The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Capital punishment as a form of justice

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,594 times Debate No: 25606
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I am putting forward an open debate relating to capital punishment. I believe that capital punishment should be considered as a form of justice and therefore, should be allowed.
Let me put down the rules:
Round 1: Acceptance of challenge
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing arguments


I accept. I'm assuming we will be arguing based on the jucidal system of the United States?
Debate Round No. 1


If you wish, you may take instances of the judiciary in United States, however, I'd like to point out that when speaks of capital punishment, it is applicable to every single judiciary in this world. Therefore, my arguments will be general. However, this does not mean that they will be nebulous.

Let me now present my argument. I begin by thanking con for accepting this debate. Let us first consider the definition of capital punishment.
"Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime."
I have heard many activists cry out that capital punishment is a heinous crime. Most of them argue that condemning a person to death, even if he is responsible of crimes of the highest order is a crime in itself. It makes us no different from the people we are sending to the scaffold. However, I'd like to rubbish their argument on the basis that it is irrelevant as well as preposterous.

Let me give you a scenario to drive home my point. Let us take the case of Anders Behring Breivik, the person behind the murder of at least 93 human beings. Make no mistake, we are talking about 93 precious human lives, cheerful and starry eyed people who had a future ahead of them, a home to go back to and in some cases, a family to feed. Some of them had ambitions, might have ended up achieving fame and enthralling all of us, however, all their dreams, their ambitions and their lives were put to an end at the hands of a madman, a murderer past redemption, who blatantly laughed and screamed "you must all die" as he decimated their bodies and extinguished the flame of life in them. During his trial, he exhibited no remorse and instead claimed that he be remembered as a martyr, one willing to sacrifice himself for a worthless and pathetic cause, and even after such outrageous acts, the most that court, the highest authority in a country, the scepter of justice could do to him was to imprison him for life. Is that a fitting and adequate punishment, my friend? Is that consolation to the bereaved families who were victimized by the heartless deeds of this mad man? I think not. You may claim that his death will change nothing, that it won't bring back those buried in their graves, however, it will go a long way in satisfying the bloodlust of those who suffered at his hands. It will help them sleep and achieve peace of mind.

We must also keep in consideration the consequences of, let's say his escaping from the prison. If he were to again go on a killing spree, what on earth would you do? Who would be the scapegoat in that case? Would you then criticize the mobs baying for his blood? No I don't think so.

I eagerly await your argument.


I thank Pro for his timely response. However, I must point out that the implementation of capital punishment as a of justice is one that will impact multiple aspects of society, and that focusing on just one facet of the issue, as my opponent has done, is rather short sighted.

The Death Penalty wastes both time and money:

Contrary to popular belief, statistics show that life imprisonment is actually cheaper than the death penalty, and not just by a negligible margin. Because of the extended trial process, which consumes an increased amount of both time and money, each death sentence in the US costs an average of 4.2 million dollars, making life imprisonment cheaper by tens of millions of dollars.

Exactly how much does the death penalty bog down the system? In California, for example, it takes nearly 20 years for an inmate to go from the death row to the cemetery. It’s an excruciating lengthy process punctured by appeals, repeat trials, and the processing of legal papers. In a time of financial crisis, legalizing the death penalty would mean wasting both time and money on the legal process, meaning less money and time is available for the things that actually make difference in public safety- law enforcement and the police department.


The Death Penalty carries the risk of wrongful executions:

Even with the extended and more thorough trials, innocents still manage to slip through the system. For instance, Wayne Felker, who was executed for aggravated rape in 1996 by electric chair, was exonerated by DNA evidence only four years after his execution. If the death penalty had been abolished, we could have given Felker the possibility of returning to society and living a normal life. Instead, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled against life imprisonment and murdered an innocent man.

On average, three death row inmates are wrongfully convicted every year in the US. It is in instances like these where the loss of innocent, “precious, cheerful and starry eyed” human life, as my opponent so eloquently puts it, is not the fault of murderers and psychopaths. It is the fault of the judicial system, and in turn, capital punishment.


