The Instigator
RachanaUchiha
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Preston
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Acid attacker should be given death penalty.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Preston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,410 times Debate No: 60118
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

RachanaUchiha

Pro

i think acid attackers shuld b given death penalty as the lives of victims who experiencd acid attack got highly worse, der whole lifes changes only due 2 one terrible moment and d main fact is dat majority of d victims r only girls or woman.... i think its really injustice if d attackers r not given death penalty.

if any one wants 2 oppose me, please do it.
Preston

Con

1) Death Penalty Doesnt solve issues.

The death penalty does not deter crime, thus executing induviduals does not solve for acid attacks infact it may increase the ammount that occur, [http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu...] "few murderers rationally weigh the possibility that they might face the death penalty before committing a murder. Also, some research suggests that the death penalty increases the number of homicides through a "brutalization" effect." thus killing those who are attacking others with acid would only increase the number of overall attacks. The ACLU States [https://www.aclu.org...]"The death penalty is a waste of taxpayer funds and has no public safety benefit. The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime. They ranked increasing the number of police officers, reducing drug abuse, and creating a better economy with more jobs higher than the death penalty as the best ways to reduce violence. The FBI has found the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates." again re-enforcing the fact that the death penalty doesnt solve for the crimes commited.

2) Felony Murder Doctorine

Its illogical to assume that all attackers aim to kill and not injur, thus the united states government wouldnt even be able to impose the death penalty. the federal government due to the 8th ammendment holds the power to limit the states in these situations.

3)BOP

I would like to remind my judges that PRO holds the BOP and thus must prove all ACID ATTACKERS SHOULD BE GIVEN THE DEATH PENALTY, if they dont give ample reason why and logicly back thier stance than they lose this debate.

4)Life in prison without parol is a better solution

Life in prison without parol is cheaper, and since most acid attacks occur outside the US and in developing countries it would allow them to develop and pay less to imprison the attackers rather than killing them, the ACLU states "A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs – including the time of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs – are mostly borne by the taxpayer. The extra costs of separate death row housing and additional security in court and elsewhere also add to the cost. A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison." [https://www.aclu.org...]

Thus we can only see a ballot in negation of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
RachanaUchiha

Pro

Who said that death penalty do not reduce the crime
It makes people think twice. Lets just say, for example, that a little boy gets murdered. The criminal gets away for about 7 years. The police find him and give him the death penalty and it kills him. If the death penalty stops, there will be nonstop murder. See, if the death penalty is given to acid attackers then there would be less acid attacks in the city.

And if u say that they should be kept in prison then it costs more to keep prisoners in prison. It is expensive to keep the hopeless people imprisoned and we not only provide the food and water, we also have to hire wardens and officers in advance, which also is connected to the usage of government taxes.
Furthermore, citizens are afraid of ex prisoners that came out from prisons because they could do unexpected things. Citizens will live with anxiety.

The death penalty would decreases the acid attack crimes. If the the criminal has a risk of death, they will think twice about what they are doing. Also if they go to prison they will be out within 30 years, which means they could repeat it again.
Preston

Con

1) Death Penalty Doesnt solve issues.


The death penalty does not deter crime, I have provided evidence that has gone unrefuted. my opponent has unbacked observations that do not provide a BOP. He simply makes the claim of deterence, however as i stated before "few murderers rationally weigh the possibility that they might face the death penalty before committing a murder." thus there is no deterence.


2) Felony Murder Doctorine


This point haws gone unrefuted


3)BOP


My opponent has failed to meet the BOP required to win the debate, they have provided no evidence, no facts, and no support. All of his arguements are observations, that when compared to the stats I have provided dont stand.


4)Life in prison without parol is a better solution


My opponent doesnt actualy address this point, instead they make a baseless claim. they argue that paying for a prison is expencive however we already have prisons, so if we are cutting costs like my opponent wants then we would be killing all prisoners, and even those who are sentenced to die wait on death row for what can be years, and because they are in solitary they must be tended to personaly.


Thus we can only see a ballot in negation of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
RachanaUchiha

Pro

RachanaUchiha forfeited this round.
Preston

Con

Preston forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RachanaUchiha

Pro

RachanaUchiha forfeited this round.
Preston

Con

i will not post until my opennent refutes. if they dont all 7 points go to me because im unrefuted.
Debate Round No. 4
RachanaUchiha

Pro

RachanaUchiha forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
yea... so what!
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
nooooob snipe
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
nooooob snipe
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SamStevens 3 years ago
SamStevens
RachanaUchihaPrestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the better case. Pro's grammar was atrocious, Con used sources, and had better arguments. Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
RachanaUchihaPrestonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture