Debate Rounds (5)
I accept the challenge for this debate. For this round, I wish to Rebuttal a statement that my opponent said which was "I don't feel like death is the optimal punishment for an unforgivable crime". First off, we are a country of being just within society. The term "just" being defined as: "Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". In a government for delivering justice, we must be fair and morally right to the criminal and is best just to kill them instead of overpopulating our prisons, or paying more taxes for that individual to partake within society.
However, the idea between which one is right or wrong is still up to debate.
The states have a lot of prisoners. For every 100,000 people there are over 700 prisoners (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk...)
I am danish, and over here there are FOUR prisoners for every 100,000 (I'll give you sources if you wish, however they are in danish)
I don't think the solution for your overpopulated prisons is to kill them, maybe you should reduce them by changing your attitude towards your lack of gun control, and other things.
To answer my opponents question, yes I am American; but that should not matter with this debate. My opponent brought up a statistic about the U.S being the highest prison population around the world. I will agree that the number needs to be reduced, but there are other ways to reduce that number besides the Death Penalty. The number of prisoners is mainly because of the amount of drug busts made for individuals having an ounce of marijuana. To support this claim, stated under "Almost Half Of Federal Prisoners Held For Drug Crimes" (1), it states: "Although the overall U.S. prison population declined slightly in 2011, the federal prison population continued to rise, with rates of drug and immigration offenders that eclipse those held for violent crimes. While only 8 percent of federal prisoners were sentenced for violent crimes in 2011, almost half of federal inmates – 48 percent – were in prison for drug crimes". I am for the Death Penalty for Murderers and Rapists, but not for simple drug usage.
Focusing on the topic though, the reason why we need the Death Penalty is to gain a profit from it and deter crime. How my opponent may ask? The system known as "Death Row" needs to be tweaked to gain the benefits of the Death Penalty. Voters, Death Row is simply the inmates who wait in a certain cell until their execution take place. After the criminal is sentenced to Death Penalty, instead of a more instantaneous death; it is a long drawn process of trying to prove that the criminal isn't guilt even though most of the time, they are. With the tweaking of Death Row, by making it more instant, we will actually save money from paying taxes to waiting inmates about to come into death (2).
Also it will deter crime because stated under "Do More Executions mean Fewer Murders" (3), it states: "What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the past half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument: whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer". They once more refer back to the issue of Death Row, and if it was fixed; the results would be more easily noticable.
I wait for my opponents argument.
In Denmark there is no death penalty.
Studies show that in America two thirds of released prisoners return to prison again (source: http://www.crimeinamerica.net...)
In Denmark one third of released prisoners return to prison (source: http://www.b.dk...)
Maybe we need to look at the difference between american and danish prisons.
A prisoner in Denmark is given an education. They are forced to take some sort of educative courses that can help them make a better life once out. They receive therapy, and when they are out they are not treated like criminals anymore, they are INSURED a job.
I believe this is a why there are so few returning to prison in Denmark compared to elsewhere.
Maybe you should treat your prisoners better, so that they don't do crimes after released, that would probably lower the murders in your country. And you seemed to defend your gun law, I just want to say there are on average 17,000 murders committed every year in the states (source: http://www.disastercenter.com...) 9,000 of them are caused by gun. (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...)
I doubt killing people is gonna end the mass murder that happens every day in America.
My opponent completely ignores my previous argument. I stted that if we tweak Death Row, things would be resolved. In this round, my opponent really did not argue why the Death Penalty should not be used, but instead talked about her policies within Denmark.
My opponent also quotes this statement: "Maybe you should treat your prisoners better, so that they don't do crimes after released". That is why the Death Penalty is useful because it doesn't release prisoners, when they are already dead. My opponent brings up gun control, but that isn't the topic we are discussing. We are debating about the usage of the Death Penalty or not, and we are not getting anywhere really.
Just because you state that it works in Denmark doesn't mean it will work for the U.S.
Thats an opinion, not an argument. We are debating, and my opponent is failing on arguing even.
In this debate, there was really no arguments. My opponent brought in events that have happened in her country Denmark, but has failed to provide reasons of why the Death Penalty shouldn't be used. While I brought in a few reasons of why the Death Penalty should be used, yet my opponent has failed to Rebuttal against them. This means my opponent "dropped" the debate.
In the end, this was really not a great debate but more opinionated on my opponents side. I attempted to debate, but my opponent has failed to continue on the debate, instead; giving her opinion on situations.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheDebater_101 1 year 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely forgot about the debate and said irrevelant things
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.