The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
17 Points

Death penalty is bad

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,961 times Debate No: 83068
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)




Some people may argue death penalty is good it has it's qualities and it's cons...


Hello ladies, gentlemen, judges. Im Forever 23 and I am here to show you why we must not ban the death penalty!

My roadmap will include divulging 3 of my own points.

My opponents first assertion was that death penalty has its qualities and cons. However, the qualities strongly outweigh the cons. With death penalty, we are able to ensure safety, protection and justice as I will show in the following argumentations:

My first assertion is that the people put on death row have committed terrible crimes. What do people get on death row for? Not for small violations, but for felonies. These felonies can include murder, bombings or rape. Don't you believe that criminals should be responsible for their actions? According to Constitutional Lawyer and General Counsel to the Center for Law and Accountability, "The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apodictic [indisputably true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense." The criminals should not be kept in the jails. They deserve to die, not live. Its a matter of fact that after these criminals murdered so many people, the US government should put then to death.

My second assertion is that people should get what they deserve. Once those men have committed a crime, they have done an unforgivable act. These men and women deserve to be punished by the government. Life in prison would not be enough. According to Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, "Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good... Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such... rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution."

My third assertion is that abolishing death penalty guarantees safety
For the last two years, debate about the relevance of the Kermit Gosnell case to wider political concerns has focused on the abortion issue. But with Gosnell now found guilty of murder, the possibility of his execution (now removed as the result of a deal struck with prosecutors) has pitted pro-lifers against one another in a debate over the death penalty.

First, Professor Robert George issued a plea for mercy. Ashley McGuire seconded this, arguing that pro-lifers "must stay focused on saving babies, not on killing their killers." Calling for Gosnell"s execution, McGuire argued, simply perpetuates the culture of death. John Zmirak then disagreed with both George and McGuire, arguing that sparing a murderer the death penalty "shows profound disrespect to his victims."

Given that all participants in the debate seem to be Catholic, it might be instructive to look at what the Catechism says about capital punishment:

Assuming that the guilty party"s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people"s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

I"d like to ruminate a little on what precisely the Catechism means when it says that authorities should limit themselves to non-lethal forms of punishment if these "are sufficient to defend and protect people"s safety."

Pro-life Catholics who oppose the death penalty generally take an extremely narrow view of what this means. Professor George, for example, has argued that "the state does not have the right to inflict capital punishment"no matter how grave the offense and no matter how clear the guilt of the accused"unless effective incarceration is impossible and execution is the only way to prevent this particular murderer from killing again."

But it is not clear that this is the only possible way of framing the question. The decision of whether to impose the death penalty is not simply at the discretion of a trial judge who is dealing with the case of "this particular murderer." Legislators will have already specified the offenses that may merit capital punishment, and will usually provide judges with further guidance such as identifying "aggravating factors" (for example, multiple killings) that invite a capital sentence. Whether the death penalty is imposed is conditioned to a large extent by the legislature. The role of the judge is simply to apply the law in a particular case. Even the Supreme Court"s decision in Gregg v. Georgia (1976) that ruled mandatory capital punishment as unconstitutional does not leave sentencing simply for judges to decide. The Court upheld sentencing guidelines for capital punishment in Georgia that were wholly pre-determined by the state legislature. It goes without saying that strict guidance from legislators is necessary to avoid arbitrary sentencing by judges; this guidance largely determines how the death penalty operates.

Lawmakers cannot deal with the question of whether to execute this murderer, but only of whether to execute murderers in general. In making a judgment as to whether the death penalty is necessary for the protection of public safety, legislators have to consider more than merely the question of whether "effective incarceration" is theoretically possible. The fact that it is possible not to execute killers doesn"t establish that that it is morally obligatory to do so, particularly when there are arguments to suggest that the overall result of abolishing capital punishment (rather than the result of merely commuting sentence in a particular case) would be to place public safety in jeopardy.

When Demetry Smirnov killed his ex-girlfriend in Illinois in 2011, prosecutors discovered that he had researched the law on the internet to discover if the state had the death penalty before going ahead with the killing. It is reasonable to assume that if Illinois had not just abolished it, she might be alive today.

