://www.wcl.american.edu... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [4] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5] http://www.prisonactivist.org...

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

Killing the person as a punishment makes us just as bad as them. Sometimes (4.1%) we get the WRONG GUY! So, let's assume we killed someone for murder charges. We found out they were innocent, and now we unjustifiably killed a person, an irreversible deed. That makes us, the taxpayers who fund this,the criminals by your own logic as we murdered an innocent person. Less harsh sentences are OK- we need them because it is seriously screwing people up. Capital punishment is in no way fair. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


Question: Should Capital Punishment be Permitted?

Capital punishment should not be permitted. Firstly, just because a majority of Americans support the death penalty does not mean it should be implemented. Consider that 139 countries have abolished capital punishment after using it for 10 or more years, compared to only 58 nations that still actively use it today. Popularity does not equate to righteousness; for instance, if the majority believes mosques should not be built under any circumstances, does that make it right? The majority's opinion does not always dictate what is correct.

Secondly, the argument that capital punishment deters crime is flawed. How does the death penalty save lives? Is it accurate to say that the USA's allowance of death penalties prevents crime, when crime rates are highest in the USA, despite having the fifth-highest number of executions globally? Many individuals are not deterred by the death penalty, as they prioritize personal gain, such as money, drugs, or revenge, over the potential consequences. The death penalty does not deter crime, as 87% of expert criminologists and 88% of top criminologists agree that it has no significant effect on crime rates. Furthermore, in 2010, the average murder rate in states with the death penalty was 4.6, while states without it had an average of 2.9. The top 10 states with the highest crime rates all have the death penalty. This disproves the notion that capital punishment deters crime.

Additionally, wrongful executions have occurred, with 39 people being executed from 1992 to 2004 due to wrongful convictions. 138 death row defendants have been released since 1973 due to wrongful convictions and withheld evidence. This is unjust, as innocent lives are being taken because of the death penalty. The death penalty is also racially biased, with 77% of death row defendants being executed for killing a white person, despite half of the victims being black.

Moreover, the death penalty does not provide closure to victim families. The killing of the murderer does not necessarily alleviate the pain of losing a loved one. Revenge by the government is not a solution to the problem. Life in prison without parole serves justice better than the death penalty, as it is a form of everyday torture for the convicted, knowing they will spend the rest of their lives in a cell. Furthermore, if God does not condone the death penalty, why should we? The Old Testament specifically allowed for capital punishment for the Israel

