The Instigator
Im_always_right
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
nw91
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Death Penilty in the US.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,383 times Debate No: 4894
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Im_always_right

Con

I would like to say in my first arguement that the death penilty, can be avioded, and should be.

First arguement, my religion's role:

God does not want man to punish one another, thus the death penelty is unjust, in that case. After the person in question dies, [s]he is at the mercy of God. (personal example) If my 6 year old brothe hits my 3 year old brother, if I yell, or pull him away, Xera and/or Lorca will not punish him, because he was already punished, by someone less powerful.

second: Religion aside, ignoring there is such a thing who would rather live however long [s]he would ive normally in a cage, never allowed to leave VS being put to death quickly (not promissing painlessly, since i have heard that even with lethal injection the guy was screaming in pain). Since that is a small number of people life in prison without chance of parol is a better punishment for murders/rapists.

Third:

Not everyone on death row is guilty, "For every 7 executions–486 since 1976–1 other prisoner on death row has been found innocent. And there's concern even more mistaken convictions will follow."

link: http://members.tripod.com...

Thus by using the death penilty even more innocent people could be killed.

Even on the issue of the [non]guilty person who was put to death, what about their families? In the case of the non guilty persons case, the government had killed an innocent person, and traumatized the family. in the case of a guilty person, I relieze it would be void, because the peron who commited the crime, did not think of the family of his/her victim, or his/her own family. In any case there IS a chance that they got the wrong person unless it was a rape case where his victim identified him, and he admitted it. Or even in a murder, if there was a witness, or attemted murder where the victim played dead, (I have seen a case like that).

So there are alternitives. That do not equate into double murder, if the person is guilty, triple if they get the wrong guy first.
nw91

Pro

Your second argument:
You stated that a convicted criminal would much rather spend his/her life in prison rather than be put to death. This is untrue and is a personal view you might have, not representative of entire prison populations. We obviously can't interview every prisoner in the U.S. for this debate so instead I will demonstrate why one might prefer death.
Consider This:
Prison conditions in the United States can be bad enough that one might prefer death rather to live in a miserable place. Wil S. Hylton of Harper's Magazine stated that, "somewhere between 20 and 40% of American prisoners are, at this very moment, infected with hepatitis C." Hepatitis C is a disease affecting the liver, that can often lead to cancer and has no cure. Prison abuses concerning inmate rape and abusive guards are just as rampant. By eliminating the death penalty you deny a quick and easy death to those suffering in prisons because their needs aren't adequately met. Also consider the elderly who may need assistance and are prone to other diseases; I doubt prisons function as assisted living homes in addition to holding inmates. The Hepatitis C statistic only scratches the surface with medical issues. I am sure that many prisoners, perhaps even more than those wrongly convicted, suffer in pain on a daily basis. For these people, death might be a better option.

Your Third Argument:
You are correct in that innocent people die each year, however that is a flaw in the U.S. court system not the use of the death penalty itself. Therefore it will be disregarded. (Different debate.)

Religion: What happened to separation of church and state?! The ideas pertaining to death with religion are all personal values that shouldn't be considered in discussing the PRACTICALITY and use of the death penalty. The only exception is the pain factor for the comfort of the prisoner, which is a moral problem.
Whether killing is right or wrong, the death penalty remains in place because of it's usefulness. The United States is notorious for overcrowded prisons. Overcrowding is another one of the unsanitary conditions prisoners have to live in; sometimes almost torturous. Torture or a quick death?

Oh and one last reminder: it is YOUR money as a taxpayer that is being used to keep the "murderers/rapists" alive and well and ready to become a danger again.
Debate Round No. 1
Im_always_right

Con

"Your second argument:
You stated that a convicted criminal would much rather spend his/her life in prison rather than be put to death. This is untrue and is a personal view you might have, not representative of entire prison populations. We obviously can't interview every prisoner in the U.S. for this debate so instead I will demonstrate why one might prefer death."