The legal system is not based solely on punishment:

My opponent appears to have mistakenly labeled the legal system as a vehicle for vengeance, whose lone purpose is to satisfy “the bloodlust of those who suffered at his (the convict’s) hands”. In reality, the legal system is much more than simply punishing the wrongdoers; it’s also about rehabilitation and repaying the community. In every single one of these principles, life imprisonment is much more effective than capital punishment.

Some people simply don’t care about their life. That’s most likely the case of the convict my opponent gives as an example as he wanted to be remembered as a martyr, as someone who died for a cause. This characteristic is also prevalent in most murderers. When we take that into consideration, the death penalty for convicts is comparable to your cat pissing on that ugly sweater your grandmother gave you for Christmas last year- you didn’t really want it anyway, so it doesn’t really bother you.

In terms of what’s more taxing for the convict, life imprisonment may very well be worse than capital punishment. Pro’s idea of finally taking retribution for the families that suffered is false anyway; in reality, waiting for twenty years for the murderer to finally be punished is probably less preferable than an immediate life sentence.
Additionally, some people can be changed. A murderer may simply be the victim of a rough childhood or an untreated mental disease. By advocating the idea of capital punishment, we deny these people the chance to rehabilitate and contribute to society.


When we take a look at the bigger picture, what we find is that capital punishment is not really effective at all. My opponent isn’t really advocating justice; he’s appealing a romanticized idea that is not only useless, but drains time and money which could be spent on fixing the real problems with society. Thank you, I hand the podium back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for a great counter argument, con. You nearly made me sympathize with your cause. However, on further thought, I realized that your argument would fail to convince an intellectual due to its insensitivity. Let me now counter the points offered by you.

1)The Death Penalty wastes both time and money

I am shocked and baffled by the mercenary and thoroughly insensitive attitude adopted by con. What, according to you matters more, my friend? Money or justice? A person sentenced for life can never be considered to be wholly punished as he has the privilege of parole. Moreover, he gets fed three times a day and has access to libraries. He sleeps for almost as long as we do and on top of that, he enjoys the right to interact with fellow criminals. Barring the fact that he cannot access electronic gadgets, he lives an ordinary life like you and me. Is that what you term as punishment? I think not, my friend. To be frank, judiciaries today seem to be more sympathetic towards criminals rather than those victimized. I"d also like to point out that okaying the death penalty goes a long way towards eradicating the problem of overcrowding in prisons.

2)The Death Penalty carries the risk of wrongful executions

You have me confused on this point. You argued in your first point that it takes almost 20 years or so to execute a criminal. However, in this instance, you claim that Wayne Felker who was executed in 1996 was a victim of inefficiency of the judicial system and that he was proven innocent four years after his execution. Are you trying to tell me that Wayne Felker was imprisoned for at least 20 years before his execution and that during that particular period of time his lawyers did nothing to ensure that the DNA tests were conducted a lot faster? If not, you are contradicting your own point.
You did admirably well in pointing out that at least 3 innocent people are sent to their deaths in U.S. every year by judiciaries. However, that provides no substantial reason to eradicate capital punishment. It only goes on to show the flaws in the judicial system and are a lesson to us to rectify them and conduct the investigation a lot more responsibly. You also failed to remind the audience that these cases of wrongful execution are rare, perhaps one in a hundred. Think of the other aspect of it. Think of the other ninety nine correct executions. It rids the society of dreaded criminals, murderers, people who would have no qualms in murdering half a dozen people once they are released on parole. Another point I"d like to add is that in most places, a life sentence translates to about 15 years. Think of the insecurity the victim"s family will feel once the person who was responsible for the death of their beloved in released, especially keeping in mind that he might be blood thirsty, aching for vengeance. Such a person is a threat to the society.

3)The legal system is not based solely on punishment

I apologize if I seemed to give you the impression that the judiciary is a vehicle for vengeance. That was never my intention, however, I wished to stress on the agony faced by those who suffered at the hands of Braivik.
Rehabilitation, repaying the community. Those are beautiful terms my friend. However, one must realize that we are talking of hardened criminals and not those arrested for petty crimes. These are people who are dangerous, to whom the word reformation holds no value and to whom repaying the community means ridding it of a person or people.

