The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Ameliamk1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

100 debate challenge 4: This House supports the death penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,125 times Debate No: 63904
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Wylted

Pro

Full Topic
This House supports the death penalty

Rules

1. Pro accepts the sole BOP
2. No forfeits
3. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
4. No new arguments in the final round
5. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
6. No semantics or trolling
7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Ameliamk1

Con

I accept and agree to the terms of this debate, and look forward to a helpful dialogue.

Simply for clarity, I would like to define the death penalty:

"the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime." (Merriam-Webster)

Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

I accept my opponent's definition, and thank him for accepting the 4th of my 100 simultanious debates (Or as close as I can get the 100 debates together.)

1. Deters Murders

The death penalty deters murders. Studies have been done to show that as many as 74 lives are saved per execution [1].

"In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number of murders increased. Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted. Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders."[2}

At the time some people thought this could be coincidence so a regression anlysis was done and showed that there was less than a 1 in 18,000 chance that the correlation wasn't random. Pretty much any study on the death penalty you look at since the 90s shows that the death penalty and actual execution have a real deterrent effect and actually saves lives. [2][3][4][5]

Cass Sunstein writes

" If the recent evidence of deterrence is ultimately shown to be correct, then opponents of capital punishment will face an uphill struggle on moral grounds. If each execution saves many innocent lives, the harms of capital punishment would have to be very great to justify its abolition"[6]

My opponent may show a nuber of death penalty states where it seems that detterence isn't working but

A recent study offers more refined findings.


"A recent study offers more refined findings.34 Disaggregating the data on a state-by-state basis, Joanna Shepherd finds that the nationwide deterrent effect of capital punishment is entirely driven by only six states—and that no deterrent effect can be found in the twenty-one other states that have restored capital punishment.35 What distinguishes the six from the twenty-one? The answer, she contends, lies in the fact that states showing a deterrent effect are executing more people than states that are not."

[6][7]

Conclusion

The death penalty saves lives plain and simple. If you reject the death penalty then you do it at the cost of several innocent victims.

sources

[1] Cowritten with Roy Adler, "Capital Punishment Works," online.wsj.com, Nov. 2, 2007

[2] See Ehrlich, supra note 18, at 398; Isaac Ehrlich, Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Further Thoughts and Additional Evidence, 85 J. POL. ECON. 741 (1977).

[3] See Dezhbakhsh et al., supra note 9, at 373

[4] Zimmerman, Alternative Execution Methods, supra note 9; Zimmerman, State Executions, supra note 9, at 190.

[5] Mocan & Gittings, supra note 9, at 453. Notably, no clear evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment emerges from Lawrence Katz et al., Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence, 5 AM. L. & ECON. REV. 318, 330 (2003), which finds that the estimate of deterrence is extremely sensitive to the choice of specification, with the largest estimate paralleling that in Ehrlich, supra note 18. Note, however, that the principal finding in Katz et al., supra, is that prison deaths do have a strong deterrent effect and a stunningly large one—with each prison death producing a reduction of “30-100 violent crimes and a similar number of property crimes.” Id. at 340.


[7] Shepherd, Deterrence Versus Brutalization, supra note 9.
Ameliamk1

Con

Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ameliamk1

Con

Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ameliamk1

Con

Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
If you want to argue the death penalty go to the opinions section. This isn't the place for it.
Posted by diogenesdaughter 2 years ago
diogenesdaughter
While citing studies and statistics is a vital part of such a discussion, it does not negate the fact that a dead child rapist cannot rape any more children. You may argue that some people are wrongly convicted of such a crime, based on social or racial bias, false witness, circumstantial evidence, etc., and I will not deny this. Their wrongful execution however would be due to our imperfect justice system, not to the existence death penalty itself. As for the deterrent factor of such a punishment, I would cite the historical cases of public display of executions as the reason it is not as successful today as it once was. We keep the execution politely and discreetly covered, so as not to rile the sensitivities of those opposed and in so doing, negate it's value. The specter of a person being executed will remain indelibly etched in ones mind, perhaps long enough to influence our decision on whether it is worth the risk of facing it for a few moments of pleasure derived from the rape or harming of another person. Simply stated, if I tell you I am going to do something to you it will not affect you as much as if you see me doing it to someone in front of you. This is how many criminals ensure the silence of their victims, by demonstrating on a pet or other person, what they will do to the victim if they speak out. A death penalty without public display is thereby rendered ineffective as a deterrent force on future crimes and almost guarantees that we shall have to execute more, not less, people for committing the same atrocities and not achieve the deterrence of such crimes upon others. Therefore, if we determine that the death penalty shall be imposed for certain crimes, we MUST publicize these executions to prove their efficacy as a deterrent or the penalty becomes a moot point,
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
WyltedAmeliamk1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited several rounds which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Arguments - Pro. Con was unable to present further challenges to Pro which effectively allowed him to maintain his BOP. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize sources whereas Pro did. This is a clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
WyltedAmeliamk1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 2 years ago
judeifeanyi
WyltedAmeliamk1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeited all rounds nd pro did justice to it. kudos