The Instigator
Arganger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MrBurns2017
Pro (for)
Tied
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 103825
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Arganger

Con

I will allow you the first word.

For clarification I am against the death penalty in all cases.
MrBurns2017

Pro

Okay, I will present you with a few problems that you have to cope with if you death penalty isnt adapted.

1. Costs of keeping criminals.

2. Cons who continue killing when they are behind bars.

3. Cons who finishing serving their sentence and go back to re-offend (recidivism rate is around 70% in US).

4. Cons who went on a killing spree and killed dozens of people. Would you want to feed, dress them and take care for them in general.

5. My personal view. Some people dont fit this world, and it is a struggle for them to live every day. You dont know what battles or wars they faced.. Many of which you are lucky to not have experienced. So it would simply be a good idea for them and for the society to simply perish.
Debate Round No. 1
Arganger

Con

It actually costs a ton more to sentence someone to death than life, because when someones life is on the line things don't go so smoothly.

Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000.
Cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million.
between 1982-1997 the extra cost of capital trials was $1.6 billion for the entire country
In general seeking the death penalty is more expensive than imprisoning someone with a life sentence

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org...

Maximum security prisons tend to limit the time they even see another inmate, to an arguably abusive extent. Though I believe in using some of the extra money on counseling and anger management.

A life sentence is applicable for those very likely to continue killing.

Those who became cereal killers or mass murderers still have no need to die.

Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. Likely many more died before having a chance to prove themselves innocent, that's the thing with the death penalty, it's permanent. No matter how much new evidence enters the case, nothing can be done.

I see no difference when talking about multiple murders.

I strongly disagree with your personal view, when you believe some people cannot fit in the world and will never fit, you give up any hope for them. Even the slightest grain.
MrBurns2017

Pro

There are different death penalties. They could make a death penalty cost $100 at most.
A dose of a certain anti-depressant (like it is done in Switzerland, in cases of euthonasia), can kill you without pain.
A bullet to the head, can achieve the same effect.

"Maximum security prisons tend to limit the time they even see another inmate, to an arguably abusive extent. Though I believe in using some of the extra money on counseling and anger management."

What you believe is not right. That inmate will end killing the counselor. True, it is abusive.. thats why it would be better for long term prisoners to disappear forever instead of spending all their time in solitary.

"Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. Likely many more died before having a chance to prove themselves innocent, that's the thing with the death penalty, it's permanent. No matter how much new evidence enters the case, nothing can be done."

That is the problem of the system, not of my principles. If you want a better system, make it very stringent. For example, you could rely only on CCTV camera or convict confessions before issuing the death sentence.
Debate Round No. 2
Arganger

Con

The costs associated with the death penalty have to do, not with the death itself, but mostly in court costs. No matter what form of execution is used. the cost remains. As the death penalty's cost are associated with court costs, an increase in necessary evidence to achieve a conviction though it would lessen the amount of innocent people on death row would also cause the death penalty to become even more expensive.

The inmate would not be loose around the counselor. The inmate would be restrained. Most murders that are likely to kill someone wouldn't under surveillance anyhow, given not all would care. Serial killers in particular tend to be actually very charming and careful when killing.

Though I have already addressed your last point, I will add on. Relying on things like video has a large chance of becoming obsolete in the future as technology progresses. Confessions aren't reliable all the time either, as in some cases the person confessing may be protecting someone, or the confession may have been coerced.
MrBurns2017

Pro

CCTV are getting clever. The future is to identify people by their facial 3D models instead of a 2D pictures or by their Irises.

It is up to the politicians to make executions cheaper.

Confessions may not be 100% reliable. But they can be supported by other evidence such as forensics evidence.
I just gave a few examples. You can group all evidence and tests together to draw a whole enough picture to convict for murder.

Your ideology or arguments are mostly emotional, there is no logic or argumentative basis in them. You are probably someone who is religious or someone who saw too many Disney movies.
Debate Round No. 3
Arganger

Con

Even as technology gets better at identifying people, technology to counter that is bound to follow. Not to mention that even if no one learns to abuse the system you call the future, it is still the future. We aren't talking about how the death penalty could work in the future we are talking about if it should be used now.

Every confession has the chance to be false as I just stated, No matter what evidence is pulled together with it the chance of innocence persists, and the seeking of the death penalty remains more expensive than it's worth. Just saying it's up to the politicians to make it cheaper doesn't qualify as an argument especially when expecting a larger field of evidence that may very well hike up the cost more.

I am religious, but that has nothing to do with the argument and I am not basing my arguments off of it. My stance is based in logic that you have not succeeded in countering:

*Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. Likely many more died before having a chance to prove themselves innocent

*across the country, seeking the death penalty costs and avrage $700,000 more in case-level costs than not seeking death

*between 1982-1997 the extra cost of capital trials was $1.6 billion for the entire country

Everyone has some kind of emotional attachment to any opinion they hold, here are some of yours:

*"Cons who went on a killing spree and killed dozens of people. Would you want to feed, dress them and take care for them in general."

