Debate Rounds (3)
`To start, I would like to say that the only reason that the death penalty is so costly is due to the appeals. If we limited appeals to three, we could ensure the person's innocence. There could be more time allotted to these individuals, just so that they could get their arguments in order. Also any DNA located at the scene will be able to either acquit them or get them sentenced to death. Lethal injection is much too costly of a method as it stands right now. This is why we need to utilize another method that ensures that justice is carried through. The electric chair is a very clean and quick way to dispose of a degenerate. I'm not against just taking them to an execution with a hardened individual to just fire a bullet in between their eyes. Anything that can ensure death should be a viable method.
Second, Retribution is a legitimate reason for execution. I wouldn't shed a tear for an individual who plotted to kill another one. There is no rehabilitation for these people. As a member of society that is trying to make this world a better place, it would be much easier knowing that these people aren't even alive to take up space. These monsters utilize the same resources that us human beings use, yet they aren't even human. People who are starving inside the U.S. could get their food and water.
Third, in order to counter what you said about innocent individuals being executed, it won't happen with the prevalence of DNA evidence inside the courtroom. If someone didn't commit a murder, they wouldn't have to worry, because someone else's DNA will still be located at the scene. Also their alibi should be good enough to be considered valid by witness testimony.
No idea why I was challenged to this. My opponent must make the BoP clear and must make arguments not just based off of what I said. If he chooses to not do so, he must say what I said so I can make a clean, efficent rebuttal. I look forward to our two rounds of debate!
wolverines7 forfeited this round.
My opponent has failed to make any efficent argument. If he forfeits round three, he will lose. All I have to do is paste one argument against the death penalty, and I'll win. The following text is from another argument of mine, one I did a few weeks ago.
==C1: The Cost==
The cost of the death penalty is no secret. In California alone, people spend $308 million on each execution, which totals up to about $4 billion over time for only 13 executions. In modern times, it costs about 177 million dollars more yearly to have the death penalty over LWOP in California.
There are 733 people in California on death row. If we were to actually execute them all, it would cost us a little over $240 billion dollars. In contrast, that's more than 1/3 of the U.S military budget. If the death penalty was abolished in California, we would be able to spend the extra money on things that further deter murder, such as the police force, security, or even education. It seems inevitable that LWOP deters murders, and we could further add to that amount with the extra funds we would have.
In other states, the death penalty is not widely used (take Maryland, which only has 5 inmates on death row). 5 executions over time costed a staggering $186 million. They took actions to then abolish the death penalty to save these costs. To sum up, it would be much cheaper to simply use LWOP instead of the death penalty. With the funds we save, we could focus on improving police force, education, benefits, etc.
The death penalty is not as much of a deterrent as it is advertised to be. A poll of experts revealed scary results. 88% believe it is not a deterrent , while 5% believe it is, and 7% have no opinion. If we need further proof that the death penalty does not deter murder or deters as less as LWOP, we can look at the state evidence.
The states that use the death penalty the most have a range of 5.1-12.5 murders per 100,000, while states with LWOP have a range of 1.2-7.1 murders per 100,000, significantly lower than states with the death penalty. Thus, it seems that murderers are more scared of LWOP than the death penalty. Furthermore, most deterrence studies are very unreliable, as an analysis of data showed that a minor tweaking of instruments used to record data can show results from the death penalty deters 429 murders to that the death penalty makes 86 murders happen.
The evidence that LWOP deters more murders than LWOP does not stop at the U.S.A. All around the globe, there is solid evidence that the death penalty does not deter as much murder as LWOP. Take a look at the quote below:
“The five countries in the world with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty have nearly half the number of murders per 100 000 people than the five countries with the highest homicides rates which do impose the death penalty (United Nations Development program)”
There is no clear evidence that the death penalty deters more murders (or any) than LWOP. The only evidence is quotes, which really are not evidence at all. There is no refuting hard data that shows LWOP is a better deterrent than LWOP.
It is irrefutable that once you put a man to death, there is a 0% chance he will live. It is also irrefutable that if you put an innocent man to death, there would be a 0% chance of that man being able to live the life he deserved. This both has happened and has come very close to happening. Take Jason O'dell for example. At the time he was put to death, there were serious questions regarding his guiltiness.Then he was put to death, and the DNA tests were burned up afterwards. This was obviously because the U.S did not want to face an innocent execution, even though they did one.
Furthermore, 144 people have been released from death row. This suggests that up to 3.5% of people on the death row are, and was, innocent. If we were to abolish the death penalty, there would be a 0% chance that an innocent man would ever get executed again.
wolverines7 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.