Yes, Braivik wants to be remembered as a martyr, however it is imperative to understand that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to any such further crimes. Executing someone is an effective way of ensuring that people don"t follow his footsteps. Braivik"s statement is drunk with confidence. He knew for certain that he wouldn"t be executed. Therefore, it is high time that we wipe that smirk off his face.

In cases where a person is mentally unstable, he is exempted form punishment and send to a hospital instead. I'd also like to point out that a deranged childhood is no excuse for committing heinous crimes. Hell, most juries around the world don't even fall for that line.


Crime is a major problem plaguing the society and to not consider it so is not just preposterous, it is outrageous. What I am proposing is a perfectly logical idea, one which will ensure a decline in the crime rates in the society. On the other hand, if you were to follow what my opponent said, we would be feeding murderers, encouraging them and proving to the society the spinelessness of the judiciary.
Thank you.
Over to my worthy and skilled opponent.


Again, I’d like to thank my opponent for his quick response. Now without further ado –

The Death Penalty wastes both time and money:

In my opponent’s response, he essentially concedes that the implementation of the death penalty will cost states tens of millions of dollars and that this outrageous cost has negative impact on society. Thus, I have established that cost is one of the reasons why the death penalty should not be implemented. The only feeble attempt at a rebuttal my opponent offers is an oversimplification – he asks me to choose between money and justice. This is a logical fallacy because my opponent poses a black and white scenario, depicting people who oppose the death penalty as choosing money over justice. In reality, this is clearly not the case; just because I don’t believe in pouring millions of valuable taxpayer dollars into extraneous costs doesn’t mean I don’t value justice. It simply means I don’t buy into my opponent’s distorted notions of right and wrong.

For example, according to the New York Times, “(The State of California’s) death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning convicts for life… the state has executed 13 people since 1976 for a total of about $250 million per execution”. The kind of money that funds my opponent’s “justice” could have paid for over one thousand full time police officers, who in turn could have potentially saved hundreds of lives. Clearly, the question is not whether I value justice - it’s whether my opponent values public safety.

At this point, I’d also like to point out that my opponent needs to begin sourcing his arguments, because the descriptions of prison life he’s posting sounds more like media propaganda than hard facts. Life in a maximum security prison, which is the type of prison a convict like Braivik would go to, has cells only slightly bigger than a washroom housing 7 convicts each. Most convicts usually sit in cramped idleness, with only 2 inadequate meals a day, and one “yard hour” where they are actually allowed to mill around inside a barbed wire fence with the other convicts. Other than that, it’s basically wasting away with no toiletries, little to no hygiene, and nothing constructive to do. If this is what Pro envisions as “everyday life” for ordinary people, I cannot even begin to imagine what he believes punishment should be like.

Finally, Pro’s idea of the Death Penalty helping ease overcrowding in prisons is bogus – with most states totaling less than 25 executions, I won’t even bother addressing such a ridiculous statement.


The Death Penalty carries the risk of wrongful executions:

In my sources this round I have attached an article on Wayne Felker to clear up any confusion my opponent has experienced. I request that he read it, because that’s exactly what happened; Wayne Felker was charged and arrested for murder 17 years before he was executed. Back then, DNA testing was a lot less reliable, not to mention more expensive. Wayne Felker was among the first recorded cases of an attempt at exonerating the deceased.

Additionally, the statistic I provided showed that 1 in 17 death row inmates were pardoned, with the possibility of more being innocent but not exonerated. I apologize for not clearing this up earlier, although I disagree with my opponent; the judicial system already spends millions of dollars and years of time on each death row case, it’s neither possible nor practical to dedicate even more resources to each individual case. The reality is that the death penalty is both wasteful and runs the risk of murdering innocent people, and abolishing capital punishment is the best way to take care of both issues.

Finally, I need to address some of my opponent’s comments about the judicial system, because he is misinformed. First of all, a life sentence averages 25 years, not 15 as my opponent has stated. For most murderers like Braivik, who received 21 years, early parole is denied in advance. It’s also ironic that my opponent uses the term “threat to society”, because the judicial system reserves the right to deny release if any convict is deemed a “threat to society”. If we add up the years, most murderers will be over 50 by the time they leave prison, and at that point they still remain on probation. Clearly, my opponent’s fantasies of dangerous, blood thirsty murderers being released into society are untrue.


