Death penalty should be banned
Debate Rounds (2)
Firstly, I would like to define the death penalty.
The death penalty is a punishment by death. It is usually awarded to criminals who have committed extreme crimes.
Now I would like to put forward a few points:
(a) From a humanitarian perspective, we all should be pro-life.
(b) Death penalty is an extreme form of violence. Killing is always too extreme for any kind of crime when there are other alternatives such as imprisonment available.
(c) Let us discuss the economical advantage that can be put forward by this motion. We can utilize these prisoners for mining and other economically beneficial jobs to benefit our economy. Even if a prisoner, due to any reason, is not able to earn a profit for the nation, we can not take a life just to save money.
No amount of cash can equate a life.
(d) Death penalty seems to promote an eye for an eye, that is, a revenge policy which is the complete opposite of what we trying to teach the society.
(e) We can imprison people till their natural death rather than opting for such extreme measures.
(f) In several cases, the prisoner might be falsely acquitted and might end up being killed despite his innocence. Who will be answerable in such situations?
Such prisoners can be delivered justice whenever the evidence comes through. Thus, promoting justice.
As a source for point (c)
According to http://www.prisonpolicy.org...
"The county economic development director in the small New York town of Romulus, for example, states that economic development experts throughout the state consider correctional facilities to be positive contributors to local economies, providing good-paying jobs and benefits in communities where employment is scarce."
As a strong source for point (f)
Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Newly available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 17 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States"
Another source to enforce point (f)
It states that 4% of the defendants are actually innocent.
I will now conclude my side for this round. I look forward to a healthy and positive debate.
1. It saves time.
2. It saves money.
3. It can be used on criminals proven without shadow of a doubt such as those who confess to (or are caught performing) of heinous crimes.
4. Not all humans are capable of rehabilitation.
5. It eases taxpayer burden.
6. It can be done humanely.
I would like to request the opposition to take out time to actually read my argument. I was disappointed with the response as I had already provided appropriate explanations for all the points mentioned above.
Yet, for the sake of argument, I will counter your points.
"1. It saves time." "5. It eases taxpayer burden." "2. It saves money."
I would like to remind my opposition that the purpose of judiciary is not to save time or money but rather to provide justice.
"6. It can be done humanely."
Killing is killing. We can not award such a punishment to anyone when other better productive alternatives are available.
"3. It can be used on criminals proven without shadow of a doubt such as those who confess to (or are caught performing) of heinous crimes." "4. Not all humans are capable of rehabilitation."
In round 1, I have stated how imprisonment can be used as an alternative which will not only be productive for the economy but also provide true justice.
If an individual is deemed incapable of rehabilitation, that individual could be imprisoned till he naturally passes away. What is the need of eliminating an individual when a far better alternative is available?
"I would like to remind my opposition that the purpose of judiciary is not to save time or money but rather to provide justice."
The value of justice can only be measured in the weight of one's burden on society to begin with. There is no justice in fifteen years worth of appeals processes when you openly admit to committing a crime. Ironically a convoluted "Justice" system provides nothing and wastes far more time, effort, and money than anything else.
"Killing is killing. We can not award such a punishment to anyone when other better productive alternatives are available."
Yeah, and slavery is slavery. Forcing people to work as part of imprisonment for the betterment of society without adequae pay is nothing short. It isn't a form of rehabilitation or anything of value but instead is merely a way to create a self-regulating community of social rejects and the criminally minded. Your sanctity of life argument is meaningless; lives are measured entirely by how much they produce for society and that can be measured in cashflow. Maintaining your own personal perspective on the matter of the value of life in a debate is unprofessional at best and completely illogical at worst; I'll spare you the shame of having to "prove it" since I already know that one cannot prove life sanct.
"In round 1, I have stated how imprisonment can be used as an alternative which will not only be productive for the economy but also provide true justice."
Locking people up in cages until they die is the same thing as a death sentence. Unless you intend to release them, and clearly you don't as the death penalty holds the same weight of never being released thus the only comparable option, this holds no water whatsoever. "True Justice" is equivalent to "slavery" + "caged existence"? Oh the value of their days is quite great, is it not? So now not only are we feeding people condemned to live in a cage because we're too afraid to actually put them down but these entities are extremely dangerous and without hope for rehabilitation thus why they're facing life imprisonment.
4% of defendents were innocent. 4 whole percent. 30 years ago before strong modern forensics a whole 4% were innocent. That is immaterial. The only way that works as an argument is through emotion, the "shock and horror" that we got it wrong, but even with a failure rate of 20% that means that we're really, really good at what we do. The other converse statistic is 96% of person's decidedly dangerous to the point of needing to be put down for the good of society were guilty beyond measure. Human justice is always going to be flawed and the system the same but holding that as a Damocle's Sword against humanity is unfair.
At current due to this climate it is more expensive to put someone to death because of the appeals process which rarely turns over a case than it is to feed a prisoner for life. Perhaps humans have grown soft and faihless in their own technologies and deductions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Preston 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provides sources and overall better conduct, con uses adhominin (I'll spare you the shame of having to "prove it" since I already know that one cannot prove life sanct.) to insult pro on views of justice. Cons second post is underhanded, the last post should not claim new facts but instead grow previous arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.