The Instigator
TheConservinator
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
89 Points

Captial Punishment Doesnt Go Far Enough

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,139 times Debate No: 11084
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (14)

 

TheConservinator

Pro

Hello Debate.org I am debating to affirm the resolution that the only effective way to prevent crime is to enact a pre-death penalty. Now let me explain what I mean by a "pre-death penalty" is means in its most basic form that anyone who is likely to commit a crime should be put to death.

The way that it would reduce crime is that it would act as a determent and people wouldn't even think of committing a crime

OK,Thank You
Bye
Cody_Franklin

Con

Alright. This is my first debate in a long while, so forgive me for being rusty; to clarify, I'll just be going through and offering a couple of key reasons why my opponent's proposal oughtn't be implemented.

1. Deterrence

The death penalty, as criminologists agree, does not tend to deter crime [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...]; in fact, statistics show that states which employ the death penalty tend to have a higher violent crime rate. I'm no criminologist, but after researching, an educated guess tells me that a pre-death penalty will fare no better in deterring crime, and may even be more detrimental to the cause of deterrence by encouraging people to commit crimes, since, according to the system, they're "likely" to do so, anyway.

2. Legality

Refer to the 5th Amendment: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. By enacting a "pre-death" penalty for people "likely" to commit a crime, my opponent is clearly in violation of constitutional law. Additionally, the 8th Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment; considering that the penalty proposed by my opponent is being imposed on people who haven't yet committed a crime, I would say that such a punishment is both cruel AND unusual.

3. Proportionality

My opponent seems to be advocating this penalty for ANY potential wrongdoers; the problem is that, within our justice system, punishment prescribed by the judiciary must be roughly proportional to the offense committed. In a world where people can be murdered by authorities because they are "likely" to jaywalk or litter, there is clearly no concept of justice left to defend.

4. Standards

As of yet, Pro has offered no standard by which to judge how likely someone is to commit a crime. It could be said that everyone on this planet, including my opponent, is affected by human nature - this means that, to some extent, everyone is motivated by greed; therefore, everyone could be considered "likely" to commit theft; therefore, by Pro's logic, everyone ought to be subject to this "pre-death" penalty. This is an absurd path that Pro is asking us to follow.

Additionally, I would like for my opponent to note that the real world is nothing like Minority Report [http://en.wikipedia.org...] - we do not have "precogs" who can predict murders prior to their occurrence. Once again, I eagerly await a standard by which we might fairly determine who is "likely" to commit a crime.

I'll turn it back over to Pro for now.

That is all.
Debate Round No. 1
TheConservinator

Pro

My opponents argument about the 5th amendment are bunk, I suppose I should have specified in round one that I was proposing this policy be imposed in Syria.

Now it would not be an effective deterrent because if we enacted this policy there would be no need to deter crime because anyone who would be likely to commit a crime would be dead.

Since everyone has the potential to commit a crime it would mean that everyone would be dead and thus there would be no crime.
Cody_Franklin

Con

1. Syria

a. First of all, location was not specified in Round 1. We simply had to assume that the United States was the location in which this policy would be implemented; I apologize, but I feel that it's too late to change this assumption now.

b. Let's assume for a moment that this debate DOES concern Syria. I'd like to refer voters to Chapter 1, Article 28, Sections 1, 3, and 4 of the Syrian Constitution, which read as such:

"(1) Every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a final judicial decision.
(3) No one may be tortured physically or mentally or be treated in a humiliating manner. The law defines the punishment of whoever commits such an act.
(4) The right of litigation, contest, and defense before the judiciary is safeguarded by the law."

[http://www.servat.unibe.ch...]

Much like the American Constitution, all Syrian citizens are presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise, regardless of whether they seem "likely" to commit a crime. Also, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment (written here as torture or "humiliating" treatment) is intact - and, as I explained in Round 1, execution of someone who seems remotely suspicious is rather cruel and unusual. And, finally, Section 4 - every Syrian citizen, like those in the United States, is guaranteed due process of law, and cannot be deprived of rights without such process. This is further reflected in Article 25, Sections 1 and 3, which read:

"(1) Freedom is a sacred right. The state protects the personal freedom of the citizens and safeguards their dignity and security.
(3) The citizens are equal before the law in their rights and duties."