The Judicial system is not built solely on punishment:

I have little more to say about this point, other than the fact that Pro seems to concede in that he acknowledges that the vengeance is not the exclusive thought process behind the judicial system. I do need to point out that comparisons between states with and without capital punishment find no correlation between the death penalty and murder rates. 88% of criminologists also agree that there would be no major change in crime rates if we abolish capital punishment, implying that most murderers are not afraid of death as a punishment like I had stated in my previous round.

Finally, it is worth noting that my opponent contradicts himself when he states that mentally unstable convicts should be sent to the psychiatric ward and not to death – Braivik was diagnosed with multiple mental disorders at the time of his sentencing, including paranoid schizophrenia.



I think it should be clear at this point that there are really no major motivations behind implementing capital punishment other than vengeance. My opponent may attempt to dress up facts with ambiguous terms such as “justice”, but in reality, he’s really advocating draining hundreds of millions of dollars a year on a meager, as few as 13, handful of convicts, some of them being innocent at that! I believe I have thoroughly debunked all of my opponent’s arguments, including the point about deterrence.

Although my opponent states that he does not believe that the judicial system is solely based on vengeance, his willingness to dedicate our valuable resources to shooting already incarcerated criminals rather than save lives suggests otherwise. Thank you.

Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 3


I am ecstatic that con keeps on thanking me for my timely responses, however, I have this strange feeling that that comment of his is coated with sarcasm. Anyway, getting back to matters at hand.....ouch!!! your arguments strike me to be exceedingly blunt, con. Such attitude and you'll never make a good politician. Anyway, let me begin my rebuttal by pointing out to you the futility of my opponent's arguments.

1) The Death Penalty wastes both time and money

No, I do not concede that in the present day scenario death penalty costs more than life imprisonment. The argument that those charges are exorbitant is baloney. Let me remind my worthy opponent that in the case of life imprisonments, the same tedious procedure of appeals and employing lawyers is prevalent. The case still reaches the highest authority of the state or nation and that the case is still played out as is done during a death verdict. Yes, I am not going to go to extent of calling your argument trash because I certainly do agree that your California argument is valid, but keep in mind that it is more or less an isolated case. The article itself states that the administration of justice in California is the slowest in the whole nation and moreover, the additional charges of death penalty, according to it is about 75,000$ per person and not millions of dollars. Let me assure you that that in itself is a meager amount when compared to the billions of dollars blown up in NBAs , football leagues and baseball tournaments.

Let me also inform my opponent that in my country, India, the judicial setup is quite efficient. We have verdicts by all 3 forms of courts done and dusted within 5 years.

My opponent has argued that prisoners are oppressed against and that they live in dingy rooms with barely two square meals a day. In Kerela, India, that certainly does not seem to be the case. Prisoners, including life timers are treated to delicacies of the highest quality.


Now, before we proceed any further, let me state a fact. In a great number of cases, death penalty helps in reducing the appeals filed. Don't be horrorstruck when I say this my friend. It is true. Let me illustrate this with an example. Let us suppose death sentence is prevalent in a country. A, someone eligible for death sentence gets off with a lifer. The chances that he'll appeal are low because he would'nt want that verdict overturned. On the other hand, if only life sentences were to be prevalent in that nation, he would fight, because a life sentence is the worse that could happen to him. Thus, death penalty deters appeals.

Let me present you with another aspect to rubbish your theory. Ajmal Kasab, one of the key perpetrators behind the 26/11 blasts has had about 27 crore splurged on his security and accommodation by the government. If he had been executed, this wouldn't have happened.


Now, I'd also like to state that a transition is taking place in the judicial system. Experts have claimed that we will have a faster, more efficient judicial system in another couple of decades.

