The Instigator
shadestalker
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
kingsjester
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Back to the basics/ the death penalty should be harsher and used more often

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,736 times Debate No: 32403
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

shadestalker

Pro

I personally believe that America has gone soft. We believe that more humane ways to carry out the death penalty is better. NO WAY!!! I think that if we go back to the basics, and start with hanging, electric chair, and the firing squad. The scarier the punishment, i believe will scare criminals into not doing such horrendous acts. I also think that the death penalty should be sentenced much more often. I am not demented just sensible. I hope you understand my way of viewing it.
kingsjester

Con

I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
shadestalker

Pro

shadestalker forfeited this round.
kingsjester

Con

I will use this round to post my arguments.
1. The death penalty will not deter crime.
Scientific studies have failed to prove that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of US executions and has the highest regional murder rate.

2.the Death penalty cost the taxpayer more than a life term.
It costs far more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. A 2011 study found that California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978 and that death penalty trials are 20 times more expensive than trials seeking a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. California currently spends $184 million on the death penalty each year and is on track to spend $1 billion in the next five years.

3. money used in the death penalty could be put to better use.
Many family members who have lost love ones to murder feel that the death penalty will not heal their wounds nor will it end their pain; the extended process prior to executions can prolong the agony experienced by the family. Funds now being used for the costly process of executions could be used to help families put their lives back together through counseling, restitution, crime victim hot lines, and other services addressing their needs.

4. the life sentence is a much more sensible way to go.
In every state that retains the death penalty, jurors have the option of sentencing convicted capital murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The sentence is cheaper to tax-payers and keeps violent offenders off the streets for good. Unlike the death penalty, a sentence of Life Without Parole also allows mistakes to be corrected. There are currently over 3,300 people in California who have received this alternative sentence, which also has a more limited appeals process last approximately 3 years. According to the California Governor's Office, only seven people sentenced to life without parole have been released since the state provided for this option in 1977, and this occurred because they were able to prove their innocence.
I look forward to my opponents arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
shadestalker

Pro

1) A Bullet cost the family $0.37 versus a life sentence which can cost taxpayers much more, about thousands of dollars a year.
2) Dangerous criminals should have no pardons, and the death penalty eliminates that possibility. Even having a life sentence a criminal can go up for parole or even get out early. Many life sentences only last for 20 years, plus criminal can get out after 30 years for good behavior.
3) A rapist or a kidnapper and so on, are sick people with sick minds that probably will never be cured. These people will never face justice with a life sentence. The family needs closer, and the criminal should pay the ultimate price for his/her deeds.
kingsjester

Con

This is the evidence to my case: http://www.deathpenalty.org...
I'll use this round for my rebuttal.
1. My opponent claims that it will only cost .37 cents to go with the death sentence but this argument is completely invalid. First off, if you looked at the evidence that I provided in the first round, a death sentence trial cost 20 times as much as a life sentence trial. Secondly, my opponent has made a misinformed claim that it would be that cheap to go with the death sentence. I say this because my opponent forgets that after a criminal is charged with the death sentence, they are not immediately taken behind the courthouse and shot in the head, they are put in prison to allow time for an appeal. This is known as death row, and it can last quite a long time. In fact, according to a study from the bureau of justice, in 2010, the average time on death row was 178 months (or around 14 years). http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org....
This shows that a death penalty sentence does cost more than the life sentence, proving my opponents point wrong.

2. My opponent claims that dangerous criminals should have no pardons, well, I agree. This does not mean that you have to have the death penalty to accomplish this. You can do this with a life sentence, it's called a life sentence without parole. my evidence from my first case has shown that this exists and a life sentence without parole would be a much more cost efficient and moral way to go. Also, as I have shown before, the only way to get out of a life sentence without parole is to prove your innocence, which is why the life sentence is a much more moral system.

This is why the life sentence is by far better.
Debate Round No. 3
shadestalker

Pro

My opponent happens to be invalid. A lethal injection cost about 20,000 dollars. where as states that still uses the fire squad(which I support very much) the bullets cost .37 cents each. Life sentences can cost tax payers millions of dollars a year to clothe, house and feed scum.
The family's of a victim would want closure if the criminal had done something terrible. Say my opponent had a 12 year old daughter, she was talking to some man online and he found out personal information her. He asks her to meet him, then when she goes to meet up, he kidnaps her, rapes her, then murders her. Wouldn't my opponent want that man to pay the ultimate price for his sickening deed?
kingsjester

Con

My opponent continues to ignore the evidence that I have provided and continues to push the argument that the death sentence would cost .37 cents. However, my opponent continues to ignore the fact that the government cannot immediately execute a criminal after charging them with the death penalty. They have to be put in prison to allow time for appeals. look at my previous evidence of how long the average prison time for death row is (14 years). To further this argument, if you look at the evidence about the seven people in California who proved they were innocent, if we immediately executed these people, seven innocent people would have died. So yes, it does cost millions to keep people in prison, but this includes people who are charged with the death penalty. Finally, when you extend my argument that death penalty trials cost 20 times as much as life sentence trials, you can see that the death penalty is in fact more expensive than a life sentence without parole.

2. my opponent's only point so far that has had any weight (if any) in this round is her argument that the family of the victim would want revenge to console the hurt of a lost loved one. However, as I have pointed out before, the funds used in a death sentence trial could be used instead to console the family of the victim. furthermore, killing the murderer will not console the family. Killing the criminal will not bring their loved one back, there will still be a void where the loved one was before. Also, the criminal could also have a family, so, not only will the family of the victim experience loss, but so will the family of the criminal. By killing the criminal you are just creating more of a problem.

3. Finally, one point that I made in my first case that my opponent did not refute was that the death penalty will not deter crime. The South, which makes up 80% of the executions in the U.S, has the highest regional murder rate.
Debate Round No. 4
shadestalker

Pro

shadestalker forfeited this round.
kingsjester

Con

There is nothing more for me to say. Please vote who think won based on who made a better case and not your personal bias.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by kingsjester 4 years ago
kingsjester
qopel you should provide a better reason than that to vote against me if you want to vote for the other guy fine, but you should at least provide a reason.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
shadestalkerkingsjesterTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: countering the retard
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
shadestalkerkingsjesterTied
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 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: Read the debate