Citizens' freedom, even in Syria, cannot be legally infringed upon by a "pre-death" sentence, especially when protection of the laws is extended equally to all citizens, whether or not they are deemed "likely" to commit a crime.

2. Deterrence

a. My opponent states, and I quote: "it would not be an effective deterrent" - compare this with his Round 1 argument: "The way that it would reduce crime is that it would act as a deter[r]ent and people wouldn't even think of committing a crime"

Clearly a contradiction in my opponent's position.

b. My opponent outright admits that, as a result of his policy, everyone would be dead. If you look back to my Round 1 argument, which goes unaddressed, allowing all people to be slaughtered by the authorities leaves no one left to protect, and thus, no purpose for the law to even exist (since law is designed to PROTECT innocents). A lack of crime is a pretty meager payoff when compared to the effects of wanton slaughter of innocents.

c. Assuming that, somehow, not everyone subject to the policy ends up dead, the evidence I've provided goes unaddressed, once again proving that the death penalty, even as a preemptive measure, is not going to deter crime, and may, in fact, exacerbate violent crime rates.

3. Other drops

a. Recalling that the realm of the resolution was implied in Round 1 as being the United States, my arguments concerning the 5th and 8th Amendments are still very applicable.

b. Pro also ignores the argument concerning the lack of proportionality inherent in such a proposal.

c. MOST IMPORTANTLY --- Pro has yet again failed to provide a legitimate standard for judging who is "likely" to commit a crime, and for establishing a threshold of suspicion, persons above which are subject to the penalty proposed by the resolution.

Once again, I turn the debate over to Pro.

That is all.
Debate Round No. 2
TheConservinator

Pro

Exhibit A

That is all.
Cody_Franklin

Con

Pro's video, while certainly compelling if one is trying to convince somebody to watch Scarface, is sadly irrelevant to this debate round, as it has nothing to do with my opponent's proposed "pre-death" sentence.

All that I can ask you to do at this point is to extend my arguments from Rounds 1 and 2 that have been dropped by Pro, including those about the Syrian and United States Constitutions, Deterrence, Proportionality, and the lack of a viable standard by which to judge how likely a person is to commit a crime.

Now then, here's how you'll be distributing the points.

Conduct: Con - Pro "forgot" to mention that this debate concerned Syria, not the United States; additionally, his last round equates a forfeiture, as he posted a video completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

S/G: Con - Pro had his fair share of grammatical errors, especially the tendency toward run-on sentences. Much of his Round 1 post is fairly weak in terms of overall grammar, and has at least one spelling error.

Arguments: Con - Pro dropped some of Con's arguments in Round 2, and completely abandoned his position in Round 3; clearly, Con wins this category.

Sources: Con - Con was the only one to use any sources, assuming that the oh-so-helpful video does not count; additionally, the bit about the Syrian Constitution was pretty nice (though I may be slightly biased here).

Obviously, all 7 points are going Con here. You know what to do. :)

That is all.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missjt 6 years ago
missjt
The Minority Report was a massive FAIL with many flaws. The fact that this is even a debate is just ridiculous!
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Laws yes, Roy :)
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
There needs to be a "waste of time" category in the voting.
Posted by QiiXii 7 years ago
QiiXii
This "debate" is extremely hilarious! xD
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Exactly. Maybe spring break or something. It had just occurred to me that I've never debated you, though you would present a significant challenge, which would be fun :)
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Aye. I'm not sure how much free time I'm actually going to have.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Eh. That's sort of inconsequential. It's more a "waiting for a few free days" issue. :)
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
What topic?
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Hrmmm...

You know, Cody, I wanna debate you sometime :) Just not sure when.
Posted by CaleBREEEum 7 years ago
CaleBREEEum
biggest waste of my time ever
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 6 years ago
Ninja_Tru
TheConservinatorCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by KendallAntigone 7 years ago
KendallAntigone
TheConservinatorCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Chaosflame 7 years ago
Chaosflame
TheConservinatorCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mds1303 7 years ago
mds1303
TheConservinatorCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
TheConservinatorCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
TheConservinatorCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Gilgameshdg 7 years ago
Gilgameshdg
TheConservinatorCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by QiiXii 7 years ago
QiiXii
TheConservinatorCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 7 years ago
kingofslash5
TheConservinatorCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
TheConservinatorCody_FranklinTied
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