2) The Death Penalty carries the risk of wrongful executions

My opponent seems to concede that we are a lot more advanced now than we were a couple of decades ago. We have DNA analysis, finger print name it, we have it. This in turn reduces the opportunity of innocents being punished.
Secondly, he claims that we shouldn't be wasting our vital resources in providing individual attention to the case of each convict. That, yet again exhibits his mercenary attitude. He blatantly claims that we execute innocents, yet he is not in favour of doing a thorough research into a person's guilt or innocence. In other words, he claims that the capital punishment, which clears innocent people and executes the guilty should be done away with and provides us with a more economical alternative. Let all those who are innocent be send to prisons, where they will rot for a crime they have not committed, in which case they will see the light of the day after 25 years. I this what we want? No. We require the capital punishment which has, according to him led to more detailed research and which pardons 1 in 17 inmates. In some cases, it goes as far as exonerating them.

When I mentioned psychiatric therapy, I was referring to criminals who perhaps have committed a single murder or something like that. Braivik murdered 93 people and he got less than what he deserved. I'm still firm in my stance that he should have been executed.

No matter how hard a person tries, he cannot reform himself forever. A murderer, once arrested, might be the very model of justice and truth but the stark reality is that once he is released on parole, he is a danger to everyone in his vicinity. He has struck once and might develop the homicidal urge to strike again.

Let me also point out that More killers and rapists are committing another serious crime after they are let out of jail than official figures suggest. This statement has not been fabricated. I request my opponent to read the source I have provided.


So, in totality, the idea of people on parole or probation not committing murder is stupid.

3) The Judicial system is not built solely on punishment

My opponent seems to think that death makes no difference to terrorists and murderers and that we should commute their sentences to life. Well, let me tell you, that is a wrong assumption on your part. A few days ago, Ajmal Kasab filed a mercy petition to the President of India after the supreme court upheld his death sentence.


Secondly, criminologists do agree that the difference made by the implementation of capital punishment isn't great and that it reduces the crime rate by around 3.47%. However, in terms of crimes committed all over the world, that amounts to a drop of around 500000 murders at the very least. Capital punishment saves 5,00,000 innocent lives every year.


After comparing the quality of arguments provided by my opponent with mine, I think that it should be quite evident that I have successfully countered all his arguments and made my point clear. I certainly do not view the judiciary to be a vehicle for vengeance but even if I did, it wouldn't make any difference at all. The motto of the Indian Jurisprudence is "An eye for an eye" and that certainly is an effective way of delivering justice. Just remember that today, at this very moment when you are reading this, someone may be enduring his last moments. Remember that no one is safe in this crime plagued society. Remember that tomorrow, it might be you in place of that faceless stranger, that it may be your son, your daughter, a member of your family who experiences such torment. But all that stands b/w these faceless assassins and your family is the thin strand of capital punishment.

Thank you

Back to con.


I’d like to both thank my opponent for his timely response and apologize for my delayed one- and no, that comment is not sarcastic. Additionally, while I am thrilled that my opponent has begun sourcing his arguments, most of his more important claims are unsourced. I would like my opponent to provide, in his next round, sources for:

- His claim that the additional charges of the Death Penalty is only $75000 (because my sources clearly don’t say that.)

- Capital punishment reduces crime rates by 3.47%.

- In India court cases are completed within five years.

- Experts claim that we will have a faster, more efficient judiciary system in a couple of decades.

Until then, these unsourced statements should be discounted and will not be addressed in my rebuttals.

The Death Penalty wastes both time and money:

Unfortunately, the fact that the Death Penalty wastes both time and money is not, as my opponent so delicately puts it, “baloney”. Although yes, there are similar trial and appeal procedures, death penalty still costs, on average 184 million dollars more than life penalty per year, for the state of California alone (and there have only been a total of 13 executions since the death penalty was established in 1978). My opponent does not seem to believe that this is a large amount of money or that this money could be better spent on funding the public programs that matter, and prefers spending that kind of money shooting 13 convicts – that’s fine. The voters can decide which stance they think is more valid.

Additionally, my opponent fails to mention that the inmate he references, Ajmal Kasab, is on death row rather than life imprisonment, making his own rebuttal a shining argument against capital punishment.

Finally, my opponent’s belief that the Death Penalty deters appeals is invalid; there are no statistics to back up his train of thought. Even if it was a legitimate rebuttal, which it isn’t, it doesn’t change the fact the death penalty still costs more than 100 million dollars per year per state. And the same arguments against prison standards being too lax in America apply to prison standards in India, murderers like Kasab would be sent to a high security prison like Viyyur High Security Prison rather than just the regular jail the article he provides references.


