The Instigator
lgennarelli
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Intellectual_Perplexion
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Intellectual_Perplexion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,620 times Debate No: 15077
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

lgennarelli

Con

The death penalty should be Illegal. The death penalty is wrong and immoral. According to "Against the Death Penalty" there are many different factors that play tribute to why the death penalty should be illegal. Firstly, a life sentence would save time and money as opposed to the death penalty. Secondly, many people believe the death penalty is used as a deterrent, as in we have to make crime rates go down. The truth is, crime rates have not gone down. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other countries. Nothing bad can come from sending someone to life in prison. It keeps crime off the streets and it is a lot more moral than the death penalty. We live in a country where killing is wrong, yet we kill people on death row. It is almost as if we are hypocrites. We do not live in a country where we live by an eye for an eye. We live in a country where we have the right to life, and that should not be taken away from us, no matter what the circumstance.
Intellectual_Perplexion

Pro

There is no way that sustaining someone with food, water, healthcare, electricity, plumbing, etc, for the entire duration of their life sentence is cheaper than putting someone to death. It may be true that the RETAIL cost of the lethal injection is extremely expensive, but there is no actual reason because the components of the injection are inexpensive. The prison system, however, is a for-profit privatized system, so they can set the price for these injections at whatever the hell they want, and there is no price limit for this. The tangible, real cost of keeping someone alive for their entire live is exponentially higher than an injection. We do not live by "An eye for an eye", but our society demands justice and closure. There are people in this world who have, to put it bluntly, "A broken brain". There are people who have no remorse. There are people who don't feel emotions. They are societal cancers. The only solution; eliminate the cancer.
Lobotomies are much more immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
lgennarelli

Con

The thing is people on death row stay on death row for years. There have been cases where someone is on death row for so long they whined up dying of old age before there execution. We are still paying to feed and shelter these inmates on death row. Additionally, I would appreciate a source supporting your claim that the death penalty is not as expensive as a life sentence. This is because I have found multiple cites supporting your statement, but also opposing it. I feel that it is something we can never truly know. You bring up a good point when you say we do not live by an "eye for an eye." We don't, yet we do. We kill people to teach them that killing people is wrong. How is this ethical? The death penalty is a violation of our rights. We have a right to life, and that should not be taken from us. Lastly, where have our morals gone. The death penalty is just immoral, a life sentence should be given instead.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Intellectual_Perplexion

Pro

When comparing the death penalty to the average inmate, yes of course, the costs are much higher. But what you are failing to compare is the costs of those facing a sentence of Life Without Parole (LWOP) for similar crimes. Life without parole prisoners face, on average, 30 or 40 years in prison with an annual cost of incarceration about $34,500 each year (TIME magazine). Couple this staggering amount with a very similar number of appeals hearings and you have a MUCH higher total. Justice for All (JFA) reports that death penalty cases average around $2 million with an average of 6 years in appeals courts, while the LWOP prisoners average around $2-3.6 million with 8-12 years in appeals courts. Short term, more expensive, but long term, considerably less. And in regards to "eye for an eye". The point of the DP is not to teach ethics or prove a point. It is to rid society of criminals who are beyond rehabilitation. Serial killers have permanent mental defects, not character flaws.
Debate Round No. 2
lgennarelli

Con

My point is that the death penalty should not just be about money. Additionally, the amount of prisoners sentenced to Life Without Parole is not very high. Only one in ten out of the people sentenced to life in prison can not get parole. People on death row also are treated very poorly, some are in their cell for 23 hours of the day, with little interaction with other people. Maybe instead of putting these killers with mental defects, as you put it, on death row, we should send them to a mental institution. The intent of the DP may not be to teach ethics or prove a point, but that is what it is doing, and it is not working. So many people believe the death penalty is a deterrent, but crime rates have not gone down because of it. And if the only reason we are killing these people is because they are beyond rehabilitation, then what is the harm in a Life Sentence Without Parole.

