The Instigator
brendizzle29
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
gregthedestroyer
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+12
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 10 votes the winner is...
gregthedestroyer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,135 times Debate No: 6981
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (62)
Votes (10)

 

brendizzle29

Con

Ahhh, the death penalty. The government taking someone's life because they took someone else's life. What obvious hypocrisy.

I disagree with the death penalty because it is immoral.

First, the death penalty implies that a jury of twelve people is qualified to take life into their own hands. Does this mean that mob execution should also be made legal?

Second, the death penalty becomes intolerable the very moment that someone is wrongly convicted. Death is, if anything, permanent. If someone is wrongly convicted and sent to life in prison its horrible, but if someone is wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, then an innocent person is MURDERED. How can this be moral?
gregthedestroyer

Pro

First I would like to say that I see your side of of the argument and respect that.

~~Second, the death penalty becomes intolerable the very moment that someone is wrongly convicted. Death is, if anything, permanent. If someone is wrongly convicted and sent to life in prison its horrible, but if someone is wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, then an innocent person is MURDERED. How can this be moral?~~

You have only talked about what if they are wrongly convicted. But what if they are not wrongly convicted? What do you call justice? If somebody I loved was hurt or killed by another person they I would want justice for this action. If somebody was wrongly convicted they are given chances of parole to fix this.

~~First, the death penalty implies that a jury of twelve people is qualified to take life into their own hands. Does this mean that mob execution should also be made legal?~~

The main reason for the jury is to have different views on a case. This way it can not be just one persons biased answer. The jury is carefully picked out of a group of people. They are background checked and everything.

THE DEATH PEANLATY GIVES PEOPLE JUSTICE. IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME. DON'T DO THE CRIME!
Debate Round No. 1
brendizzle29

Con

"If somebody I loved was hurt or killed by another person they I would want justice for this action."

The death penalty is not the only punishment. There is life in prison. It is not worth the risk of taking even one innocent life in order to put to death those that commit capital offenses.

"If somebody was wrongly convicted they are given chances of parole to fix this."

If someone is wrongly convicted and sent to life in prison, they have the chance of parole and appeal. Death, however, has no parole. You can't bring someone that was wrongly sentenced to the death penalty back to life.

"The main reason for the jury is to have different views on a case. This way it can not be just one persons biased answer. The jury is carefully picked out of a group of people. They are background checked and everything."

The does nothing to refute my argument. These twelve people, not matter how different they are, still hold life and death in their hands. I don't know about you, but to me the idea that twelve can decide how lives and dies seems pretty disturbing.

"THE DEATH PEANLATY GIVES PEOPLE JUSTICE. IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME. DON'T DO THE CRIME!"

This statement is contradictory in the fact that the death penalty isn't doing time. It's DYING. Not spending life in prison as I have suggested.
gregthedestroyer

Pro

~~The death penalty is not the only punishment. There is life in prison. It is not worth the risk of taking even one innocent life in order to put to death those that commit capital offenses.~~

first off: i would like to know the chance somebody dies from death penalty that was wrongly convicted? and the website please. Why should somebody who has killed another person be able to live in a place were they are taken care of. They get free food. a place to sleep and a place to play. they can even get paid.

~~If someone is wrongly convicted and sent to life in prison, they have the chance of parole and appeal. Death, however, has no parole. You can't bring someone that was wrongly sentenced to the death penalty back to life.~~

When somebdoy is sentenced to death. they don't die the very next day. there is time from when they are sentenced to it and to the actually death date. so there is time of appeal and or for officals to find evidence.

When i said "The main reason for the jury is to have different views on a case. This way it can not be just one persons biased answer. The jury is carefully picked out of a group of people. They are background checked and everything." you siad

~~The does nothing to refute my argument. These twelve people, not matter how different they are, still hold life and death in their hands. I don't know about you, but to me the idea that twelve can decide how lives and dies seems pretty disturbing.~~

It does everything to refrute your point. it does matter how different they are so it is not biased. if it wasn't for them then it would only be one person who decides. now that seems desturbing. These people help bring justice to this crazy world we live in.

When i said. "THE DEATH PEANLATY GIVES PEOPLE JUSTICE. IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME. DON'T DO THE CRIME!"

