The Instigator
SS1105
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
sereneharsh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Death Penalty Should be Banned

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 2 votes the winner is...
SS1105
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/14/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,004 times Debate No: 60443
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

SS1105

Pro

First round for acceptance, second for arguments, third of rebuttal of the opponent's arguments and fourth for rebutting the previously posted rebuttals.
sereneharsh

Con

I accept.Good luck to my opponent.
I request my opponent to clarify what he means by death penalty.The one given by judiciary or the one given by others like goons,moneylenders etc.
Debate Round No. 1
SS1105

Pro

Hi! Thank you for accepting.
The Oxford Dictionary defines the death penalty as "punishment by execution" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... penalty). I would also like to clarify the Con's doubt about the death penalty by stating the fact that the death penalty, or capital punishment, is always provided by the court of law (http://www.britannica.com...). What 'goons and moneylenders' do is known as murder and not death penalty.
I believe that the death penalty should be abolished from all the countries of the world.

Argument 1 Innocent People are Killed

The death penalty is irreversible. According to a study, at least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent (http://www.theguardian.com...). It puts innocent lives at stake. There have been many cases where innocent people have been executed and are later found out to be innocent. A great example can be Cameron Todd Willingham who was executed in 2004 and was later found out to be innocent (http://www.innocenceproject.org...).
There have been many other decisions in other countries where innocent people were given this 'ultimate' punishment.
Examples can be Weiqing An, Teng Xingshan, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, etc (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Argument 2 It is a violation of the human rights

All humans on the earth have human rights, which include the right to life (http://www.un.org...). The right to life is one of the basic human rights. Giving someone capital punishment is a violation of that right and is thus wrong.

Argument 3 Death Penalty does not deter the rate of Murder and other crimes

Many supporters advocate that the death penalty deters the rate of crimes. But statistics show that the countries that have abolished the death penalty have always had lower murder rates as compared to the countries that had not abolished it (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). A July 2009 study titled "Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates: The Views of Leading Criminologists" by Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. LaCock, demonstrates that the death penalty does not add deterrent effects to crimes rates (http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...).
sereneharsh

Con

'I personally have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live.'-Margaret Thatcher (en.www.wikiquote.org/wiki/Capital_punishment)
If the convict kills someone isn't he violating that person's Right to Life.
According to me death penalty should not be abolished.
Argument 1-It is better to execute the convict rather than spending so heavily on him.A large sum of money is spent on keeping the criminals incarcerated.Take the example of Kasab,the convict of 26/11 attack in India.According to TOI report the expenditure on him during his 3 year stay in prison was roughly 53 crores.(http://www.indiatimes.com...) This money could have been spent for some other good cause.
Argument 2-The feelings of victims and family would not find consolation if criminals did not pay with their lives.Society needs protection from these barbarians.Punishing them would also show the side effects of crimes to others.
Argument 3-Once a convicted murderer is executed there is zero chance that he will break out of jail and kill and injure people.
Argument 4-People say death penalty is cruel and unfair.It is 'inhumane'.So is it humane to let them suffer much more painfully for a long time rotting in jail.Isn't that inhumane.
Debate Round No. 2
SS1105

Pro

Argument 1- Con says," 'I personally have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live.'-Margaret Thatcher".

Just quoting somebody doesn't prove your point.

Argument 2- Con says,"If the convict kills someone isn't he violating that person's Right to Life."

Grammatical mistake here. A question is always followed by a question mark.
Wait. What? You kill somebody as a punishment for killing someone else? An eye for an eye and the world will go blind.

Also, if a person kills somebody, he is violating the victim's 'Right to Life' but if you kill the murderer by sentencing him to death, you too are snatching away his 'Right to Life'. So, there is no difference between you and the murderer because both of you did the same thing- kill.

Argument 3- Con says,"It is better to execute the convict rather than spending so heavily on him.A large sum of money is spent on keeping the criminals incarcerated.Take the example of Kasab,the convict of 26/11 attack in India.According to TOI report the expenditure on him during his 3 year stay in prison was roughly 53 crores.(http://www.indiatimes.com......) This money could have been spent for some other good cause."

