Death Penalty

I welcome my opponent to this site.


My arguments:

C.1 As long as the death penalty is in use, there is always the risk of killing innocents.

There is always the chance that the person being convicted is innocent. Even when there is what seems strong evidence, it may only mean that the convicted man had something too do with the crime, not the murder itself. There are of course many other possible explanations why someone, tried guilty, might be innocent. Those sentenced to life imprisonment have the chance to be proven innocent before they die.

Well over eighty people in the past quarter century have been condemned but then released before execution. [1]

This source shows detailed accounts of eleven innocents being executed. [2]

One researcher says he has found at least 74 cases in which wrongful executions have most likely taken place. [2]

69 inmates on death row have been released since 1973 (Source is from 1997 so it would be allot higher now).[3] This clearly shows the risks of the DP. Risks which are completely unnecessary and should be gotten rid of immediately. These men were lucky to escape with their lives.


I should add that there have, undoubtedly, been cases in which innocent people have been executed but have not been proved innocent afterwards. After being executed there is not much need for someone to try too prove the innocence of someone who is already dead. So there are undoubtedly instances in the past where we have executed an innocent man but did not know so, and still do not know.

With life imprisonment there is zero chance of killing an innocent man.

It is a horrible thing for an innocent person to be killed at the hands of the state. It is also completely unnecessary.



C.2 Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development theory

The chart won't load as a picture so I'm afraid you'll have to click this link.

http://www.debate.org...


[9]




This theory cleary shows that the way people turn out is based much on their life events. Thus it is not entirely their fault but corupt society's. Rathar than just executing criminals we should realize that one, they are not solely at fault, and two, we have the possibility of reforming them.


C.3 Those executed cannot be be reformed, or rehabilitated. Capital punishment does not acheive maximum purpose.

Why do we take action against law breakers?

• Punishment
• Segregation
• Rehabilitation

With the use of life imprisonment we have the chance of accomplishing all three of these. However with the use of capital punishment the third is impossible, unless they are reformed before they are executed. But it is much more likely they would be reformed if they have their whole life to be reformed. Thus life imprisonment obviously accomplishes the third goal much better than the death penalty. The death penalty deprives criminals of a second chance which SHOULD be given to them.

The question is, why would we be using a form of punishment that only accomplishes two of the three main purposes of taking action against criminals, when there is another option that may accomplish all three?


With life imprisonment those convicted have a much better chance of repenting, and after repentance have a much longer time too do good works.

Two murderers, Van Houten and Krenwinkel, were sentenced to life imprisonment, but latter expressed remorse at their actions.[7] If they had been sentenced to death they would never have had the chance to repent.

Watson and Atkins, two other murderers, became Christian Fundamentalists after being given a life sentence.[7]

With the use of the death penalty the State is not accomplishing what it is supposed too.


This argument may appeal to any human being, but it may appeal even stronger to those that are religious.



C.4 Death Penalty costs more:

While it may not seem so at first, the death penalty is much more expensive than life imprisonment.

This is due to the fact that the constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for cases of capital punishment.

-By replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment, California could save $1 billion over five years.
-Californian taxpayers have to pay 90,000 more on those waiting to be executed per year than on normal prisoners.

-The source also says that, "The federal court system spends approximately $12 million on defending death row inmates in federal court." [4]

Those serving life sentences are also able to help pay off their costs by working while those executed obviously cannot, being dead.


My opponents arguments

Pro's arguments basically boil down too this;

1. There are crimes that are horrific.
2. The death penalty is the best suitable punishment for these crimes.
C. The death penalty should be used.

It is not so much the problem with my opponents argument, but the extreme lack of defense or reasoning in it. She says some crimes are horrific. What is lacking here is an example. Could pro care to show us one of these horrific crimes, so that we may better judge her reasoning? She concludes that capital punishment is the most suitable form of punishment for these cases. Ok so why is it more suitable than life imprisonment? I can't do much here. She doesn't offer any reasoning whatsoever. I ask my opponent to expound on her case in the next round so as the viewers as well as I may know her reasoning as to why the death penalty is the best form of punishment for the crimes she has yet to explain. My opponent has the necessary burden of backing up her claims with evidence and reasoning, but fails to do so.



Sources:

[1] http://www.the-slammer.org.........
[2] http://www.justicedenied.org.........
[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.........
[4] http://www.deathpenalty.org.........
[5] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.........
[6] http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org.........
[7] http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu......
[8] http://www.vincenter.org......
[9] http://www.electrical-res.com...
[10] http://www.debate.org...

Supa fast jellyfish