It has also been pointed out that, where the death penalty is abolished and life sentences remain for rape, rapists may be more likely to kill their victims in order to prevent them testifying, since the sentence in either case will be identical. The only way to prevent the incentivization of murder is, therefore, to lower the sentences required for a range of other crimes. But these lower sentences simply make those lesser crimes more likely to be committed, and so on. Abolition has a cascade effect down through the criminal justice system that potentially places public welfare at risk. One only needs to look across the Atlantic at Britain, which, within a few decades of abolishing capital punishment, has gone from having one of the most rigorous sentencing systems in the West to one of the most lenient, leading to frequent and widely-supported calls among the general public for the reintroduction of hanging.

Even when abolition is accompanied with mandatory life sentencing for killers, there is no guarantee that future legislators, judges, state governors, and prison officials will honor this. In 1966 Kenneth McDuff was sentenced to death for the killing of two teenage boys and the brutal rape and murder of their female companion. When the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia (1972), his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Under pressure of serious overcrowding in Texas prisons, he was released in 1989. Within three days he had killed again, and over the next three years would go on to kill at least five more women before finally being apprehended. Countless other examples can be cited of killers who have been released or escaped and have gone on to kill again, or who have killed again in prison. Whether or not the death penalty is required as a matter of strict retributive justice, it is morally repugnant for the state to privilege the safety of a violent criminal over the safety of an entire population.

Dear judges, if you want to be safe and protected from dangerous criminals, please vote con.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1


I will be posting my argument in sort of a timeline of events.

1948, The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which granted EVERY individuals right to life. It also states that NO ONE shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. Later on in 1966 The UN adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. Article 6 of this document states that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life". 1984, The UN General Assembly adopted the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR, which aimed at the abolition of the Death Penalty. Remember that you can NEVER eliminate the chance of executing an innocent person....


Hello, once again, my name is Forever 23 and I am here to bring forth the premise which is that the death penalty is beneficial and must not by all means be banned.

My roadmap will include, refuting both of my opponents arguments, restating my own assertions and finally adding a new point into the debate.

So without any further ado, lets begin.

I will once again refute my opponents first assertion which was that death penalty has its pros and cons. That's exactly what I am saying! However, the benefits of the death penalty surly out weigh the negatives. By implementing the penalty, we help ensure the safety of every single citizen in the United States of America. Dangerous, malignant criminals must be executed in order to ensure justice and a safe environment for all. Murderers threaten this safety and welfare. Only by putting murderers to death can society ensure that convicted killers do not kill again.

Their second assertion was that it is not constitutional and is against the human rights to execute. However to refute the Contitutional point,I quote from LATimes, Every legal argument against the death penalty begins with the 8th or 5th Amendment. The 8th bars "cruel and unusual punishments," and the 5th guarantees "due process of law" before a person can be "deprived of life, liberty or property." But there is no serious constitutional argument against the death penalty. The 5th Amendment itself recognizes the existence of "capital" crimes, and executions were common before and after the Constitution's framing. No framer ever suggested that the Constitution divested states of this part of their historical punishment power, nor has there been a constitutional amendment that does so.
Matters not addressed by the Constitution are left to the democratic process and, in the main, to the states. As in Europe and Canada, a solid majority of American citizens supports the death penalty, believing it to serve both as a deterrent and an appropriate societal response to particularly heinous crimes. Unlike in Europe and Canada, however, U.S. courts and political leaders have not overridden public opinion to end the practice.
Now to refute the point about human rights: Right to life. Exactly, everyone has the right to life. Murderers are those who take this right to life away and must receive justice from the government.

Now onto restating my own assertions:
1. Death row is put on people who committed terrible crimes
2. People should get what they deserve
3. It upholds public safety