Intellectual_Perplexion

Pro

Main rebuttal points:
1. You said: "My point is that the death penalty should not just be about money". In your first argument 'cost' was one of your main points. Point conceded to me.
2. The Time magazine study actually showed that the percentage of those sentenced to Life in Prison Without Parole borders on 24-25%, not 10%.
3. Do you know what the do at mental institutions? They try rehab for about 6 months to a year, then move on to shock therapy, and then ultimately to a lobotomy, which eliminates any and all semblance of a human being.
4. Ernst Van Den Haag, PhD from Fordham University, claims that, "the statistics have reaffirmed my belief that the DP is a crime deterrent. Though modest, the expected drop is about 8% with a + - 1.2% standard deviation". It is indeed a crime deterrent.
5. The right to life is not just arbitrarily stripped, and cannot be taken away on a whim as you seem to think. Nearly all moral philosophers agree, murder and rape forfeit basic human rights.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by lgennarelli 5 years ago
lgennarelli
Here is my source, it would not fit. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org...(S(jhzl5wjkxdecin552cl5xc45))/displayNews.aspx?newsid=202&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

In my opinion, our rights should never be taken from us. We live in the land of the free, but how are we free if our rights can be taken from us. Yes, you are correct most religions do believe that murder is an unforgivable sin, but they also believe that the death penalty is killing and is wrong. Some of these killers are serial killers, mentally defected serial killers, who should have a chance to get help from doctors and mental institutions. The case you talked about does happen, but not very often. Additionally, how could any killing be a mercy killing. Some people are mentally sick, it is not their fault, we do not even give them a chance to live up to a potential. Since you stated that only the mental deficient people are the exception to losing their right to life, then wouldn't the fact that we are killing mentally deficient people be immoral?
Posted by Intellectual_Perplexion 5 years ago
Intellectual_Perplexion
I wish I had more than 1,000 characters to respond, because it limits my response on the ethics and morality of the issue.
The people on death row have sacrificed their rights. Most countries, all religions, and the overall ethical consensus point to this fact. I am not religious, but in all religions, murder is considered an unforgivable sin (or other religious equivalent). The people on death row are not people who murdered in self defense or in a passionate moment; they are almost all serial killers with premeditated and delusional reasonings for their crimes.
What is more immoral: ending someone's life for their own, and societies, good... or letting someone who either is insane or mentally deficient rot in a jail cell? Life in prison only creates more of a disconnect from reality, and further exacerbates a mind which cannot grasp reason or logic. I have watched many videos of death row inmates in my psychology classes to analyze their mental thoughts (You can most likely find them on YouTube)... One man who stood out in my mind was facing the death penalty for murdering his wife and two kids. He suffered from what is known as 'Capgras Delusion'. He believed his real family had been replaced with exact replicas, and this ultimately lead him to murder them in their sleep. He has no regret or emotional distress from what he has done because he literally lacks normal brain components. He has attempted suicide daily for three months, and claims it will allow him to go back in time to prevent his family being swapped out.
This man has no semblance of what we define as life. In this case, you can honestly call the death penalty a mercy killing. He is delusional beyond repair, and a lobotomy would just make him a mindless zombie. What is the point of keeping this man alive?
99.999% of humans deserve all rights, including life. The exception is mental deficient "people", who only meet the qualifications of being a human through physical and biological means.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 5 years ago
BillBonJovi
lgennarelliIntellectual_PerplexionTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: In my opinion pro made the better arguments
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
lgennarelliIntellectual_PerplexionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not address this issue that Con brought up that the death penalty as a deterrent is an abject failure and that the ethicalness of the DP is 0. Rather, Pro, like most, argue for the DP in order to exact some sort of idealized revenge on criminals.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
lgennarelliIntellectual_PerplexionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Close debate, Con could not meet the balance of BoP.
Vote Placed by Suitecake 5 years ago
Suitecake
lgennarelliIntellectual_PerplexionTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty straightforward. LG's arguments were quite flimsy. The debate as a whole was rather flat, but the tick goes to Intel.