Death Penalty is necessary and should be existing
Debate Rounds (3)
Greetings, audiences and con side :) This is my first debate and I'm still inexperienced , please take it easy!
Death Penalty might seem harsh to many, but the people that are sent to death are usually cruel and violent people. If these people are allowed to live in the society, they WILL kill more people, commits violent crimes.
These people are grown up with violent, so it's no use to negotiate with them and turn them to be a good people. They're just being too bad beyond any improvements.
Death penalty are usually applied to the people that had killed other person before . The only thing that can compensate the victim's death is the murderer death.
In addition, if the culprits were sent to prisons, a lot of expenses must be used to care for them [at least their food and accommodation] and one day if they succeeded to escape from the prison, they will be at large once again - which is a harmful threat to the society.
To sum up, the death penalty is really necessary because it is the only way to control bad people in the society. Without death penalty, the society would go unorganized and dangerous because of these dangerous people.
[I hope this will be a good debate and wish a good luck to my opposition :)]
Thankyou to my opponent for commencing the debate.
I will proceed assuming that my opponent means to debate the death penalty in the contemporary US, and that comparisons with other capitalist democracies are the most germaine, and by necessary my opponets means 'necessary for the continuation of a more-or-less good society'.
Because my opposition argues along consequentialist grounds, I will proceed similarly. However before doing so I think it is important to realise that the laws that most people on death row break are illegal on, I claim, absolute rather than consequentialist grounds, and that this has implications for their morality of their sentencing. For example, it may be conjectured that killing someone who orchestrates a charity is worse, in terms of wider affect on the society, than the killing of as-yet unproductive infant. However, the law against murder is against murder per se (with certain mitigations available, that however take into account degree of responsibiity of the accused for the act, rather than the harm of the death itself). Killing is considered immoral per se; killing for killing is therefore wrong, absolutely.
I will take each of my opponents seperate claims head on, attempt offer a negative critique of each, and hope that arguments against the DP emerge also.
(1) 'That people that are executed are usually cruel and violent people'
- My first response to this is to ask for a clarification as to how this claim bolsters my opponent's central argument, which is that the DP is 'necessary'. The point of the debate is to demonstrate why violent people's execution is necessary, rather than merely to restate their violence. My second is posit that whilst it seems plausible to assume that many people that are executed in the US are violent, some are not only possibly non-violent, but even possible not guilty or, at least, a number of people that have been executed have subsequent to their deaths had their putative guilt challenged (*1).
(2) The claim that those that are currently executed are 'just being too bad beyond any improvements' is a non-refutable, and therefore fallacious argument; how am I to dispute what those that have been executed would have done, had they lived? However, to offer a rebuttal regardless, imagine a society/moral system that took each act, whether good or bad - murder, charity, political action - as being indicative of how the actor will act thenceforward. My opponent claims that we must take people as acting only ever in one way; should we ban every shop lifter from ever going near the private property of another? Should those that have acted virtuously once be regarded as therefore virtuous thereafter? Clearly, any moral system must regard agents as being able to act differently in the future. Also, executing someone guilty of murder is clearly not the only way to forestall them from committing more murders.
(3) 'Only the death of the guilty can compensate the victim'
How does this make the DP therefore necessary? If somone killed my friend, and I claimed that torturing them to death was the only way to compensate me, would I therefore produce the torture necessary? Doubtless many victims desire harm done to the guilty, but law is not merely codified revenge. Further, attempts at forgiveness on the part of the victims or families are, if not common, possible (for example, Pope John Paul II was able to meet and claimed to have forgiven his would-be assasin). My opponents claim is pure bombast, is empirically untrue, and adds nothing to their argument.
(4) 'Without death penaty, the society would go unorganized and dangerous because of these dangerous people'.
A rebuttal to this argument need only consist of bringing examples of societies that do not have the DP that are at least as 'organized' (and I presume this means efficiently bureaucratic, politically stable - no revolutions, regional secessions, etc) and as or less dangerous than those that do execute some prisoners. To do this, I present Sweden - which is 'organized' in the sense outlned above with a '1 homocide per 100,000 inhabitants' - as demonstrative of a country without the DP, and ask the reader to compare it against the US (5.4 homicides per 100,000 and 'organized' in roughly comparable sense) (*2) The DP is no indicator or driver of a countries' organisation, as has been claimed, and nor does it ensure the wider populations' safety. Indeed, on the above data alone, the opposite is more likely to be the case than not.
My opponent claims that the DP is necessary, most basically, on the grounds that it ensures that it removes 'bad people' from society. However, why it is necessry to kill - and therefore, to commit perhaps the same act as the executee - rather than merely incarcertate the guilty party has been barely demonstrated, except on the crudest grounds (i.e. that it's cheaper to kill than to capture). It is not 'the only way to control the bad people in society'.
If the DP is to be shown as necessary to a good society, my opponent must show not only that it is preferable to incarceration or rehabilitation (not that the two are mutually exclusive), but that a reasonably good society cannot remain as such without the DP. Examples of societies that are very roughly comparable with the US that do not execute prisonsers are prevalent in the world today. Therefore, the DP is demonstrably un-necessary to a good society. Indeed, as I will develop, it has a brutalising effect that itself produces more 'bad people'.
I wish my opponent good luck.
*1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
*2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
topictopicle forfeited this round.
JoeHayns forfeited this round.
topictopicle forfeited this round.
JoeHayns forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: They both forfeited, but Cons arguments were much more convincing.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.