My fourth assertion is that the death penalty ensures justice and makes sure criminals are not able to commit further crimes. The people on death row have done unforgivable crimes. They have caused the death of many people. They have caused the mourning and tears of thousands. I quote from,
Deterrence means to punish somebody as an example and to create fear in other people for the punishment. Death penalty is one of those extreme punishments that would create fear in the mind of any sane person. Ernest van den Haag, in his article "On Deterrence and the Death Penalty" mentions, "One abstains from dangerous acts because of vague, inchoate, habitual and, above all, preconscious fears" (193). Everybody fears death, even animals. Most criminals would think twice if they knew their own lives were at stake. Although there is no statistical evidence that death penalty deters crime, but we have to agree that most of us fear death. Suppose there is no death penalty in a state and life imprisonment without parole is the maximum punishment. What is stopping a prisoner who is facing a life imprisonment without parole to commit another murder in the prison? According to Paul Van Slambrouck, " Assaults in prisons all over US, both against fellow inmates and against staff, have more than doubled in the past decade, according to statistics gathered by the Criminal Justice Institute in Middletown, Connecticut" (Christian Science Monitor, Internet). There is no stopping these inmates from committing further crimes within the prison, if they are already facing the maximum punishment. Anti-death penalty advocates argue that imprisonment itself could deter criminals. They believe that we do not need to go to the extreme measure of killing the criminals to deter crime. Hugo Adam Bedau in his article, "Capital Punishment and Social Defense" mentions, "Crimes can be deterred only by making would-be criminals frightened of being arrested, convicted, and punished for crimes& " (301). Unfortunately, the ever-increasing population in the prisons proves otherwise. Somehow, just imprisonment is not enough for some people to stop them from committing a crime. The number of criminals is increasing every year. In 1990, there were 42,733 prisoners in Alaska, whereas in 1999 it increased to 68,599 (Death Penalty USA Pages, Internet). Some criminals may think that they would never be caught, and just keep committing crimes. The perfect example for this would be serial killers. For such people, death penalty should be there, so that others, who even think about committing such crimes, learn a lesson that every criminal is eventually caught.

Anti-death penalty advocates believe that death penalty is irreversible and may become a cause of irreversible mistakes. Once a person has been sentenced to death and thus death penalty practiced, there is nothing that can be done to undo the punishment if the accused turns out to be innocent. I agree that death penalty is irreversible, but the chance of making a mistake in death penalty is extremely low. Death penalty is considered an extreme punishment and the judicial system takes a lot of care in finalizing the decision. There are several safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. For example, "Capital punishment may be imposed only when guilt is determined by clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts", "Anyone sentenced to death shall receive the right to appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction", etc. (Capital Punishment: Life or Death, Internet). There are several other privileges provided to the convicted that assure that death penalty is given to the rightly accused person. According to Haag, "Trials are more likely to be fair when life is at stake - the death penalty is probably less often unjustly inflicted than others" (192). Statistics reveal that there is far less number of death sentences than life imprisonment sentences without parole given out every year. According to Federal Justice Statistics, in 1998, there were approximately 5000 criminals sentenced to life imprisonment as opposed to 74 criminals sentenced to death (Internet). This shows that judicial system itself is very careful with death sentences. Even if we assume that there are chances that an innocent person is executed, it is the problem with the trial, not the punishment. "It is not the penalty - whether death or prison - which is unjust when inflicted on the innocent, but its imposition on the innocent", writes Haag (192). When an innocent person is sentenced to death, it is not the fault of the punishment itself, but the trial that led to this punishment. There have been cases in which a person has been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and then after several years, it was revealed that the person was innocent. No court or compensation in this world can return the horrifying years spent in the prison by that innocent person. If we stop giving life imprisonment sentences to criminals on this ground, then probably most of the criminals would be walking around free on the streets within ten to fifteen years. The fear and trust that the society has in the judicial system would be lost. The judicial system has minimized the chances of mistakes. It is almost impossible to sentence a wrongly accused person. Then, why cause death of several innocent victims just on the bleak assumption that some day we might make a mistake?

Incapacitating a person is "depriving s/he of the physical or intellectual power of natural il/legal qualifications" (Webster, 574). Death penalty is not advocated for all criminals. Those criminals, who commit murders during self-defense or during times of passion, do not deserve death penalty. However, those people who just do not seem to learn the lesson the first time, or those who kill for fun, definitely deserve death penalty. Defendants (murderers) are allowed to shield themselves from justice by pleading insanity. Insanity means a failure to respond to the usual sort of incentives in the usual ways. If insane people are completely unresponsive to incentives, then their profits serve no social purpose, thus leading to another beneficial factor of the death penalty. People who have no social purpose do not benefit society, culture of mankind, or the basic rules of humanity. For example: This drug related brain-damaged killer barely knew his own identity when he murdered a mother and her daughter in front of a 3 year old boy. When he was finished raping the females and performed their deaths, he move on to sexually molest the boy in which he then left him to die. The retarded man then pled insanity, got to stay in jail for 22 years, eating three square meals a day, sleeping on a mattress with a blanket in air conditioned comfort and having a roof over his head (Shapiro, 61). Where do we draw the line between mentally incapable and criminally insane? When are they going to learn to resume the responsibility for their actions? I am not saying that all mentally disabled people should be subject to death penalty because they are no good to the society.

