The Instigator
Lauren.Waggoner
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Death penalty legalized in all states

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 3 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,998 times Debate No: 24682
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Lauren.Waggoner

Pro

The death penalty should be legal in all states across the United States considering some people commit crimes knowing they will get away with it. If the death penalty was implemented, those murderers might reconsider before committing the act.
ConservativePolitico

Con

"If the death penalty was implemented, those murderers might reconsider before committing the act." [sic]

Unfortunately, those who commit violent crimes do not have the capacity to see the consequences of their actions in most cases. Implementing the death penalty would not be able to prevent heat of the moment murders, manslaughter or even some premeditated crimes. Only a few cases of First Degree murder might, might, be prevented under this plan. Unfortunately such speculation isn't strong enough to justify imposing this on all the states.

State Sovereignty

States in the United States of America have a right to implement certain policies on their own free from federal control. The death penalty is one of these policies. You cannot justify infringing on state sovereignty in order to impose the death penalty on all 50. People have a right to choose what kind of state government they want to run.

You can't justify this breach of states rights on the words "murderers might reconsider". It's not strong enough evidence.

Therefore, the death penalty should be left as a decision for each individual state to decide on.
Debate Round No. 1
Lauren.Waggoner

Pro

As stated in an article "A Case for the Death Penalty" the murder rates raised when capital punishment was declared unconstitutional. This is a prime example of murders rates rising when there is no punishment.

As stated in the article… When executions went down, the number of murders went up.� Looking at the data from 1950-2002, the murder rate went from 4.6 per 100,000 population in 1951 to 10.2 per 100,000 population in 1980, as executions went to zero during the period the Supreme Court declared capital punishment unconstitutional.� Execution resumed in 1977.� As you can see, the murder rate once again declined.
ConservativePolitico

Con

While the evidence you provided is compelling if defending the Death Penality in general you are forgetting that you must be proving why it should be legalized in all 50 states.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [1]

If you care more about people's safety than their freedom then you should turn the country into a police state. I'm sure you agree with that logic. You must give the people the right to choose their own justice system within their states. If a state does not want the death penalty then they should not have that forced upon them. The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution gives the states rights to delegate any power not specifically laid out in the Constitution. The death penalty, not being in the Consitution, is one of these powers left to the states to delegate.

What you're proposing is in violation of the Constitution.

You have made a case of the death penalty, great. Now you must show why these numbers justify throwing out the Consitution, states rights and personal sovereignty within the states because right now I see no reason to defy the Constitution.

[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Lauren.Waggoner

Pro

Lauren.Waggoner forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Lauren.Waggoner

Pro

Lauren.Waggoner forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Lauren.Waggoner

Pro

Lauren.Waggoner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Lauren.WaggonerConservativePoliticoTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
Lauren.WaggonerConservativePoliticoTied
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: Pro did not satisfy BoP because she did not defend her arguments. Since Con's arguments stand, he gets points for that. Also, because of forfeits, he gets an extra point as well.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
Lauren.WaggonerConservativePoliticoTied
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: Pro didn't respond to Con's R2. Conduct for FF.