The Instigator
Mister_Man
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
allegra.hendrix
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Mister_Man
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 418 times Debate No: 69210
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Mister_Man

Con

Well I brought Allegra to this site for this reason alone, so hopefully it'll be fun.

I know there's loads of debates regarding the Death Penalty already, but I figured let's have another because there can never be enough of anything.

So I'll pass this on to Allegra to explain to everyone why the death penalty is so amazing!

Thanks ;)
allegra.hendrix

Pro

Firstly, thank you, Chase, for introducing me to this website. Alright, this shall be interesting.
I will be writing the links of the websites I've used as sources and hopefully, as will you. Even though this topic is illegitimate in Canada, I will go on the pro side. It's my opinion that a death penalty is the most moderate way to easily get justice and avenge the crime of an individual.
Debate Round No. 1
Mister_Man

Con

You're very welcome, I hope you enjoy your stay lol.

This is actually the first debate I've done in probably a month or so, so thanks for sparking my... brain.

Okay let's get down to business.

Firstly, I'll bring up the meaning of death. Death is not a conscious activity. When you die, you're dead. Remember before you were born? No you don't. That's death. It's nothing. Now we take this and think for a second... is nothing a punishment? I wouldn't say it is. I'd say it's pretty much an easy way out. If you take suicide for example, people are wanting to die. They're wanting an escape. For whatever reason, they feel being dead would be better than being alive. So when we end someone's life, we're basically giving them a way out. They don't suffer. We don't see them paying for their actions. We see them escape and go to an eternal sleep.

Now when we see someone in jail, we can see that they're uncomfortable. We can see that they're locked in a cell with no access to much of anything they want. Now you tell me - if someone killed someone you love, would you want to see them suffer? If the answer is yes, then why would you want them to have access to an easy way out, where they don't suffer? I would much rather know that person is not having a good time with their life than... well, just not being conscious.
Now, you may say hey! It costs a lot to keep someone in prison! Well sure, and a 3 bedroom penthouse suite downtown costs a lot too! But a mansion on the waterfront costs even more... so let's switch the penthouse with prison and the mansion with death. The most common number that came up for the price of containing an inmate in America (considering America is the centre of the universe...) was about $40,000, so I'll use this little article for reference [1]. $44,000 a year is the penthouse, and (I haven't found a concrete number, but it appears to be around $3million per execution) $3million is the mansion. Yes, the penthouse (prison) is expensive, but compared to the death penalty, it isn't [2].

As you can see by the 2nd link I provided, it costs about $1million more to execute a prisoner than it would be to hold him in prison for the amount of time he would have been there if he weren't executed. So the death penalty is more expensive than prison.

Regarding what you said about the death penalty being the "most moderate way to easily get justice and avenge the crime" makes sense to a degree, but in the grand scheme of things all that does is possibly satisfy a couple people. And if those couple people thought about it, putting someone to eternal sleep isn't that big of a punishment compared to spending the rest of your life in a cell with (most likely) zero access to the outside world and things they enjoy doing.

So let's see - The death penalty is more costly than housing a prisoner, and it's less of a punishment than holding someone in a cell for their life. Whattaya gotta say about that?!

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com...

[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
allegra.hendrix

Pro

I like the point you are trying to prove. Rather clever and I would say I could agree to some extent. Although it sounds so easy when you put it that way. Cheaper costs, more cruelty to the criminal and happiness to the victims. But as you've mentioned, death is an eternal sleep and to some, it is an escape from their wretched lives. So in your prospective, dying is a positive thing because the person will not live anymore?
As you've defined death for me, let me define life to you. Life is about seeing the world, learning about different cultures and expanding knowledge. Yes, having a person confined in prison will make their life a pain. But in my opinion, having their "lives" stunted from diversity and knowledge is basically enough to be a pain. Also, of course a criminal would be sentenced to jail but not every single criminal, whether it be a thief, a murderer or a rapist will be sentenced a LIFETIME of confinement. So why not imprison them to suffer (As your point to not believing in death penalty is so that the criminal will live a life of discomfort.) and then have them killed after they've served the number of years they deserve in prison?
Further more, let's take a killer for example. Mark David Chapman. Famously known to be responsible for second degree murder on to John Lennon. This man was sentenced 20 years to a life time in prison. Let's say the circumstance was that they decided to let him go after 20 years. Yes he's rot in prison for 2 decades. But now he's out, what's going to stop him from killing someone else or commiting another crime? Now with this context of him happily out of jail, he can live his life and live happily with his family. Same goes for most criminals who are not sentenced a life time of imprisonment. They get to live their lives in the end once they've been let out. What I'm trying to prove is that criminals should be confined and then be punished with death. Leaving them no chance to explore the world, learn about cultures, and expand knowledge.
Debate Round No. 2
Mister_Man