Thank you judges, vote con for the safety of your FAMILY, FRIENDS and the CHILDREN.
Debate Round No. 2


Me, Myself I totally understand what you are saying. You have some very good solid points my friend, but I feel strongly about someone leading to execute an innocent person. Here are some ways this could happen.
1. inadequate legal representation.
2. police and prosecutorial misconduct
3. perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony
4. racial prejudice
5. jailhouse "snitch" testimony
6. suppression and/or misinterpretation
7. community/political pressure to solve a case.
All of these reasons can lead to wrongful convictions.
Quoted from - Governor George Ryan of Illinois, January 2000, "I cannot support a system which, in it's administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the states taking of innocent life..... until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate."
The death penalty and arbitrariness. Quoted from - U.S Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, February 22, 1994 "Twenty years have past since this Court declared the death penalty must be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency, or not at all, and, despite the effort of the states and the courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rulesto meet this daunting challenge, the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice, and mistake."
These reasons below lists their contributes to the arbitrariness to the death penalty..
1. Almost ALL death row inmates could not afford their own attorney at trial. Court appointed attorneys often lack the experience necessary for capital trials and are overworked and underpaid. In the most extreme cases, some have slept through parts of trials or have arrived under the influence of drugs/and or alcohol.
2. Prosecutors seek the death penalty for more frequently when the victim of homicide is white than when the victim is African- American or of another racial/ethnic origin.
3. Co-defendants charged with committing the same crime often receive different punishments, were one defendant may receive death sentence while other receives prison time.
4. Approximately two percent of those convicted of crimes that make them eligible for the death penalty actually receive a death sentence.
Romans 12:19 states Beloved never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."


Hello once again I am Forever 23 and I am here upon this platform to bring forth the premise which is that death penalty have more benefits than it does losses.

My roadmap will include addressing my opponents next few points since I have addressed her 1st two in my 2 speeches. Next, I will introduce a point of my own.

So without further ado, please allow me to begin.

Her third point was that false executions may happen. After, my opponent gave many reasons of why unreasonable murder may happen and examples of how it has. However, that does not mean that we must completely do away with the death penalty. It just means that we must add more regulations and help the investigation system. The idea of capitalist punishment is not flawed. The court and investigation system however, may be flawed. Therefore, helping the system will solve this problem, not doing away with the penalty. She has mentioned the following:
1. inadequate legal representation.
2. police and prosecutorial misconduct
3. perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony
4. racial prejudice
5. jailhouse "snitch" testimony
6. suppression and/or misinterpretation
7. community/political pressure to solve a case.
Every single one of these has a solution. But that solution is not banning and abolishing death penalty. That solution is making changes and corrections to out system.

Now onto repeating my own points:
1. Death row is put on people who committed terrible crimes
2. People should get what they deserve
3. It upholds public safety
4. Makes sure criminals don't commit further crimes.

Now onto a new point:
The death penalty provides justice. I quote from; The repeal of the death penalty as a discretionary tool used by publicly elected prosecutors creates " in fact, mandates " injustice.

Granted, repeal will not happen in Colorado this year, since the House Judiciary Committee last week killed House Bill 1264. But such a proposal is almost certain to be revived in the years to come.

Colorado's criminal code is crafted to provide DAs the tools to seek justice through prosecuting and plea-bargaining based on numerous factors specific to the individual cases they pursue. It is common sense that a criminal's sentence potentially may be enhanced based on the heinous nature of their act, the number of victims, the age and type of victim, and whether the offender is a repeat offender. A third DUI is punished more harshly than a first. A crime spree involving numerous burglaries leads to a longer sentence than a single break-in. Assaulting a child is more aggravated than the same assault on an adult. A convicted felon who commits a new crime is incarcerated longer than a first-time offender. One size does not fit all.


This is justice.