You said ~~This statement is contradictory in the fact that the death penalty isn't doing time. It's DYING. Not spending life in prison as I have suggested.~~

Ok please actuall use that brain because i know you are smart. everybody knows when it is said IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME. DON'T DO THE CRIME! time just means whatever your punishment is. not actually time unless that is your punishment. please know what you are talking about before you post.
Debate Round No. 2
brendizzle29

Con

"first off: i would like to know the chance somebody dies from death penalty that was wrongly convicted? and the website please. Why should somebody who has killed another person be able to live in a place were they are taken care of. They get free food. a place to sleep and a place to play. they can even get paid."

To address your first question, a study by Northwestern University revealed that in the state of Illinois alone, juries wrongfully convicted someone 12.5% of the time. This is for all cases but that still shows the chance of error in our judicial system. That means that one in every eight people is found guilty of a crime they didn't commit. To address the second part of your statement, they should be able to live because every life has value. Killing one person doesn't bring another person back. It is our moral obligation to still acknowledge the right to life of these convicts. In the words of J.R.R. Tolkien, Oxford scholar and widely acknowledged as an upstanding moral individual, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." Furthermore, New Mexico and Colorado are currently reconsidering their stances on the death penalty because, according to Governor Bill Richardson, the death penalty actually costs taxpayers more money than life in prison. So I ask you this, why should we spend more money just to kill someone?

"When somebdoy is sentenced to death. they don't die the very next day. there is time from when they are sentenced to it and to the actually death date. so there is time of appeal and or for officals to find evidence."

Here's a little timeline for you:
2007: Chief Justice Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is charged on 7 counts of misconduct because she improperly closed a court to the appeal of Michael Richard shortly before he was to be executed. It is believed that if she had not done this, he would have received a lesser sentence.
February 11, 2009: Wayne Tompkins is executed when his guilt still remained in question. The prosecution never even proved that the alleged victim had died because several witnesses testified to seeing him alive after his supposed death.
February 19, 2009: Edward Bell is executed for the murder of a police officer. He was denied an appeal because his lawyers failed to present sufficient evidence in the first trial.

Unfortunately, the judicial system does not always work. These are only three instances. I can cite many more.

"It does everything to refrute your point. it does matter how different they are so it is not biased. if it wasn't for them then it would only be one person who decides. now that seems desturbing. These people help bring justice to this crazy world we live in"

Greg, you obviously do not understand this point. It doesn't matter how moral or different or unbiased they are. The jurors could be Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Buddha, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, Jeremy Bentham, Romeo Dallaire, Billy Graham, any other three world-renowned moral figures. It doesn't matter. It still means that a group of twelve people can say who lives and who dies. They aren't perfect. They're still human and still make mistakes. Twelve people, or twelve thousand people for that matter, should not have the moral authority to decide if someone's life is less valuable than any of theirs. In the words of Jesus, "All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!"

"Please know what you are talking about before you post."

I would appreciate it if you could actually stick to the debate at hand and not resort to trying to win the case by personally insulting me. Especially since its hypocritical in the fact that you post arguments about a moral issue by saying that a group composed of different kinds of people has the power to decide if its moral or not.

This is purely a moral issue. It is impossible to discuss life and death without morality. I have clearly shown how the death penalty and everything it entails is immoral, while my opponent has argued that we need the death penalty to avenge those that die. He never even bothered to disagree that it was immoral, even thought i stated that in my very first argument! For this reason, you can feel completely comfortable voting for me.

No matter how the voting goes, I would like to thank Greg for an interesting debate.
gregthedestroyer

Pro

a study by Northwestern University revealed that in the state of Illinois alone, juries wrongfully convicted someone 12.5% of the time. This is for all cases but that still shows the chance of error in our judicial system.~~

I believe you when you state this. Now i would like to say. have you ever met a person who was perfect? Who never did anything wrong or who never made a bad decision? I have never met such person. now You sated 12.5 is worngly convicted but like a said before there is a little thing called parol. that does not say how many people has died. like i stated before people do get wrongly convicted but parol. how many of those people actually die?

~~. Killing one person doesn't bring another person back. It is our moral obligation to still acknowledge the right to life of these convicts. In the words of J.R.R.~~

convict lose all rights when they are convicted. Killing one person doesn't bring another person back but it brings justice.