Con

Well I appreciate the kind words :)

Okay so let's see. Life (in your eyes) is a great experience, and I would agree with you. I love life and I love learning new things and seeing the world change and grow and all that. Maybe knowing you're about to die will be scary, or the worst feeling you have ever felt, but how long does it last? A few minutes. Then it's lights out! Then it's just... nothing. You don't know you're dead after you're dead, so you can't be thinking about what you missed out on. While in prison, you don't have access to the outside world or most fun stuff that life can offer. Would it be reasonable to consider prison an actual death sentence, but one where you're aware of your miserable existence?

I think the argument here is death sentence over imprisonment or imprisonment over death sentence, not both. However both would be good to a degree, it would cost way too much to carry out. Plus, they're most likely going to die in prison anyway, considering life expectancy drops significantly in prison [1]. 50 years in prison compared to 78 years outside of prison? That's a big difference, and if someone is serving a life sentence, it's usually just that - the rest of their life.

I completely agree that sentences should be changed for murderers, rapists, etc. But that's just my point - instead of being put to sleep, they spend the rest of their lives in prison. I think that's the main thing that's hard about discussing death penalty vs. imprisonment, and that's that right now imprisonment can only be a quarter of someone's life, even if they're murderers.

So my point is that when I talk about imprisonment over death, I'm implying full-time, permanent imprisonment.
allegra.hendrix

Pro

allegra.hendrix forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mister_Man

Con

Oh no! My day has been ruined.
allegra.hendrix

Pro

allegra.hendrix forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Mister_Man
I agree with you to an extent, however the argument is about the death penalty, not the justice system at all. I also agree that the system itself is flawed and puts more and more people in prison for petty offenses, while little do they know all that does is breed bigger criminals as the American Prisons are harsh and deadly and you basically need to join a prison gang to survive.

Anyway, thanks for the input and I do agree to an extent, however that isn't really the debate we're having.
Posted by W1ll1ph0n3 1 year ago
W1ll1ph0n3
Interesting debate. But I disagree with both of you.
See, you two are mainly debating how to punish a criminal the harshest way possible.
This principle is what lead to the American (in)Justice system. You either put criminals in horrible prisons or just kill them. Death penalty supporters often argue that this deters crime, yet the US has the highest incarceration rate in the World and a pretty high murder rate as well: about 5/100'000 people per year.

Now, let's consider some European countries, like Norway, Germany and Sweden and some others. they have an infinitely smaller percentage of their population in prison and far lower murder rates:
between (depending on which country) 0.5 - 1/100'000 people per year. They also have very low recidivism rates: about 30-40% - depending on the crime and country (even lower for murderers).

What makes these countries so competent when dealing with crime, is that they don't want to punish criminals the harshest way possible, they rather try to rehabilitate them with special programs, which sure cost money but that definitely pay off.

http://data.worldbank.org...
http://mic.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Overkill 1 year ago
Overkill
Mister_Manallegra.hendrixTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture; Con provided sources and structure.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Mister_Manallegra.hendrixTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
Mister_Manallegra.hendrixTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the last two rounds, dropping the majority of Con's arguments. Pro did not cite any sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Mister_Manallegra.hendrixTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con. Pro dropped several arguments, so arguments to Con Only Con had sources.