I accept the terms of the rules and will post my case. But before I do, keep in mind these are not my opinions, simply things I have researched in an attempt to put on a fair and unbiased debate. Before we begin, let us realize that this debate should be weighed by lives and economics. Furthermore, if I convince you that the death penalty saves lives and is economically sound, I win the debate. With this in mind, I will begin. I affirm the Death Penalty for the following contentions. Contention 1: Deterrent effect While often contested, there is an obvious example of the effectiveness of the death penalty in modern times if we were to turn to an Emory University study in 2001 has found a clear deterrent effect in their study. They claim that the most robust finding in the study is the fact that they have found that the arresting, execution, and sentencing records ouch the theory of a strong deterrent effect on murders. The study goes on to say that the more we spend on the Judiciary system and police force, the more effective the police system is, which means we weed out more murderers. . http://cjlf.org... These findings are supported by Dr. Paul Zimmerman who states the following: "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 4 and 25 murders per year…” . https://www.unc.edu... The deterrent effect is said to work through econometrics, or the application of statistical and economic theories to determine truth value or come to a conclusion. . http://www.investopedia.com... In other words, we need to see that criminals, much like what is described in my first citation, think like they are purchasing an item by weighing the consequences and using the same decisions we use to make a smart, fiscal decision. This means that criminals are likely going to weigh death with killing an innocent person, resulting in them feeling deterred to go through with such action. Being tough on crime sends a message to criminals that is important. This statement shows that crime does not pay, and those that commit crime will suffer the consequences of said crime, whether execution or time in prison. This will in turn convince criminals that the actions that they would have taken would result in even more pain and problems in prison. We can actually see the effect of having smaller amounts of executions if we turn toward the recent statistics provided by the FBI in 2014, where although murder is shown to decrease, rape and aggravated assault charges increased after the death penalty was used less often. . https://www.fbi.gov... What needs to be done is clear, let us become tough on crime to protect the American public. Vote pro. Contention 2: Lack of alternatives The death penalty seems to be the only option for the most heinous killers and criminals. If we look at Psychology Today, we see that conditions such as psychopathy are prevalent in criminal activity and have no known cure at the moment. . https://www.fbi.gov... Also, according to the ACLU, between 5 and 10% of all death row inmates suffer from a severe mental health disease. . https://www.aclu.org... This is not necessarily treatable and also not necessarily effective. Remember, many dangerous criminals showed very little empathy or remorse for crimes, leading many to see them as psychopaths. Other alternatives that seem sensible are actually not. My opponent may bring up maximum security prison as an alternative as well. However, this fails on the face value of expenses. The average cost of a security prison is absurdly high. The average cost of a prisoner in a maximum security prison is $200,000 a year. This is a huge problem as we spend over 190 million dollars every year for prisoners which is not going to the American people and not benefitting the American economy. . http://www.golocalprov.com... Federal reform can’t fix this problem as the livelihood of the prisoners are still highly valued at a high security prison. Not only this, bet despite high security prisons being secure, there are always ways for prisoners to escape and continue to harm society. There are multiple examples, but a recent Chicago Tribune article describes the escape of three prisoners from a high security prison which resulted in manhunts due to the situation. With this in mind, we must neutralize threats and not assume that the criminal will not escape. . http://www.businessinsider.com... What is clear is the fact that the alternatives that could be proposed to Capital Punishment are not going to be effective at not only curtailing violence and crime, but also, there is no guarantee that that the alternatives will warrant more effective solutions. Because of this, affirm. Contention 3: Cost My opponent will claim that the cost of the death penalty is too high to be worth the effects. However, we need to realize that there is another actor many people do not take into account when stating this. In fact, according to Criminal Justice Legal Foundation study in 2009, we can see the following: “The average county with the death penalty disposes of 18.9% of murder cases with a plea and a long sentence, compared to 5.0% in counties without the death penalty. ” . http://www.cjlf.org... This is important due to the fact that the majority of the death penalty costs come from the legal and judicial system being nuanced with many rules and regulations. Not only this, but court costs are huge due to the fact that it is a life or death situation which is in the hands of each lawyer involved. However, these plea bargains are going to be saving money in the status quo despite what my opponent may claim. In fact, when we look toward the Death Penalty Information Center, we can see an overview of a Seattle University Study showing the costs of the death penalty showing the following: “Defense costs were about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution costs were as much as four times higher than for non-death penalty cases. ” . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Plea bargains will substantially reduce this price with less work for the judicial system to do. According to a 1989 study by the Yale Law Journal study, we can see definitely see huge cost reductions with plea bargain being used, which means that ultimately shows the reduced costs of the death penalty, regardless of what my opponent will say. . https://www.jstor.org... Contention 4: Reforms necessary I will concede that the capital punishment program is ineffective in many ways that seem to be tangible. However, not only are these problems overstated, but there are many ways to fix these problems as opposed to simply abolishing the death penalty completely. For instance, we can clearly see that more funding to the judicial system and policing system will make the process more proficient. Not only this, but the accidental execution of innocent people is a problem as well and needs to be fixed through a more informed and trained jury. We can also spend more on lawyers for those with the inability to pay for representation that is effective. The point is, any problem my opponent provides can be easily shown to be fixed through implementation of reform that would ultimately be solvent. My opponent’s resolution does not mention the current system or future system and simply asks if the United States should have a death penalty, meaning this argument is valid. Not only this, but we need to weigh lives over anything else in this debate, and since I have proven the deterrent effect occurs in the status quo, we need to see the impacts of this which includes higher public safety and less criminals on the street resulting in less lives lost as shown from my statistic from Dr. Zimmerman in my first contention.

Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment. Definitions: Death Penalty: The execution of a criminal for a capital crime. Just: Giving each their due Punishment: the infliction of a negative for the breaking of the law or for a right violation. Contentions: I. The Death Penalty is the only true proportionate punishment for killers. Killers take away the greatest right, the right to life. When this is violated, no earthly punishment is great enough to "balance the scale of justice" according to Kant. The only way to keep the scale equal is to kill the killer. You can also use Kant's universality argument, in that if the killer universalizes his action of killing, then the state is giving him what he wants and deserves, death. The killer must be held to equal worth the the victim. By letting him live, you are placing the life of the criminal over that of the victim. What type of society is that?? II. The Death Penalty is utilitarian. A) Deterrence. The death penalty deters, meaning it stops future crimes. You are protecting more innocents. According to a Harvard Study, the death penalty saves 7-8 innocent people per year. The obligation of the state is to p[protect society, and they can do this by the death Penalty. So, society as well as the criminal is getting its due. B) Incapacitation. The Death Penalty makes sure the same criminal does not commit the same crime, either in-jail or out of jail. Again, more people are protected. III. Self-Defense Theory. The State is the embodiment of society. An individual has the right to kill an attacker to protect his/her own life. The State has the same right. It's justified in killing a criminal to protect itself from harm. Easy enough -- Self-Defense.

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

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

Thank you with engaging with my arguments although I think that you need to provide some arguments against as well as rebutting my position. I will use this round to support my position by responding to your rebuttal. Clearly, the first main point of contention is the nature of prison. I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously when you argued that prison was "not even a bad place for prisoners". Now, I don't know what kind of prisons that you are talking about but to say that prison is not tough is completely laughable. As you even admitted, there is a risk of violence in prison and therefore there must be some element of toughness in prison. Furthermore, you are completely deprived of so much freedom. You seem to consider prison to be some kind of homogeneous institution that doesn't even punish prisoners. This is completely false. There is immense variation in prison and those convicted of especially horrible crimes would likely be in secure units which are even more tough and unpleasant places. Don't tell me prison is a nice place. It is not. Nobody leaves prison without a sense of happiness or relief. Prison is gruelling and tough. Prison is a tough punishment and therefore is suitable for dealing with horrible crimes. Secondly, you provided me with the response that says that it doesn't matter if a few innocent people die. I believe that if a civilised state kills innocent people then that is a serious offence that should concern everybody very much. Secondly, in order to justify a few innocents dying you have to show me that the benefits of the death penalty are so overwhelming that a few innocents dying are acceptable. You then provided a logically fallacious statistic that only 4.1% of convicts for murder are innocent. I'm not sure how that one is worked out. But surely there must be more since the reason they are convicts is that people think they are guilty so surely those that are innocent are not recorded? Furthermore, 4.1% is unacceptable and considering the incarceration rate of countries like the USA that is a lot of wrongly convicted people (many of whom are probably Black Americans). Furthermore, since the death penalty exists in many states that would mean a lot of those innocents would die. That is absolutely abhorrent and should make any advocate of the death penalty consider their beliefs especially considering that those convicts have families and loved ones too. Our criminal justice systems also do not improve necessarily year upon year. In the UK for instance, a scandal has emerged recently of evidence in rape and murder trials being withheld from the defence and thus resulting in some wrong convictions. In the USA, those people could now be dead. Also, the idea of us lying to families of wrongly executed people is completely immoral and hard to uphold. Next, you provided a very generalising and a verging on the racist argument against my assertion of racial bias in the prison system. I provided you with two accurate stats which suggest bias. Your response was that black people commit more crime. I find this idea of blackness causing more violent crimes completely ridiculous and offensive. There is no evidence that skin colour causes people to commit more violent crimes. It is true that black people are often caught up in more crime but this is to do with socio-economics and certainly not race. Also, considering the vast extent to which black people are more likely to be wrongly convicted literally proves that racism is a genuine cause of overrepresentation of oppressed groups on death row and in prison in general. Of course, the black community has crime problems but the criminal justice system has a race problems too undeniably so. As I explained last time, there are cases of jurors being openly racist during death penalty trials. Racism is a problem and the reality is that Black people face vast injustices which do lead, tragically, to them being murdered at greater rates by the state. Let's not let our racial problems manifest themselves in cases as serious as capital punishment. You then explain that prisoners of such crimes are a risk to others. This is absolutely true. However, we can control them to an extent. We can put them in solitary confinement and protect others instead of taking the lazy option and murdering them. While I argue that we should keep many people alive with the slight risk of them potentially killing others in prison, you argue that we should guarantee killing lots of people in the hope that some people may survive which could be achieved anyway. Your response just