The Death Penalty carries the risk of wrongful execution:

It is worth noting that my opponent contradicts himself here yet again. He believes that the death penalty provides a more thorough analyses and therefore pardons more innocent people than life imprisonment yet states earlier that life imprisonment costs just as much as the death penalty and goes through a similar procedure of trials and appeals. I ask my opponent to make up his mind before I begin debunking his arguments.

The justice system is not solely based on vengeance:

My opponent presents an interesting slippery slope here – he believes that a mentally unstable person who has murdered 1 or 2 people should receive aid, but not murderers who kill 90 people. I’d like to ask my opponent where he draws the line – at which number of murders would he consider the murderer beyond help, as well as why.

Additionally, his argument that repeating offence rates are higher than we think is purely speculation. Even his own source admits that there are no solid statistics on repeat offenders right now.

Finally, yes, I will admit that some murderers would prefer life imprisonment over death. However, I can also provide countless examples of convicts who would prefer death, such as murderers who commit suicide after their crime. There is really no point in going back and forth with statistics and examples, we can simply conclude that there are some murderers who are not afraid of death, and that death is not an effective punishment for all criminals. However, it’s worth it to note that the possibility of capital punishment did not deter Kasab from committing his crimes.


Pro concludes with a manipulative attempt at making voters feel insecure, which disgusts me. His attempts at preying on emotion with phrases like “no-one is safe in this crime ridden society” is an appeal to fear, the lowest kind of argument there is. In reality, capital punishment is not the “thin strands that stands between faceless assassins and your family”, because capital punishment does not actually reduce crime rates. The “thin strand” is the police force, and Pro wants us to divert money from it. My opponent’s feeble attempts at misleading the audience are negated.

Thank you.

Over to Pro.

Debate Round No. 4


1) Capital Punishment reduces crime rates by 3.47%.

This happens to be an article I read in the times of India a couple of days or so ago. However, I have not yet been able to find a source to this article on the net. Therefore, I shall not be able to furnish a source to the above argument. However, I assure you it is true. Now, since my opponent views every move of mine with a suspicious eye, let me provide him with concrete evidence to prove that capital punishment does indeed reduce crime rates.

a)A study by Joanna M. Shepherd "Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and Deterrence of Crime" points to the existence of a correlation between the number of crimes and death penalty. To find this relationship, she looks at monthly murder and execution data using least squares and negative binomial estimations. Her conclusion is that one execution helps to avert three killings on average. Capital punishment also has an effect on murders by intimates and crimes of passion. The influence is evidenced by rates of crimes committed by victims of both European and Afro-American descent. The deterring effect of death penalty, however, was found to be reduced by longer waits on the death row. As a result of this trend, "one less murder is committed for every 2.75-years reduction in death row waits" (Shepherd 2003:27).

b) Another paper exploring the relationship between crime rates and death penalty is "State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder" by Paul R. Zimmerman uses U.S. state-level data over the years 1978-1997 to find out if capital punishment indeed has a deterrent effect. The paper, in evaluating the deterrent effect of capital punishment, adjusts the data for the influence of simultaneity and therefore comes up with estimates of a deterrent effect that greatly those of previous findings. Zimmermann has found that "the estimates imply that a state execution deters approximately fourteen murders per year on average" Zimmerman 2004:163). Besides, he has established that it is the announcement of death penalty that drives the effect.

The above mentioned facts clearly show that capital punishment does indeed bring about a decline in crime rates.


P.S: Read the arguments section in the above source. It furnishes clear evidence to prove my point.

2)In India court cases are completed within five years

The case of Ajmal Kasab, as I stated above is, in itself enough evidence to prove my point in this issue. If you take the trouble of exploring that on the net, you will realize that it took approximately 3 and a half years for the case to be wrapped up in the supreme court.

