The Instigator
lilcmo3
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DeFool
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
DeFool
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,429 times Debate No: 26305
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

lilcmo3

Pro

This arguement is for the Death Penalty. Every criminal that commits a crime such as murdering a policemen or multiple muerder should be executed. Alot of people claim that the death penalty is not a good thing to have, but it's a positive effect on making sure that the world's worst criminals don't strike again. The death penalty should be improved a little more, because today court systems always stall the case at hand trying to figure out if the person is guilty or non-guilty.
DeFool

Con

I want to thank my partner for presenting this debate. Considering the very stern time limits, I will resort to re-using some of my old talking points. Please forgive my lack of creativity.

The death penalty cannot be trusted to be inerrant; because it will always be administered by imperfect humans. Humans make mistakes. Among these mistakes cannot be the accidental killing of innocents - brought about by our allowing ourselves to become destabilized by rage.

It must be a hard and fast rule that our society and culture do not accept the killing of innocents - even if we are quite certain that we aren't doing so. We are human, and we make mistakes. These mistakes are bound to occur, inevitable, and so we must not apply fallible human understanding to this irreparable and irreversible act.

My concern is whether or not maintaining the death penalty is safe to operate – for law abiding citizens who must live nearby such a system. I have shown examples of how it is not. Further, I am not convinced that it can ever be corrected and reformed to offer society the assurance that innocent persons will not suffer death or the loss of loved friends and family as a result of operating the death penalty. I maintain that the failure rate of the death penalty safeguards, if applied to a private company or even an entire industry, would be unacceptable to the public. I argue that rage is the main motivator, the main “selling point” for the death penalty industry – but that this is inadequate to justify allowing it to continue to operate. “I was mad at a serial killer, so I killed your little brother, who did not do anything wrong, but I still want to keep killing serial killers, so I will continue accidentally killing little brothers in order to get revenge on serial killers” is simply not a valid argument.

On the other hand, the same argument that suggests that it is unsafe for society to allow serial killers to be paroled due to the possibility that these offenders may kill an innocent person - is exactly my argument against the death penalty: it kills people who do not deserve to die.

My argument, therefore:

1. The death penalty is unsafe for the law-abiding public, due to inevitable mistakes made by the penal system
2. The death penalty is irreversible, mistakes cannot be corrected
3. The fact that our society will ineveitably kill innocent persons as we make use of the death penalty is unacceptable
Debate Round No. 1
lilcmo3

Pro

lilcmo3 forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

I expect that the debate rounds were made too brief - inadvertently. Alas.

I extend my arguments, and will wait out the clock.

Despite the brevity of this contest, I am grateful for it, and hope that any readers will bother to serve as judges of our contest here.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I lacked the time to do so in the formal debate, and will include these examples in my next round. I thought it best that I introduce them here, so as to agree with my debate submission.

Here are a few examples of wrongful convictions, taken from the Amnesty International website:

Roy Krone spent 10 years in an Arizona prison for a murder that he did not commit. He was released from death row in 2002, becoming the 100the person to be released since 1973. Although DNA testing eventually proved his innocence, it was not available to him in time to prevent significant emotional trauma.

Madison Hobley, Aaron Patterson, Stanley Howard and LeRoy Orange, were pardoned in 2003 after it was learned that their convictions were based on confessions extracted through the use of torture. Former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge and two other officers had used, besides torture, false data to secure the convictions. DNA evidence was not used.

Jonathan Hoffman was sentenced to death for the murder of a store owner " based on the testimony of his cousin, who lied under oath to "get even" with the defendant for stealing money from him. Hoffman was exonerated in 2007.

These are examples only, and may not be representative. However, they are real examples of real men who would have died but for
profoundly fortunate luck. We cannot rely on any system managed by fallible humans, to never make any mistakes under any circumstances. Yet that is precisely what we ask the death penalty to do: never make an error.

Some common mistakes that occur in the implementation of the death penalty are

1. Police and prosecutor misconduct

2. Inadequate legal representation

3. Racial prejudice

4. Suppression of mitigating evidence

5. Community pressure to solve a case
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
lilcmo3DeFoolTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
lilcmo3DeFoolTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were more convincing, because Pro failed to uphold his burden of proof, failed to source any of his arguments, and failed to not forfeit a round.