No I have stated the opposite (or i ment to and I worded it in the wrong order,
so what I believe is people would rather be put to death quickly than to suffer in prison. it may be a personal belief, but with the arguements you state later (except taxes), wouldn't you think they would prefer a quick death instead of cancer, and rape (which would be extremely just in rape cases), and torturous gaurds? My opponent probably missed what I was trying to say though, it may be in my religion, but I understand many do have other religion or none at al, and in any case some kind of punishment should be, just not death.

~~~~Question for my opponent~~~~~

Are you saying that we shouldn't keep the criminals in prison, that we should just 'put them down' as they say about animals?

Yes the prisons are misserable....and so are the families of the victim, so why shouldn;t [s]he be misserable?

"You are correct in that innocent people die each year, however that is a flaw in the U.S. court system not the use of the death penalty itself. Therefore it will be disregarded. (Different debate.)"
It is a flaw in the justice sytem, I never said differently, my point is it is a flaw, that leads to the gavernment killing innocent people.

"What happened to separation of church and state?! The ideas pertaining to death with religion are all personal values that shouldn't be considered in discussing the PRACTICALITY and use of the death penalty. The only exception is the pain factor for the comfort of the prisoner, which is a moral problem.
Whether killing is right or wrong, the death penalty remains in place because of it's usefulness. The United States is notorious for overcrowded prisons. Overcrowding is another one of the unsanitary conditions prisoners have to live in; sometimes almost torturous. Torture or a quick death?"

Gay marriege (no this is not off topic), is only legal in the state of California, why is that? It is because people say that it brings unholy things to the religios word. If religion and state were completely seperated, gay marriage would be legal in all states, nobody would use their religion to say that it is a bad thing.
Unsanity, why should the prisoners that do these crimes have roomy sanitary rooms, they murdered innocent people. I believe each state should make two more prison's, just for those that do those crimes, and stick them all together. I agree torture or a quick death?

"Oh and one last reminder: it is YOUR money as a taxpayer that is being used to keep the "murderers/rapists" alive and well and ready to become a danger again."

I am willing to pay my tax money to keep them alive in the prison, but with a life sentence without chance of parrol, I don't think he's coming back any time soon.

Thus as it stands vote con.
nw91

Pro

I am sorry, we may have had some misunderstandings.

To answer your question, no, I was simply illustrating the benefits of the death penalty system we have in place that might apply to suffering prisoners, not suggesting that we kill people just because we can.

Going back to your first argument in Round 2; I found it unclear. In Round 1 you stated that only a very small amount of prisoners suffer enough to want death over life in prison. My Round 1 argument, showed that this is not always true. After demonstrating that there are large amounts of suffering prisoners, I stand by my statement that a lot might prefer death over life in prison.

The flaw in the judicial system may, "lead" to the death penalty, but right now we are discussing whether the death penalty is useful, practical and works or whether it is a wrong practice.

Concerning gay marriage as proof that church and state are intertwined, I have one major problem. People have used religion as an opposition, but are you using this fact to suggest that it is alright for people combine church and state? Just because some ignorant people have tried to justify politics with religion, it doesn't make it right. Should we cut people's hands off for stealing because a religion states so? Or how about human sacrifices purely to gain the forgiveness of God(s) [just addressing all religions here]? In the U.S., a melting pot of cultures and religions, I don't think that would work out well. The moral values taken from religions are acceptable aspects of the argument, but once again, religion itself should not be considered when taking a more logical, practical outlook on this issue.

You have gone on to say, quite enthusiastically if I'm not mistaken, that you are fine with paying to keep these convicts alive in knowingly unsanitary conditions. You have said they "deserve" the conditions. They deserve debilitating disease? They deserve traumatic experiences? Their sentence just said "jail time," not rape and disease.

Building more prisons requires one thing: money. Does everyone want to pay more money for more prisons? You know, there is limited room in our country. I wouldn't particularly like to see prisons in our neighborhoods near schools nor would I like to be driving through a remote place to see a hellish zoo-like complex of thousands of murders being crammed together. (Think slave boats.) Because that is torture, and paying to keep these people (**People on death row for example**) alive and miserable is sickening. Or was your multi-prison more resort/spa quality? Because for some reason, I don't think the public would want to pay for one of those either.

Because of these flaws, we should keep the system in place. It's usually unseen benefits outweigh the cons.
Debate Round No. 2
Im_always_right

Con

In a nutshell, my opponent is trying to say that rapists deserve an easy way out, and they do not deserve to suffer. The tax dollar statement meant exactly what I said; I have no problem with it. I am not saying everyone feels the same way, but the way you emphasizes on the word you're, meaning that you were talking to me specifically.

By making this claim my opponent has volunteered to prove that all other nations and all other judicial systems are proof against error. In other words, he must now prove that no other nation, besides the US, cans wrongly convict a person of a crime. Since some of the other nations that allow the death penalty include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, it is safe to assume that errors have been made by other nations. Since he can not prove errors do not happen, my contention stands. If other nations are capable of making the same errors, then the same argument applies- innocent people are convicted and may be put to death, making the death penalty immoral.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have seen no websites saying that people would not rather be dead than miserable.

The death penalty (LOL, not penilty LOL)
costs more money than keeping the people alive.

~~~~Question for my opponent~~~~

Have you heard of the case where the guy Ted Bundy I believe, killed several people, and robbed banks, then asked a woman which state enforces the death penalty the strongest, she replied Florida, so he went there did the same thing, and pleaded guilty? That is proof that some people would rather be put to death than anything else.

Also here is the definition of murder:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

it looks like the definition would be "to kill" by looking at the top part, but it is "Unlawful killing; especially by malice or force"

Why unlawful? Why should it be lawful to kill? If a man rapes your wife, should you be allowed to shoot him? If yes, won't the law go after you as well, if you were not on your property at the time? If no, then you have conceded that I am right, and the death penalty is an unjust punishment.

Here is the definition of death:

http://www.medterms.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

The definition of penalty:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

http://www.investorwords.com...

Thus death penalty:

http://www.answers.com...

It makes since, but why if it is wrong for one person to kill, is it right for another, hence executioner:

http://www.google.com...:*:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GFRC&defl=en&q=define:executioner&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Since one is not allowed to kill, then why should another? That is the question you should ask yourselves, as voters.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
nw91

Pro

I am typing from computer at local library. My internet is down, so sadly, I can't continue the debate at the moment. I am prepared to continue as soon as it is up and running. :(
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by zoundmind 8 years ago
zoundmind
spelling is no concern of mine unless you cannot understand somthing.
killing is wrong i belive. and if it is wrong than why would someone want to kill someone for killing someone .vengence yes but still murder
seems like we become what we hate.
hate breeds like the flu
if we kill because someone has killed then we must be killed ourselves and so on over and over and over and over.. untell we have riddin this earth of a virus called man.
killing is stupid!
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
Okay tell me when in the comments and I will rechallenge you.
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
Sorry about that, I was tired, just as I am now...let's see how many mispellings I can get now...
Posted by KatyPerry 9 years ago
KatyPerry
You spelled penalty wrong....just fyi. ^^ Cya all around.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by moeinc 7 years ago
moeinc
Im_always_rightnw91Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Im_always_rightnw91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70