In Ajmal Kasab's case, giving the death penalty was being considered. According to a study, defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). In terms of costs, a report found out that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that does not take into account the cost of court personnel (http://www.wsba.org...).
So, I think this explains why Kasab's stay in prison cost the government 53 crores. Also, I have proved my point about life imprisonment being cheaper than the death penalty.

Argument 4- Con says,"Punishing them would also show the side effects of crimes to others."

I have already discussed the point that the death penalty isn't as effective as life imprisonment in 'showing the side effects of crimes to others'. Countries that have abolished the death penalty have always had lower murder rates as compared to the countries that have not abolished it.

Argument 5- Con says,"People say death penalty is cruel and unfair.It is 'inhumane'.So is it humane to let them suffer much more painfully for a long time rotting in jail.Isn't that inhumane."


Grammatical mistake again (the question mark was necessary in the end).
Prisoners get many facilities in jail such as food, health care, education, fitness, recreation. In some jails, prisoners are also provided with telephones and computers(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Many people are not even able to achieve these facilities. So saying that they 'rot' in jail is not correct. They spend a better life than many
people in the world. So, no. It is not inhumane.
sereneharsh

Con

Argument 1-Pro says ' Innocent People are Killed
The death penalty is irreversible.'
Why do innocent people get killed?Because of fault in police investigation.The judiciary gives death penalty based on the evidences presented before it.So death penalty can't be blamed for death of these innocent people.
Argument 2-Pro says 'It is a violation of the human rights.
All humans on the earth have human rights, which include the right to life. The right to life is one of the basic human rights. Giving someone capital punishment is a violation of that right and is thus wrong.'
So aren't they violating the Right to Life of the victims.Even the victims have the right to live.It is just Tit for tat.
Argument 3-Pro says 'Death Penalty does not deter the rate of Murder and other crimes.'
Let's talk about USA.
In 2010, 39 inmates were executed in the United States and 3,108 were on death row. Many states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Ohioand Arizona regularly execute convicted murderers. Texas has performed the most executions by far, and Oklahoma has had (through mid-2011) the highest per capitaexecution rate. (http://en.www.wikipedia.org...)
What about the crime rate?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported Tuesday that homicides dropped nearly 7 percent in the first half of 2013, compared with the same period a year earlier. Violent crime fell 5 percent. The greatest drop in homicides, 14.5 percent, took place in the Northeast, but other regions also reported a fal loff in homicide rates: the West (6.9 percent), South (5.4 percent) and Midwest (4.3 percent).
(http://www.csmonitor.com...)
So this proves that capital punishment deters crime.
Debate Round No. 3
SS1105

Pro

Argument 1- Con says,"Why do innocent people get killed?Because of fault in police investigation. The judiciary gives death penalty based on the evidences presented before it.So death penalty can't be blamed for death of these innocent people."

You are not getting my point, brother. If the death penalty was not being considered, these people would not have died. The 'fault' in the police investigation would not have killed an innocent person if the death penalty was not being considered.
Also, there have been many cases where the death penalty was given even when there wasn't any sufficient evidence.

Argument 2- Con says,"Aren't they violating the Right to Life of the victims.Even the victims have the right to live.It is just Tit for tat."

I have discussed this in the second round- 'Wait. What? You kill somebody as a punishment for killing someone else? An eye for an eye and the world will go blind.
Also, if a person kills somebody, he is violating the victim's 'Right to Life' but if you kill the murderer by sentencing him to death, you too are snatching away his 'Right to Life'. So, there is no difference between you and the murderer because both of you did the same thing- kill.'

Argument 3- Con says,"Let's talk about USA.