If Colorado were to repeal the death penalty, first-degree murder would become the only crime for which no distinction is made for the number of murders committed, the aggravated nature of the murder, whether the victim is a child or an at-risk adult, or even whether a previously convicted murderer kills yet again. Repealing the death penalty would result in acts similar to those in Newtown, Conn., or the acts of Tim McVeigh being punished no differently than a single murder of one gang member by another. Each murder after the first would be a freebie. This is not justice.

Currently, defense attorneys initiate contact with prosecutors on murder cases for which the death penalty is a potential outcome and request to plead guilty to life in prison instead of facing death. Without the death penalty, dozens of additional lengthy jury trials will be necessary with the predictable, numerous and lengthy appeals lasting many years. That cost is never considered in an evaluation of the death penalty's fiscal impact.

Without the potential for a death sentence, there is no incentive for a murderer on the run not to kill again in order to avoid being caught " even if that murder is of a police officer or 10 police officers. There would be no incentive for a defendant awaiting his murder trial not to try to kill a key witness, the judge, or perhaps the prosecutor on his case. There would be no disincentive for inmates serving life sentence from killing each other or prison guards, because the result of such evil would be ... the loss of cable TV? Less Jell-o at dinner? No more shooting hoops outside? This is not justice, and it makes our community less safe.

The death penalty as a tool to achieve justice is not a partisan issue. President Obama's Department of Justice is currently seeking death in two separate prison murders in Colorado. These are not the murders of prison guards by an inmate, but rather murders of inmates by other inmates. Why should the penalty for murdering a federal prisoner dramatically exceed the penalty for killing one of Colorado's prison guards?

Colorado's death penalty is a local issue, not a national one. Attempts to use national statistics from defense attorney-commissioned studies and dramatic anecdotes of questionable accuracy from any other state obscure the reality that Colorado is different. The approximately 30 capital cases brought in every metro area jurisdiction against white, black and Hispanic men since 1986 demonstrate that our elected prosecutors prudently exercise discretion as to which few murder cases truly warrant the pursuit of the death penalty. Which killer currently facing death in Colorado deserves a lesser sentence?" I quote, "When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.
Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an "eye for an eye" and a life for a life.

Although the victim and the victim's family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer's crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim's family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims.

For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on protecting lives.

Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept of the need for retribution in one case: "In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.""

Judges. I know that you want to live in a safe environment.

In order to uphold the correct ideals, vote con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3


Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man"s blood,
his blood will be shed by man,
for God made man
in His image.'
Reasons death penalty is Immoral and Hypocritical..
1. Does any one not understand what Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"? There is no arguing that crimes associated with the death penalty"such as premeditated murder"are reprehensible. However, if we are to agree that taking the life of another human being can be categorized as the upmost heinous of acts, how can we justify treating such a crime with a punishment that mirrors the very thing we so adamantly condemn?
2. Cruel and Unusual Punishment These techniques included:.... Rectal Infusion: (An archaic and risky medical procedure developed before IV infusions. It involves the insertion of an enema in order to deliver fluids rectally).
Gun and Drill: (This technique involves placing a pistol near a suspect"s head and operating a drill as a way of threatening execution) Waterboarding: (An interrogation technique which simulates the experience of drowning by detaining a suspect and pouring large quantities of water over their face) Chaining: (Many detainees were chained while being imprisoned in a detention facility called "Cobalt". NPR notes that one suspect died from hypothermia during this imprisonment) and Nudity: (Suspects were subjected to humiliation by being forced to strip themselves of all clothing while also being held by chains or shackles) (these were terrorism suspects)
3. crime rates The Death Penalty Should be abolished because there is no evidence it will reduce crime rates!!
There is no evidence that posits the use of the death penalty as being causal to a reduction in crime. According to the NC Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, the murder rate for the state of North Carolina actually declined following a halt in utilizing execution as a form of punishment. The coalition also points out that, ""most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness. They represent a group that is highly unlikely to make rational decisions based on a fear of future consequences for their actions." Countless other research studies have shown that use of the death penalty does not deter criminals from committing violent acts, and that states which do not enforce the death penalty tend to have a lower occurrence of crime.
4. Rehabilitation enforcement of the death penalty denies the opportunity for rehabilitation. As mentioned previously, many individuals who are charged with crimes that can entail capital punishment are mentally and/or emotionally unstable. Murders occur often in a moment of passion, in conjunction with a psychological disability, or due to substance abuse. These characteristics call for a movement toward rehabilitation rather than execution. Rehabilitation efforts not only help convicted criminals, they help society in understanding the motivations behind criminal actions and can prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future.