*"Some people dont fit this world, and it is a struggle for them to live every day. You dont know what battles or wars they faced.. Many of which you are lucky to not have experienced. So it would simply be a good idea for them and for the society to simply perish."

*"What you believe is not right. That inmate will end killing the counselor. True, it is abusive.. thats why it would be better for long term prisoners to disappear forever instead of spending all their time in solitary."

I do not personally have a problem with emotional based arguments as long as they are backed up with facts to some extent, after all we have both a brain and a heart for a reason, but saying something like, "Your ideology or arguments are mostly emotional, there is no logic or argumentative basis in them. You are probably someone who is religious or someone who saw too many Disney movies." Is improper in an argument especially one where emotion has a clear tie in on both sides.
MrBurns2017

Pro

You simply re-iterated your previous arguments and didnt contradict my points.

* My first point was the cost. Politicians could take care of the laws to make an execution less expensive. It is the system flaw/fault, not the ideological argument of this debate.
"*across the country, seeking the death penalty costs and avrage $700,000 more in case-level costs than not seeking death
"
To reinforce my point even further, holding a prisoner in decent condition for all his life, could cost over a million ;(

* Confessions, technology and the criminal justice system, is what holds 3 million american prisoners today. What other method do you want to judge people. You could go as stringent as you can.
"Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated"
Thats not a lot of people. Dangerous Jails have dozens of people, being murdered or/and raped in prisions every year. So, basically, putting or/and holding such dangerous prisons in jails, does nothing good?! And we didnt talk about all kind of injuries they inflict.
If a person was seen by a CCTV camera going to or murdering someone, and he also confesses, whats the chance of him being innocent?
If the system has any suspicion, still, that he didnt, it can be argued in court and remove the death penalty from him!
And you can go even more stringent than that, by, for example producing more forensic evidence or more eyewitnesses, and even use a lie detecting machine ( a lie detecting machine has 95% of success).

" Is improper in an argument especially one where emotion has a clear tie in on both sides."
No, it isnt only about emotions. Empathy should exist when talking about food calories, time of meal a day, medical treatment, psychiatric treatment, accessibility to toilets and showers. Otherwise, jails wouldnt be jails they would become torture chambers.
What you offer to do, is hold dangerous criminals such as mass murderers and rapists without the possibility of parole. Someone will have to share the cell with them? what if they decide to rape or kill him?!? what about the guards who may have to face such criminals. Do you also want to ration the food, holding place and other resources among those people?
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MrBurns2017 7 months ago
MrBurns2017
Doesnt make much sense.

So are all those movies/books descriptions are fake.

He does seem to me like an older man.
Posted by Arganger 7 months ago
Arganger
@MrBurns2017 you can just look on his profile, of which says he is 24. Not that that should matter in the worth of someones opinion.
Posted by MrBurns2017 7 months ago
MrBurns2017
Debating_Horse, I would only take that as a compliment if you are the guy in the picture or as old as him. I am 33 btw.
Posted by MrBurns2017 7 months ago
MrBurns2017
Debating_Horse, I would only take that as a compliment if you are the guy in the picture or as old as him. I am 33 btw.
Posted by Arganger 7 months ago
Arganger
@Debating_Horse, can you explain why? I cannot learn from it if you don't.
Posted by Debating_Horse 7 months ago
Debating_Horse
Good job MrBurns2017! You clearly are victorious in debate and if I could vote (which I don't have the privileges) I'd say you win.
Posted by MrBurns2017 7 months ago
MrBurns2017
your last paragraph in the post exactly re-affirms that point that I made about you not being knowledgeable enough to continue the debate, if there were more rounds to go.
Posted by Arganger 7 months ago
Arganger
@MrBurns2017
Wow you make a lot of assumptions. First of all, this debate is over.

Second of all just because I read the bible and am a christian doesn't mean I don't read or watch documentaries apart from that. I do and all the time, I enjoy thinking, often even about things I disagree with or conflict with my views all together.

Third and last of all theorized technology really had no standing in this debate, it doesn't exist yet and for all you know may never. If it does make it on the scene you also cannot know what kind of technology advancements may be made by criminals in response.
Posted by MrBurns2017 7 months ago
MrBurns2017
We didnt consider additional technologies.
- Identifying someone by any electronic device such as phone.
- A machine that reads thoughts (if you read Michio Kakus book, 'The physics of the impossible', you will read a section that he discusses a possibility of such machine coming to existence in the next 100 years). It will be a machine that is much reliable than the current lie detector.
- A planted chip could also be used to identify someone. But at present there is no law that forces someone to have their chip being planted.

You dont read different books or watch documentaries, apart from reading your bible, so your knowledge overall is inferior to continue the discussion to additional rounds. All you can do is re-iterate the points you put in round 2 and 3..
Posted by MrBurns2017 7 months ago
MrBurns2017
And by the way, Iris scanning is highly reliable way to identify someone.. also 3d print of someone.

2D is reliable too, if it doesnt involve scanning millions of people.
No votes have been placed for this debate.