~~ Tolkien, Oxford scholar and widely acknowledged as an upstanding moral individual, Tolkien, Oxford scholar and widely acknowledged as an upstanding moral individual, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them.~

No we can not give people who die life. but as Tolkien says "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. yes many do deserve death hence the death penalty. and some deserve life. yes all they people that was killed in a shooting by mafia or this random guy. The death peanlty is a way to bring this sad family justice after losing a loved one. know that they guy that killed their loved one can no longer doing anthing to them or anybody else in the world. Life in prison can not do this. there is always they chance they will get out.

~~Furthermore, New Mexico and Colorado are currently reconsidering their stances on the death penalty because, according to Governor Bill Richardson, the death penalty actually costs taxpayers more money than life in prison. So I ask you this, why should we spend more money just to kill someone?~~

As to what you said about taxes and paying to kill somebody. We wouldn't be paying more for this cause we are already paying for it. I would like to countinue paying for this with my taxes if it helps bring justice.

~~Here's a little timeline for you:
2007: Chief Justice Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is charged on 7 counts of misconduct because she improperly closed a court to the appeal of Michael Richard shortly before he was to be executed. It is believed that if she had not done this, he would have received a lesser sentence.
February 11, 2009: Wayne Tompkins is executed when his guilt still remained in question. The prosecution never even proved that the alleged victim had died because several witnesses testified to seeing him alive after his supposed death.
February 19, 2009: Edward Bell is executed for the murder of a police officer. He was denied an appeal because his lawyers failed to present sufficient evidence in the first trial.~~

I thank you for the timeline. but a these are not proven to have killed a innocent person. like i said befor there is no perfect person. I do think there might have been a person was has died that was innocent.

~~"It does everything to refrute your point. it does matter how different they are so it is not biased. if it wasn't for them then it would only be one person who decides. now that seems desturbing. These people help bring justice to this crazy world we live in"

Greg, you obviously do not understand this point. It doesn't matter how moral or different or unbiased they are. The jurors could be Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Buddha, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, Jeremy Bentham, Romeo Dallaire, Billy Graham, any other three world-renowned moral figures. It doesn't matter. It still means that a group of twelve people can say who lives and who dies. They aren't perfect. They're still human and still make mistakes. Twelve people, or twelve thousand people for that matter, should not have the moral authority to decide if someone's life is less valuable than any of theirs. In the words of Jesus, "All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!"

"Please know what you are talking about before you post."

I would appreciate it if you could actually stick to the debate at hand and not resort to trying to win the case by personally insulting me. Especially since its hypocritical in the fact that you post arguments about a moral issue by saying that a group composed of different kinds of people has the power to decide if its moral or not.~~

I went ahead and posted that whole little bit so people would know what i was talking about because im going to talk about it all in one.

I will say again i already refruted this point so i guess Brendan you do not understand. Ok let me make this little statement and this is talking about all over ther world that are in similar things. ok me and my brother saw they guy who killed a innocent old lady and a kid. and he saw us. well befor he could kill us he was caught by the police. and when he went in fron of the jury me and my brother testified against him. this made him go to jail. if we would not have then he would have be a free man. ok ( now you are thinking whats wrong with that. well lets say he gets out because there is no death penalty. like what brendan want.) Ok so he gets out and want revenge because we put him away now me and my brother are always looking over out shoulders because we heard he was set free. and a day or 2 later me and my brother our found dead in a alley. See the death penalty would keep more innocent people alive. If you do not get this then i am sorry.

~~I would appreciate it if you could actually stick to the debate at hand and not resort to trying to win the case by personally insulting me. Especially since its hypocritical in the fact that you post arguments about a moral issue by saying that a group composed of different kinds of people has the power to decide if its moral or not.~~

i would appreciate if you knew what you were talking about. i did stick to the debate you were not able to understand so you made this dumb lash out at me for something to use. but sorry it did not work.

~~This is purely a moral issue. It is impossible to discuss life and death without morality. I have clearly shown how the death penalty and everything it entails is immoral, while my opponent has argued that we need the death penalty to avenge those that die. He never even bothered to disagree that it was immoral, even thought i stated that in my very first argument!~~