3) The additional charges of the Death Penalty is only $75000

That is an approximate figure. To be more precise, your source put it at about 80,000 to 90,000$ per person. I'd like to point out yet again that those figures only pertain to an isolated area. His own source points out that the judicial systems in California are extremely slow, in fact the slowest in the country. Usually, as I claimed before, it is cheaper to administer capital punishment.

4) The Death Penalty wastes both time and money

My opponent adamantly claims that death penalty is costlier than life imprisonments, however, he fails to explain how it is so even though both have the very same procedure as well as the same trial process. I'd like him to work on a decent explanation for that.

Secondly, yes, Kasab is on death row. However, his prosecution was wound up nearly half a year ago. The only reason why he has not yet been prosecuted and that his presidential pardon has not yet been rejected is because of the protests of a certain communal group in our nation and of course, because of dolts like my respected opponent who protest against capital punishment.

I'd also like to refute the argument "making his own rebuttal a shining argument against capital punishment" by pointing out that handing out a life sentence to Kasab will mean the payment of thousands of crores funds by the government for his maintenance as he will have to be provided with protection and also a high security cell for the rest of his life. You see, Kasab, being a terrorist is a matter of concern to the government and thus, he'll have to be provided with guards to ensure that no militant group gets the notion to rescue him. Think about it rationally....if the government has to spend 25 crores or so for his protection for three years, how much will they have to spend in protecting him for a lifetime??

Let me draw my opponent's attention to the fact that Kasab is indeed kept in a high security cell in Arthur Road jail and therefore, our security is not at all lax, thank you very much. My source in the previous round highlights the above fact, however I'll post it yet again, just to ensure that the voters read it.


5) The Death Penalty carries the risk of wrongful execution

My argument in round 4 was a mere response to your round 3 argument. I'd also like to point out that you keep on contradicting yourself when you make that point. If I actually concede to having contradicted myself( which I won't because I haven't) then it is evident that my opponent has contradicted himself too and that he actually is conceding a point.

6)The justice system is not solely based on vengeance

My opponent essentially concedes that official figures do actually indicate that there are criminals who commit crimes after they are let out. There is the additional fact that
Every year around five per cent are returned to prison for breaching the terms of their licence. This can include committing further crimes but also offenders failing to comply with the terms of their release.

Jon Venables was jailed for life for the murder of toddler James Bulger in 1993 but released just eight years later.
Last year he was jailed again for downloading scores of indecent images of sickening child sex abuse.

These are all evidences from the same source.

Secondly, I believe that a psychopath who feels remorse after committing a murder, who genuinely regrets it and wishes to be cured may be send to an asylum for treatment. However, mass murder and genocide are unpardonable crimes beyond redemption. A person who commits such crimes is unpardonable , especially because he fails to show remorse and enjoys it. Such a person deserves to be sentenced to the gallows.

I'd also like to point out that Kasab, who according to my opponent was not deterred by the prospect of capital punishment is currently pleading for his life. Following that train of thought, if criminals are not afraid to die, then why do they actually appeal to higher courts if they are sentenced to death? Why don't they just accept their guilt and leave it at that? I'll tell you why. They have a genuine fear for their life. Every criminal does.


Believe me con, I have no intention of making the voters feel insecure. Votes are in fact, the farthest thing from my mind right now. I have proved in my first point that there is indeed a relation b/w capital punishment and plummeting crime rates. I'd also like my opponent to open the front page of any newspaper and read about the number of crimes committed every day. The truth is that the police force now a days is only able to arrest the guilty and fails to prevent crimes and avert catastrophes. Going by what my opponent said, a great number of criminals brought before the judiciary are innocent.( I, of course do not believe that) However, if it is indeed so, then that highlights yet another shortcoming of the police force. Therefore, my opponent's lacklustre arguments have failed to prove anything while I have proved my point.

P.S.: Over to con. Great debate mate. Really enjoyed it. You are a good debater. Look forward to more debates.


OneElephant forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kckettler 5 years ago
I've got to agree. I think a voter has to reword it for it to make sense.
Posted by OneElephant 5 years ago
"implementation of capital punishment as a form* of justice". Bah, I should really double check my work.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
"[A] form of justice"... Semantically troubling to me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 5 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a solid debate. It's too bad that con ff'd his last round, but I'll take that as his concession.