doesn't stack up. Also, thanks for admitting that being killed is more painful than life in prison. This reveals that my second argument against the death penalty still stands. Victims may or may not feel more satisfaction when the criminal dies but this is not always what we should base the DP on. You then made a very dubious claim that Japan having the death penalty means it has a lower homicide rate than SA. SA is a much poorer country with immense social and racial problems whereas Japan is richer and has a much more cohesive and safe society. These examples are utterly ridiculous to use to justify your argument of a deterrent. Also although some murderers may never feel sorrow, that doesn't mean that some do. Not everyone on death row is Hannibal Lecter and therefore there will be many who do feel remorse. We can spare their lives and give them the opportunity to apologise to the victim's family and make positive changes. I also believe that they should have opportunities to leave prison if they are no longer a threat and have served a sufficient punishment but obviously not in the cases of really evil criminals (although these are not the majority). Now onto the minor points of clash. Let me clarify my stance: I believe that human suffering in terms of painful suffering is universally wrong. However, causing suffering in order to alleviate more suffering is moral because ultimately less overall suffering would be endured and therefore fits under my stance. Also, I believe that prisoners should not physically suffer rather they should experience boredom and mental suffering within reason because this will actually allow them to change and become reformed people who have the chance to give to the world. My stance is not contradictory and still works. Next, I don't doubt that some families of criminals want them to die. But also many don't and especially considering some are wrongly convicted it makes more sense for the families to not have their loved-ones murdered by the state. Many, unsurprisingly, would rather have their child spend time in prison than be murdered in a painful way. Also, fetuses are absolutely not sentient human beings. This is a separate issue and that is my opinion so let's not bring it in. Apart from that, individuals can have the opportunity to reform. I believe that some will be let out after they have served their time and furthermore, progress can be made in prison. You can learn in prison, you can also confront the victim's family and you can lead a good life in prison. If you kill them, all this is completely extinguished. Moreover, fiery and often political stances and emotion do play a part in convictions. The religion of judges does have an impact on who dies. Furthermore, being sick in the head is often caused by the carrying out of violence just like violence in video games leads to violence in real life. This is still a cause of higher murder rates. And considering the plethora of states this study was done on it is far more reliable for instance certain states which have the death penalty are richer and yet still have higher murder rates. There is a tangible and real link between brutality from an authority leading towards ordinary citizens thinking its okay to be brutal in the same way a holy book encourages violence. I am also an atheist too by the way. Yes, in some cases it can be very extreme but racism exists in many cases and even if it is a minority, considering the severity of the punishment this matters greatly and our racism should not allow us to murder people. So in conclusion, I have shown that our criminal justice system has inherent flaws which still persist and that therefore innocent people die. I have also shown that many innocent people die and this is a serious moral problem for advocates of DP. I have also bolstered my stance that prisons are a real and tough alternative and that threats can be managed. I have further demonstrated that the majority of criminals on death row can change and should have that opportunity to benefit themselves and society and therefore we should not condemn them to a life whose only mantra was crime. Finally, I have supported my claim that brutality at a higher level perverts and corrupts society. For these reasons, my main arguments still stand strong whilst no opposition arguments have yet been made and therefore I continue to urge the voters to say yes to abolishing the DP. Taking a life when an innocent life has already been taking is not justice - it's revenge.

The first reason that the United States should not support the death penalty is that the Bill of Rights, inspired by John Locke, has given all people of the United states the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The key aspect here is that everyone has been given the right to life. Everyone deserves to live. The second reason that the United States should not support the death penalty is that the death penalty involves a permananent act. People have been acquitted after their deaths due to their innocence in the case that they died because of. Innocent people can be considered guilty when they really are not due to problems with DNA testing or other evidence and even because of slanted juries. Neither of these a excusable reason for the death of an innocent human being who was tortured with the prospect of their unnecessary death in the last period of their life. Many other reasons show that the United States should not support the death penalty are available to the open mind. These include the cruel and unusual punishment that comes with waiting to be sentenced. The death penalty, among other punishments, is meant to act as a warning to end further crimes from being committed, but the death penalty has been proven to not be a deterrent. A New York Times study showed that over the last 20 years states with the death penalty had a 48% homicide rate compared to 23% in the states without the death penalty. Punishments for crime should also be made for the committer and not the rest of their family. The death penalty is so absolute that it affects the family members of the recipient by traumatizing them when they did nothing wrong but be related to the recipient.

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

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?

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

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