Debate Rounds (4)
I will start by challenging his two suggestions for execution.
Pro has offered two suggestions - murderers and paedophiles. Note that he says 'paedophiles' and not 'child sex abusers'. This is an important distinction. A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. A child sex abuser is someone who has undertaken behaviour consistent with that desire. Consider that along with homosexuality and heterosexuality, paedophilia is a sexual orientation. Furthermore, the word paedophilia does not suggest that any action has taken place - indeed, most paedophiles are ashamed of their sexual desires but cannot seek help due to social pressures. Thus, Pro advocates the death penalty for people with a given sexual orientation, but of those, only the ones who haven't acted on it. Pro doesn't even mention child sex abusers.
Now, let's talk murderers. Pro also states that these should be killed. There are different kinds of murder, but I will argue with the one that I'm most familiar with. In English law, the person who kills to end the suffering of another is just as guilty of murder as the person who kills for fun. Pro implies that both should die. I disagree. The person's right to control exactly what happens to their body while they are alive should be supreme - and yet the person who kills with the consent of the victim is just as guilty as he who does not (and according to Pro just as worthy of death).
He also says that the death penalty would put fear into criminals. Because of course, that is exactly what we want. People scared to report crimes because they believe that if they do, they are responsible for the death of the person they blame. People who kill to end needless suffering being killed themselves for their trouble. If we allow the state/justice system to kill people, we will have allowed them to establish in principle that the state/justice system's word is superior in value to the life of a human.
Such a loss would open the way to a myriad of state-sanctioned executions, and the state/justice system's wishes would be supreme. Consider America, which has the death penalty. It also has the longest death row in the world, is effectively a police state and the Supreme Court has final say in the legitimacy of any democratically enacted federal legislation.
I invite my opposite to defend his position.
Now let me come to the part were con referred to a sexual orientation of paedophiles. This is a "natural feeling" if we must, that cannot be changed. So putting them in prison is a waste of time as our current system aims to rehabilitate our criminals. Therefore after they have served their sentence they return to the streets with a new identity. No one knows who they are or what they have done. With the death penalty we offer closure to the victims they know that no one else will have to suffer the same cruelty that they endured as innocent human beings. Now I ask you con why wouldn't you want saver streets? Why do you care from these criminals? Do you think they spared a thought for their victims?
Now lets go over the murders. May I first say that someone taking a life of someone who wants to die is assisted suicide and has similar jail time to manslaughter. If someone has committed premeditated murder than they only answer is death. I know some people say teaching them murder is wrong by murdering them is a stupid idea, but the lesson isn't for them. The lesson is one for a few future murders who may fear committing the crime.
As for cons point about deciding who should face death, we should give judges the option of giving the very worst cases (like the lee Rigby killers) death straight away. If they a completely sure if they are guilty. If the judge is unsure we could have a second case to determine if death is a suitable option.
I leave Con to defend his position
Why do I care for these criminals? Because they are the most unlucky people in the world, to inhabit bodies that demand they perform acts that they themselves likely condemn. I have argued in support of this theory (hard determinism) before, and I find it objectionable that we consider terminating someone's existence for an action that they had no say in whatsoever. Scientific studies show that our brains decide what we are going to do three hundred milliseconds before our conscious selves do. Intent is ascribed afterwards. I cannot imagine the horror of not only being witness to your body sexually abusing a child, but also being convinced by your brain that it was your idea. And you want to kill them for it.
Regarding murders, once again I argue that the accused had no control over their actions. Their brain decided to kill, and they were forced to go along with it, and then were tricked into thinking they intended it. Once again, I advocate segregation rather than death, because they can still contribute to society. All we must do is put them in a position where it will be physically impossible for them to kill others.
Regarding Pro's last point, the judiciary (at least in England) is dominated by white, middle-aged, middle-to-upper class men, which prejudices the justice system from the start, even ignoring each judges' individual biases, which they likely form before even hearing the evidence. This is because in a society where there is a minority, the majority inevitably end up repressing or discriminating against them in one form or another. Hence, if you are working class and black you will be sentenced to death more easily than a white middle class person, because the judge identifies with the latter. For evidence, look to America's racial profiling statistics for death row inmates. The white and black populations on death row are roughly equal, but in the wider population, whites outnumber blacks by more than five times (see http://quickfacts.census.gov...). And some still say that racism is dead.
I look forward to Pro's final arguments in the next round, and hand the debate over to him.
No disrespect to my competitor but saying paedophiles are the unluckiest people in the world is an insult. I will not accept any argument on their minds or feelings, if they are so disgusted by themselves perhaps they should save me an argument and kill themselves, and simply make the world a better place. I don't blame people for their mistakes but I ask that they pay for them, I feel this mind set is needed here. I don't care what aspect of the paedophiles caused them to scar their innocent victims for life, I don't want to know. All I want is a sustainable punishment that fits the crime, they have likely harmed, mentally scared and quite frankly condemned their victim(s) to a terrible life. That victim can't ever forget that, the paedophile has a 58% chance of being arrested and given jail time. That is so close to a 50/50 chance its not even funny. Its is a disgrace to this nation that we still keep these animals alive. They common paedophile is given 16 months in jail, this is due to over crowding. If we simply killed our longest servers murders and worst criminals paedophiles, we would have lots more room, lots of money saved and a guarantee that all the criminals we have killed wont re offend now their dead. source of statistics (https://fullfact.org...)