i understand it is a moral issue that has been what me whole case is about. thats why i accepted this debate. my whole case goes againts yours so i do not see what you are talking about. I have refuted all his arugements. and he has made does lash outs at me. This is why you should vote for me. as i stated befor
IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME. DON'T DO THE CRIME! ( and so there is not confusion. time means what ever your punishment may be)
Debate Round No. 3
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ElHombre 3 years ago
ElHombre
I find it deeply wrong. Deeply, deeply wrong...
Posted by perihelion939 7 years ago
perihelion939
Very interesting debate. Both of you defended your sides well, however, the bickering about the comment IF YOU CANT DO THE TIME, DONT DO THE CRIME was annoying. Perhaps it WAS a casual reference to death and thus Brendan (thats your name right?) was offended, and I understand that, but it wasnt what the argument was about. Stick to your subject and dont pick out dumb flaws to bring the other person down. Otherwise, it was good.
Posted by Mr_smith 7 years ago
Mr_smith
Not only is the death penalty more expensive than life in prison, but there is no evidence that it serves as a deterrent.
Posted by gregthedestroyer 7 years ago
gregthedestroyer
HERE HERE! People who are put to death are people who do horrible murders. Not just one person.
Posted by Demosthenes 7 years ago
Demosthenes
Society does have a right to protect itself from harm and from harmful individuals.

And in some cases, that means taking life. IT IS JUST to take the life of someone who has taken INNOCENT life. Read that carefully. All life is not equal. The life of a criminal is NOT worth the same as the life of someone who has committed no crime.

Justice is to receive what one is due. In my mind, and in the mind of most Americans, taking an innocent life is punishable by death.
Posted by thisoneguy 7 years ago
thisoneguy
Who gives anyone the right to take a life, whether it's through the courts, or through a vendetta, We are not in a position to give nor take life, nor will we ever be, Justice?,, what do we know what is or what isn't ?,,
Posted by Demosthenes 7 years ago
Demosthenes
Thanks Greg.

I extend an open invitation to anyone who commented in this topic to challenge me in this debate. I am completely prepared to argue for my beliefs.
Posted by gregthedestroyer 7 years ago
gregthedestroyer
I am tired of megan arguing. I told her if she wants to debate this to send me a invite. She has not so what does that tell ya. SO i say HERE HERE to everything Demosthenes says.
Posted by Demosthenes 7 years ago
Demosthenes
"the definition fits..and not forgetting most of these people are catholic americans?
since when did god teach to kill mankind for killing other men!
Please."

Get out. Right now. Leave this debate and don't come back, because you OBVIOUSLY are about 16 years old and don't understand how the government of the United States of America works.

WE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO GOD'S LAW IN THIS LIFE. GOD DOES NOT SMITE THOSE WHO DO NOT DO HIS WILL. He exacts his vengeance when one dies, sending the evil to Hell and the worthy to Heaven. I read my Bible like everybody else, and I see NO DICHOTOMY in the death penalty and my faith.

God HAS taught men to kill other men. God has ORDERED MEN to kill other men. GOD HAS WIPED ENTIRE REGIONS OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Do not sit there and tell me God didn't help teach man how to kill.
Posted by Demosthenes 7 years ago
Demosthenes
The death penalty is right on more levels than it is wrong.

I am no hypocrite, and nothing I have said today is hypocritical. It is only a matter of your assumptions that make me out to be a hypocrite in whatever idiotic world comprises your head. Insult me again, I love it when people do that. It gives me more of an excuse to tear your argument apart with half my brain tied behind my back.

"you are saying that these people are vicious evil etc.. Yet you just stated you dont care about there stated mind and its purely on the act not the person."

Yes. Where's the hypocrisy? The criminal is going to jail for being a vicious and evil creature who took the life of an innocent human being. Their state of mind when they did is irrelevant to me. You obviously don't understand complex thought, OR the definition of hypocrisy.

I stated VERY CLEARLY that I believe a person's mental state is irrelevant when deciding how to judge their crimes. I also stated, just as clearly, that the death penalty is to be used on people so evil and vicious they are a danger to society AND other criminals who they would normally be kept with, therefore making their execution a necessity.

What hypocrisy are you talking about? Or are you just screaming at me because you have no answer for what I say?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by hauki20 7 years ago
hauki20
brendizzle29gregthedestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by 106627 7 years ago
106627
brendizzle29gregthedestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
brendizzle29gregthedestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Demosthenes 7 years ago
Demosthenes
brendizzle29gregthedestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by EmyG 7 years ago
EmyG
brendizzle29gregthedestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by S0CRATES 7 years ago
S0CRATES
brendizzle29gregthedestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
brendizzle29gregthedestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by brendizzle29 7 years ago
brendizzle29
brendizzle29gregthedestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tarsjake 7 years ago
tarsjake
brendizzle29gregthedestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
brendizzle29gregthedestroyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07