The Instigator
Shadowps9
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Death Penalty Should it be enacted?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 7/11/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,087 times Debate No: 4653
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (9)

 

Shadowps9

Pro

The death penalty, the act of putting criminals to death by the state for committing a criminal offense.

First I would like to say hello to my opponent whoever it may be and I shall start the debate. I like to keep my arguments short and sweet so I will try to do so.

I believe that the death penalty should be carried out in situations where the criminal has killed another person unless it was by accident, or to defend his or another living person's life. "An eye for an eye" as the old saying goes.

That's not to say that I think the death provided to the criminal should be cruel or inhumane. I believe that of the methods provided here http://en.wikipedia.org... (forgive me if my link is posted incorrectly it is my first debate) the only ones suitable for an execution are single-shooter single shot kill, nitrogen asphyxiation and the lethal injection.

Even so, I still take "An eye for an eye" to heart and I believe that if the criminal subjected their victim to some kind of pain that they should be subjected to something of the same manner. I believe the 2 suitable deaths are live burial and cement block drowning. Both would place the criminal in a state of extreme psychological stress up until the point he dies.

Of the forty two capital offenses here http://www.capdefnet.org... (please excuse the link again) thirty-seven of them involve definite death. I believe that under all of these circumstances the death penalty is appropriate.

Please treat me to a good debate, it's my first one.
Puck

Con

Welcome to your first debate.

"I believe that the death penalty should be carried out in situations where the criminal has killed another person unless it was by accident, or to defend his or another living person's life. "An eye for an eye" as the old saying goes."

There are inherent problems relating to 'eye for an eye'. At its most basic revenge based judicial processes are a throwback to the feudalistic Middle Ages where the punishment normally far exceeded the crime. Further back in time we see it as a component of certain tribal laws. The purpose of any sentence imposed is to be 'just' i.e. justice. Revenge is not a valid trait as such and is detrimental to the philosophical groundings of law.

To be a pure exercise in 'eye for an eye' you must consider several things. What is the value of any given life, can that value change, what is used to determine that value.

To give an example, say a man wilfully murders another man. That murdered man is 80. What is the value of that life to say, the murdered value of a 5 year old. Both acts by their virtue (the forceful removal of another's life) agreeably result in the forfeit of the perpetrators own right to that (more on that later). However the value of the two lives taken is arguably very different. How can you 'eye for an eye' the death of a 5 year old with an expected life course of 75+ more years i.e. how can you take the expected experience of life and say it is the same as the man in his 80s and judge them to be equal when they are clearly not. Revenge based rulings suffer this inherent problem at its core. How do you 'eye for an eye' multiple deaths? Clearly such rulings are a facade of equal punishment to crime; it reverts always to being motivated by base revenge.

So who makes the decision to enact revenge? The law on behalf of the victims family, or does the victims family have a say in the law? It is their revenge you are enacting after all. Do you give them a say in judicial outcomes or act without their guidance at all? To allow their input undermines the basis of a judicial system, to disallow revenge based decisions the input of those being revenged is disingenuous to their interests. The concept fails again. To look at it another way, what if the family of the victim does not want revenge, who then is the state enacting its judgement for? For its own benefit clearly, which is how the current system works now i.e. the punishment of crime to the state (removal of its citizen) takes precedence over the wishes of the victims of said crimes.

"the only ones suitable for an execution are single-shooter single shot kill, nitrogen asphyxiation and the lethal injection."

Assuming the death sentence is being carried out; you are in all cases advocating the position of state recognised executioner. Single man death controls places a huge burden on the individual in question. Take, for instance, Japan, where executions are handled in a 'blind man's switch' scenario, with multiple possible executioners. It says something about any government that professes to uphold the value of life, yet sends so many eagerly to its death.

"believe that if the criminal subjected their victim to some kind of pain that they should be subjected to something of the same manner. I believe the 2 suitable deaths are live burial and cement block drowning. Both would place the criminal in a state of extreme psychological stress up until the point he dies."

What does torture actually achieve? The death sentence is assured; torture for its own sake is purely sadistic. How do you measure the equity of psychological distress? What is the bench mark for when this is employed? What determine its use from non use? What level of infliction before it is 'justified?' The concept is irrational and barbaric.

"Of the forty two capital offenses here http://www.capdefnet.org...... (please excuse the link again) thirty-seven of them involve definite death. I believe that under all of these circumstances the death penalty is appropriate."

The forfeit of one's life is not equitable to the extinguishment of one's life. Consider what the death actually achieves, it is merely circular logic; he killed so we should kill. Wars start on this very premise. It is not a sign of an advancing society but a throwback to its past.

So what exactly does this measure cost? Well quite a lot actually. To maintain a death penalty friendly state is largely more expensive than not.

"Quite a few jurisdictions with the death penalty have recently had to cut back on other vital services. In some death penalty states, people are being released from prison early as a cost saving measure. Other states are closing libraries and other vital services. The costs of the death penalty have a direct bearing on these issues."

"In California the current system costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty."

http://www.ccfaj.org...

A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).

(December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)

The end result is a dead body, purely that. What value then does this achieve? This vast expense of money to the aim of a death is a singular waste of money. Equally poor is any notion of 'justice' for little is achieved. Far better then, to use this money, use that individual differently. Much more functional (remember I don't disagree about the forfeiting of its right to its life) to use the individual for the benefit of society. Far better that it serves the community it has damaged. Make them think, rationalise, self educate. Yes make them think, for in this the individual can only know the basis and consequences of its actions. Make them serve the society they have damaged, make them cognisant of the choices of their life and put their current one to use. That should be the ideal of the state and spending this money, not the null end of death with nothing achieved.
Debate Round No. 1
Shadowps9

Pro

Shadowps9 forfeited this round.
Puck

Con

It looks like, Shadowps9, has closed his account.

Character Limits..............................
Debate Round No. 2
Shadowps9

Pro

Shadowps9 forfeited this round.
Puck

Con

Another dead debate. This is getting frustrating.

Character Limits...............................
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
(\_/)
(^.^)
(> <)

Vote for the forfeit bunnies, of course. :D
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Well puck... I don't know who to vote for, an active debater, or someone who closed their account.... I choose . . . Iw ould have thought he would at least finish this debate before closing down his account...
Oh well
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by luckyjs1995 8 years ago
luckyjs1995
Shadowps9PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by apathy77 8 years ago
apathy77
Shadowps9PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Dr_Harvey 8 years ago
Dr_Harvey
Shadowps9PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
Shadowps9PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by hail2thethief 8 years ago
hail2thethief
Shadowps9PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Shadowps9PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Shadowps9PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
Shadowps9PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Shadowps9PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03