As for cons ideas of segregation and would be willing for them to be sent to labour camps were they shall produce goods for the state until they die of natural causes. Their motivation, punishments for those who don't work, if you don't work you will not be fed or given drink.
For my closing argument I feel its a little unfair to play the race card. I would be more likely to accept this point in America, but in the UK courts and laws usually favour women. If two minors have sex who is punished, the male. If there is a divorce who gets the child, in almost every case the woman. Furthermore even if this unfair comment was true what would it effect. Just because someone is a white male doesn't mean they will not sentence or be lenient to another white male who is a paedophile. Also for your last statistic black men commit 5 times more crimes than white females that's probably why more are in jail. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...). I just ask the readers of this argument what would you rather do, lower taxes for the working class, build new hospitals and fire stations. Invest in science and new technologies, make room in our prisons for more criminals so we can give reasonable sentences rather than shorter ones to make sure we have enough room. Or would you rather give a paedophile an easy life in jail, doesn't have to worry about bills or food or work, he just sits there relaxing, why you the working class heroes of this nation work hard for your money, for your children, for your family? What would you rather spend your taxes on? Think on your actions.
I leave Con to conclude the debate and I thank him for his time and views on the subject,
https://www.gov.uk...) show that in the space of ten years (1998-2008) the number of jobs increased by 170,000. If we are to take Pro's argument that giving a paedophile a job automatically denies another person one, we need to find a good reason to ignore this blatantly contradicting statistic.
True, the unemployment rate is high, and something needs to be done. But, and I might be alone in this, I believe that mass murder is not the correct solution,
With regards to his second point, nothing is too dangerous as long as security is adequate. Where do I plan to put them? Perhaps in prisons, where they are now. Or in workplaces (provided that no children are present, obviously). How does my opponent know what is too costly? Does he know the actual cost of segregating paedophiles? Pro says that it is unfair to make people work with convicted paedophiles. Does he offer any evidence to support his claim? Does it really make any difference to fairness that people will be geographically closer to paedophiles? They'll be present whether you have to work with them or not, but at least when they are working they are contributing. Where would I have paedophiles work? In places that offer jobs they are good at. All that really needs to happen is to make sure that the paedophiles are absent when the children are present. With proper planning, I doubt that it would be difficult.
In the second paragraph, Pro offers no evidence to refute my argument. I assume he agrees that paedophiles don't control their actions, but apparently wants to ignore it (whenever someone says 'I will not accept any argument', it's a sign that their viewpoint is fixed. I am sorry to see that my opponent is not open to alternate viewpoints.).
'If they are so disgusted by themselves perhaps they should save me an argument and kill themselves'. Pro apparently believes that paedophiles should kill themselves to save his precious time. Because what are human lives when you have something better to do, right? Also, 'I don't blame people for their mistakes but I ask that they pay for them'? This comment here is metaphorically murdering our idea of justice. It lies dead on the ground, in front of us, once we accept that this is a legitimate argument. Apparently this mindset is needed, but Pro doesn't say why.
'I don't care what aspect of the paedophiles caused them to scar their innocent victims for life, I don't want to know.' This line is a kick in the face to scientific methods of enquiry. One day, science may be able to suppress paedophilia through drugs or therapy, unless we start thinking like this. The moment you say 'I don't want to know' you have effectively sealed yourself off from science, because wanting to know is the reason we do science. Knowing things helps us change things.
Yes, their victims are condemned to terrible lives. But so are the paedophiles. They were condemned long before their victims, and just like their victims, by forces that they could not control.
'...the paedophile has a 58% chance of being arrested...' I don't know what argument Pro is making here. The arrest rate has nothing to do with whether we should kill them or not. Once the death penalty is introduced, I suspect paedophiles will become better at covering their tracks, so there will be even fewer paedophiles we can find to kill.
'Its (sic) is a disgrace to this nation that we still keep these animals alive.' All humans are animals. I don't see the argument here.
Prisons are overcrowded. Pro is saying we should kill the overflow. I'm saying put them to work and make them contribute.
Pro says that black men commit five times more crime than white females. My argument is that the number of crimes that have been committed is untrustworthy because it is socially constructed. There is a long chain of events that need to happen before something is reported as a crime (including reporting, then the police need to decide to investigate, then they need to find evidence, then the CPS has to decide that there's enough evidence to prosecute), culminating with twelve people, each with their own individual prejudices, and who weren't even there, deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not.
In the final paragraph, Pro asks the readers what they would rather do. The issue here is not what you would rather do. The issue here is who's argument made the most sense and had the best evidence. Pro is trying to distract you by appealing to your emotions, and by suggesting that which argument you vote for is in some way going to have real impact. If you vote for Con's argument, all the paedophiles won't be killed. If you vote for my argument, all the paedophiles won't be put to work. You are not being asked to make a real decision. You are being asked to critically and rationally evaluate arguments.
I thank the readers and my opponent for their time. So concludes my argument.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.