In 2010, 39 inmates were executed in the United States and 3,108 were on death row. Many states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Ohioand Arizona regularly execute convicted murderers. Texas has performed the most executions by far, and Oklahoma has had (through mid-2011) the highest per capitaexecution rate. (http://en.www.wikipedia.org......)
What about the crime rate?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported Tuesday that homicides dropped nearly 7 percent in the first half of 2013, compared with the same period a year earlier. Violent crime fell 5 percent. The greatest drop in homicides, 14.5 percent, took place in the Northeast, but other regions also reported a fal loff in homicide rates: the West (6.9 percent), South (5.4 percent) and Midwest (4.3 percent).
(http://www.csmonitor.com......)
So this proves that capital punishment deters crime."

If you have read the whole argument, you wouldn't probably say this. I clearly explained that the countries that do not give the death penalty had lower crime and murder rates than the other countries. So, not considering the death penalty seems to be a better option, doesn't it?
Also, criminologists claim that the reasons due to which the crime rate has decreased include the fear of imprisonment but DO NOT include the fear of the death penalty (http://www.csmonitor.com...).

Thank You Con for this debate. Voters, please vote for Pro.


sereneharsh

Con

Argument 1- Con says 'Just quoting somebody doesn't prove your point.'
Argument 2-'You kill somebody as a punishment for killing someone else?An eye for an eye and the world will go blind.
Also, if a person kills somebody, he is violating the victim's 'Right to Life' but if you kill the murderer by sentencing him to death, you too are snatching away his 'Right to Life'. So, there is no difference between you and the murderer because both of you did the same thing- kill.'
If you read it again you will find that these two were the same arguments.
So you are more concerned about the Right of Life of the criminals rather than the victims.If you take away the so called 'Right to Life' of a few criminals it would be a lesson for others.The feelings of victims and family would not find consolation if criminals did not pay with their lives.
Argument 3-Con says 'In Ajmal Kasab's case, giving the death penalty was being considered. According to a study, defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......). In terms of costs, a report found out that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that does not take into account the cost of court personnel ( http://www.wsba.org......).
So, I think this explains why Kasab's stay in prison cost the government 53 crores. Also, I have proved my point about life imprisonment being cheaper than the death penalty.'
According to the police department of Uk It costs 65,000 pounds to imprison a person in this country once police, court costs and all the other steps are taken into account. After that it costs a further 40,000 pounds for each year they spend incarcerated.(http://www.fpe.org.uk...).You can easily calculate the total cost with this data.In case of execution the cost would have been much less.
Argument 4-Con says 'Prisoners get many facilities in jail such as food, health care, education, fitness, recreation. In some jails, prisoners are also provided with telephones and computers( http://en.wikipedia.org......). Many people are not even able to achieve these facilities. So saying that they 'rot' in jail is not correct. They spend a better life than many
people in the world. So, no. It is not inhumane.'
According to Human Rights Watch prisoners and detainees in many local, state and federal facilities, including those run by private contractors, confront conditions that are abusive, degrading and dangerous. Soaring prison populations due to harsh sentencing laws""which legislators have been reluctant to change""and immigrant detention policies coupled with tight budgets have left governments unwilling to make the investments in staff and resources necessary to ensure safe and humane conditions of confinement. Such failures violate the human rights of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.(http://www.hrw.org...)
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
Was going to read and vote but became turned off by pros poor conduct of pointing out grammatical errors.
Posted by SS1105 2 years ago
SS1105
i would like to point out that Con has just copied and pasted his last argument of the last round.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SS1105sereneharsh
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: pro wins the majority of the arguments, and therefore fulfills his BoP
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SS1105sereneharsh
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I'll grade this as if it was normal voting. Sources would go to Pro on the basis that he provided a higher amplitude earlier (and overall) and thus he had more time for their effectiveness in proving his point. Also, Wikipeadia is not an acceptable source. If you wish to use it then use the link at the bottom of the page that they give you as their sourcing. I have found Pro to win Contentions 1,2, and 4. He get's arguments on the basis that Pro won the majority of the contentions that were brought to the table. If either competitor wishes for me to go more in depth in my RFD then I will if need be.