Conversely, enforcement of the death penalty will not encourage criminals to become rehabilitated. If an individual knows that their life has a set expiration date, what is the use in seeking rehabilitation? Moreover, there are no facets within the death penalty that aid in reform. Rather, capital punishment perpetuates a cycle of violence and death.

New York Times contributor, clinical professor of psychiatry, and adjunct professor of law at New York University, James Gilligan, stated that, "The only rational purpose for a prison is to restrain those who are violent, while we help them to change their behavior and return to the community." He expounded upon this point by evidencing research he and a colleague conducted with violent male offenders at San Francisco jails. They found that educational rehabilitation programs significantly reduced violent behavior to the point that violent tendencies became completely null.
Here i go again revisiting what i had once said before WRONGFUL CONVICTION!!!! he wrongful execution of an innocent person is an injustice that can never be rectified. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty, 142 men and women have been released from Death Row nationally....some only minutes away from execution. Moreover, in the past two years evidence has come to light which indicates that four men may have been wrongfully EXECUTED in recent years for crimes they did not commit. This error rate is simply appalling, and completely unacceptable, when we are talking about life and death.
Thank you Vote me!!


Judges, ladies, gentlemen, hello, my name is Forever 23 and I am here to bring forth the premise that death penalty has more benefits than harms.

So let me start with my opponents arguments. In her Round 3, she plagiarized the beginning of her speech from:
In her fourth speech, she plagiarized from

And now onto the refutations of the NEW points the brought up. So her first point was that it is immoral and hypocritical. This hypocritical strategy however, is the only way to make sure that rape and murder is prevented. If we don't implement this strategy, what will stop an insane mind from setting off a bomb on the middle of the road. Or raping a little 8 year old girl. You know the answer. Nothing. So while the moral aspect of this is very... sentimental, we must also consider saving lives of possible future victims.

Her second assertion was that it was immoral. But is murder of children moral? Is rape moral? Is stealing money from the homeless moral? NO, it is not and these criminals deserve to receive a fitting punishment. They knew that killing is immoral. They knew how much rape harms the child. They knew that stealing will result in a punishment! If your family or friends (god forbid) died in a bomb attack, would you want the criminal dead? Would you? It would give you closure. While nothing could make up for the deaths, the criminal should pay with his life.

Her third assertion was that there is no evidence of the death penalty reducing crime rates.; A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. " Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory _ if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder). To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more. "
Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

Her fourth assertion is that it does not give criminals the chance to rehabilitate. However, rehabilitation will not help criminals and felons. These are insane minded people. They have committed unforgivable crimes. The reason that criminals are put to death is because the jury, judges and public understand that no matter what hospital they are put in, after they are released, they will commit crimes, take more lives and harm more people.

Her fifth and final assertion was that there can be false convictions. But as I mentioned before, WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM IS WITHOUT FLAWS? NONE! In order to stop wrong convictions, we must edit the investigation system. We must help the law system. Just because of car accidents, you do not see a ban on cars! People try to add new technology to cars, not ban them. So lets just FIX THE INVESTIGATIONS SYSTEM!

Now allow me to restate my own assertions.
1. The people on death row committed terrible crimes. Judges, those crime include, MURDER, KIDNAPPING, RAPE AND BOMBING AIRCRAFTS. All of these result in the death of millions and the pain the families of those victims have to endure. Lets compare this with the immorality assertion. All the crimes I have listed are very immoral. Death penalty, is as close as we can get, which is very far to trying to make up for those crimes.

The criminals did not use a rule book on what they could or could not do to people. Well, the USFG must punish the criminals for their actions.

2. People should get what they deserve! Do you really think that criminals did not expect punishments for their actions. Of course they knew what to expect. And if they don't give that, it will pass the message that no punishment will be given for murder. However, we MUST give people what they deserve. Let me give a very simple analogy. Lets compare it to the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz. She has really hurt the land and was therefore melted by Dorothy. The with got what she deserved. Dorothy, who was very kind throughout the story, got to go back home to Kansas. She was praised for her wonderful actions.

