The Instigator
Dagolas
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheMrkanyewest01
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Death Penalty should be reinstated

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,886 times Debate No: 24712
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Dagolas

Con

This will be brief, for I have not much to say:

I am strongly opposed to this idea. If you were to kill a murderer, what makes you better than the murderer? You took his life. He took someone else's. (Let us assume he killed one person.)

There is, of course, the problem of the astounding price of keeping the criminals alive. But the Government has enough money for it (economic crisis excluded), so why not?
TheMrkanyewest01

Pro

I Accept your challenge Dagolas,

The death penalty is justified and should be reinstated.The Death penalty is justified because it utilizes the "Eye for an Eye' concept which means if you deliver the taste of death unto someone,Than the state is in within its full right to administer the same taste of death back to you.Does it make you better than murderer,of course not,But does that matter you have administered justice no matter how cold it seems to be.Justice should be impartial,It does not have feelings,it should not care whether its deceison is popular or not.Rather it concerns it self with what's right,It looks at the act that has been committed,and takes action to correct the wrong,And stops further crime.Need proof well according to "A new study from Pepperdine University the study says every inmate who is executed results in 74 fewer deaths the following year"[1].I would also like to add that we should,in fact,instill the concept of the death penalty to all criminals,if you commit a murder or a gruesome crime,Then you are subject to the ultimate penalty which is death.
Now,lets look at the economics factors of this issue(Which you brought up) "Prisons cost taxpayers more than $32 billion a year. Every year that an inmate spends in prison costs $22,000. An individual sentenced to five years for a $300 theft costs the public more than $100,000. The cost of a life term averages $1.5 million.
States are spending more money on prisons than education. Over the course of the last 20 years, the amount of money spent on prisons was increased by 570% while that spent on elementary and secondary education was increased by only 33%"[2].And with the United States of America having a National Debt of 15 trillion and seeing its credit rating downgraded,can we honestly afford to house these murderers.With the death penalty reinstated it would mean a decrease in the Prison population,with The United States of America constructing 200 new jail cells a day to house those inmates a decrease in the prison population will be greatly appreciated,By the government as well as the American taxpayer.

Cited Sources:
1.http://www.npr.org...
2.http://www.heartsandminds.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Dagolas

Con

A big problem with the Death Penalty, is that many people come out innocent after being charged of murder. A few years of prison is bad, but death when they were innocent? No. What's more, some religions forbid the death penalty (Catholic, Presbyterian, Quaker, etc...).
Another problem, killing the prisoners is more costly then life in prison. ($2 million per person vs. $500,000 for prison). If killing them is more costly, why not let them rot in prison with gruel and water with some serial killers in the cell next door?
That brings me to my next point. Would it not be more of an ultimate punishment, to leave them in a cell, with only gruel and water 3 times a day, then death? Probably. Death is instant. Prison for life would be decades (depending on age).
You talk of the decrease of people, deterred from committing the crime because of the Death Penalty. I imagine most people do not think about it while they commit the crime, but it might deter a few people. But also, the Death Penalty is not used immediately. The accused would have to wait years before being executed.

Sources:
1.http://uk.toluna.com...
2.http://www.antideathpenalty.org...
TheMrkanyewest01

Pro

Thank you,for your response Dagolas and now my rebuttal,

It is very true that many people on Death Row may be innocent,but the presumed guilty are given a fair trial Mandated by our United States Constitution,He is defended to the best of his defences ability,and if found guilty and sentenced to death,Well that is the direction best thought suited for the presumed guilty man,And if executed and later his innocence is proven keep in mind that he was thought of as guilty,they didn't just go willy nilly accusing people of crimes,convicting them,and executing them.He was given due process I will be the First to say that the administering of justice is not correct 100% of the time,but the attempt is made to correct a wrong,a wrong I may add that is thought of as inexcusable and severer.But the people that are innocent have the tool of Exoneration and groups such as The Exoneration Initiative fighting for them and the cause of justice as a whole as well.
Now,to address your figures you say that to house a prisoner it would cost 500,000 oppose to executing a prisoner which would be according to you cost 2,000,000.Well,from what I understand you prefer life imprisonment over the death penalty,you provided a figure to the sum of 500,000 but did not specify for what just "for prison' the actual cost is 1.5 million as I stated in my previous example.You also provided the cost for execution which according to you is 2,000,000,well again to house an inmate for life is 1.5 million,as you can see the difference in cost is minimal and seeing that the death penalty is not utilized often.
"In 2008, 37 inmates were executed, 5 fewer than in 2007"[1] the 2,000,000 dollar bill does not come up often.And now to my final rebuttal,Your suggestion of "housing inmates in a cell with only,gruel and water 3 times a day" Would be in violation of the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.The type of punishment I proposed was formal punishment,a punishment carried out formally under a system of law,based on the severity and unpleasantness,I proposed death.What you proposed was suffering If you really are concern with the morality of the Death Penalty and its position in context to justice,Why would you permit long term suffering?
Debate Round No. 2
Dagolas

Con

Dagolas forfeited this round.
TheMrkanyewest01

Pro

TheMrkanyewest01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Dagolas

Con

Dagolas forfeited this round.
TheMrkanyewest01

Pro

TheMrkanyewest01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Dagolas

Con

Dagolas forfeited this round.
TheMrkanyewest01

Pro

TheMrkanyewest01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.