3. The death penalty guarantees safety. My opponent presented that there are no statistics that the death penalty does not prevent murder. However there ARE numerous amount of statics that prove how the death penalty helped prevent murder. I have spoken more about them in my refutation. "Nevertheless, if would-be criminals know undoubtedly that they will be put to death should they murder with premeditation, very many of them are much less inclined to commit murder. Whether or not would-be criminals are wary of committing the worst crime is an important"and probably impossible"question to answer. Murder still happens very frequently. So some criminals disregard this warning for various reasons. But the fact does remain that many criminals who ride the fence on committing murder ultimately decide to spare the victim"s life.

In a larger sense, capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and enter in the first place."

4. The penalty helps ensure JUSTICE! This is showing that it is not TOLERABLE to murder! The death penalty is giving the criminal justice and at least attempting to provide closure for victims families. The United States promises liberty and justice for ALL. That's means that criminals should get what they deserve, which is being put to death.

Now I just want to compare the 2 most important points of this debate. My opponents most important point was that it is immoral. My most valuable point was that it ensures JUSTICE for all. As I mentioned before, the penalty is completely moral. It ensures that criminals get what they deserve The death penalty helps lower the crime level because it proves to the insane minds that doing a crime will get then NOWHERE. Allows me to repeat,; A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides!!!

Judge I am a pro-lifer and that is WHY I am arguing to keep the death penalty. It keep us SAFE! With the death penalty, you will not have to be worried every single time you come home from work. You will know that because there is the death penalty, which deters crime, you will be so much more SAFER.

And before I conclude this debate, I would just like to show that my opponent dropped EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY ARGUMENTS.

Thank you, vote con for life!
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Reformist 2 years ago
Forever 23 sounds like a robot

But I like robots

So she gets my vote
Posted by EverlastingMoment 2 years ago
Plagiarism from Pro in round 3 loses her the conduct point, where Con smartly pointed out which subsequently led to Pro losing the conduct point, also, several incidents of grammar mistakes from Pro, such as failing to capitalize her letters at the start of each point she states, which also brought down her argument more. Moving on to arguments, Con brought along several points during the start of the debate, such as safety, the fact that people who receive it committed terrible crimes, and that they get what they deserved. I'm not going to elaborate on this too much because these points were never refuted by Pro during any point in the debate, along with a very poor response in round two. Pro spent the entire debate focusing on her own points rather than addressing Con's, some of which she didn't even elaborate herself on, such as in her argument for round three, where she threw a bunch of points and never touched on them. This is why Con ultimately had a more convincing argument, she managed to address Pro's points in each round and was the only one to fulfill her status quo, which as many would agree, makes hers naturally more convincing in terms of structure as well.
Posted by Forever23 2 years ago
Thanks Bob!
Posted by Bob13 2 years ago
This RFD will be used in my vote after my voting rights are returned.
(6 points to Con for conduct, arguments, and sources) Pro has lost points for conduct because as Con pointed out, some of her arguments were plagiarized from websites that she did not cite. In addition, Pro didn't argue against Con's points; instead, she made her own points that Con rebutted. Con had a good point about preventing crimes, and that outweighs the minor flaws in the justice system. Pro used a lot of facts and statistics that must be proven with sources, but she did not cite any, while Con's sources are cited and prove the facts used in her arguments.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Bob13 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 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: Pro has lost points for conduct because as Con pointed out, some of her arguments were plagiarized from websites that she did not cite. In addition, Pro didn't argue against Con's points; instead, she made her own points that Con rebutted. Con had a good point about preventing crimes, and that outweighs the minor flaws in the justice system. Pro used a lot of facts and statistics that must be proven with sources, but she did not cite any, while Con's sources are cited and prove the facts used in her arguments.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 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: Arguments: To Con for 2 reasons - (1) plagiarism is unacceptable, and (2) Pro's rebuttals didn't suffice to negate Con's assertions. There were a couple of instances, too, where Con's points were unaddressed. Con addressed all of Pro's points, on the other hand, which leaves the only standing arguments remaining with Con. Sources: To Con for 2 reasons -- (1) the sites Pro used were plagiarized , and (2) they were more numerous/credible. Conduct: To Con - plagiarism