The Instigator
The_Punisher
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Harlan
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Death sentences should be introduced for extremely serious charges in all countries.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Harlan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 999 times Debate No: 7274
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

The_Punisher

Pro

There once was a man who killed a couple of people, went into jail, came out to kill more people, went back in again, and killed more people after coming out. There wouldn't have been so many deaths if a death sentence was introduced. This may seem inhumane, but since when did killing people become humane?

In some countries, there is no death sentence, and since there isn't, it should be introduced.

First of all, death sentences reduce the number of cold criminals behind bars. They carried out serious offences, now they have to pay the price, it all seems pretty normal. Secondly, the organs and body parts they have could be donated to those who need them. This is a good way to repay all the lives that the criminal has killed. Thirdly, a death sentence introduced could decrease the number of murders every year. When pre-criminals hear that a death sentence is being introduced, they usually stop.

This is a good way to stop serious assault and murder and a way to save lives. Thus the death sentence should be introduced to countries who don't have such a law.
Harlan

Con

My opponent has 3 main parts to his argument. I will answer each of these in turn.

1. That the Criminals have to "pay the price".

It is a commonly accepted moral concept that two wrongs do not make a right. Basicaly, immoral acts are never warranted, even when the victim of said acts is inhumane and immoral to the extreme. The moral aspects of this ideology are obviously flawed. The only practical aspect of this is idea is that it may discourage people from performing horrible acts. I think that while punishment is necessary in some places, society should mainly put emphasis on education as means to discouraging people from doing attrocious things, rather than fear.

2. The organs of felons could be harvested and put into the bodies of other people.

Plenty of people die already, so I don't think it is necessary to kill more people in order to get organs. Furthermore, I would see this as dishonoring to the person punished, if they did not give consent before-hand for their organs to be utilized. Or at least consent from the family. It also seems unlikely to me that the sort of people who end up getting the death sentance are people who are very healthy.

3. It would decrease the # of murders.

The case of prison break-outs is a very rare one. And even if this were a genuine problem, the most serious of prisoners (that might have people on the outside who could break them out), could simply put in a higher security prison, such as alkatraz. This seems like a practical and humane solution to the same problem. Also, if it is determined that a prisoner is so dangerous that not only are they not suitable for society, but not suitable for being with other human beings (inmates) at all, they can be put in a mental institution.

There are many practical solutions that would make the death sentence wholly unnecessary. And while it would be more efficient, it is inhumane. It is not absolutely necessary, and therefore it should be avoided, considering the matter at hand.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Punisher

Pro

The Contender has many flaws in his argument.

Firstly, "Harlan" says "I think that while punishment is necessary in some places, society should mainly put emphasis on education as means to discouraging people from doing attrocious things, rather than fear." This tells us that "Harlan" agrees with my point of view, and would like to see the death penalty applied in some cases. The other half of his point tells us that he would like to see more "education" rather "than fear". I would like to point out that we are thoroughly educated when we are young. Police come to our schools to talk about what to do and what not to do. But does this serve any purpose? A famous gangster and killer called Al Capone once said "I have spent the best of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man." Yes. Thats the word of the most feared gang leader in Chicago. As you can see, criminals don't see how they are wrong, and they won't see how they are wrong through "education". Men like Al Capone think like that. There is no way of escaping that fact.

Secondly, "Harlan" doesn't get the point of a death sentence. Here are his words: "Plenty of people die already, so I don't think it is necessary to kill more people in order to get organs." So what "Harlan" is saying here, that the death sentence is in place to "kill more people in order to get organs". Thats what he's saying. The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment. The organ donation is just a way of a 'repayment' of the people they've killed etc. And also, only healthy organs will be chosen (I would also like to add that healthy blood can also be donated). And as "Harlan" said:" I would see this as dishonoring to the person punished, if they did not give consent before-hand for their organs to be utilized." This proves that he is feeling sorry for the criminal who has killed lots of people and thinks that this is dishonoring the person. Why doesn't "Harlan" feel sorry for those who were killed?
Why, "Harlan"?

Thirdly, "Harlan" says: "The case of prison break-outs is a very rare one." This proves that "Harlan" does not understand the point. I am not talking of prison break outs. I am talking of how people are released because their time is up and then they get put out into the public, and then they kill more people (which is almost always the case), and then they get sent to jail again, and then the cycle continues. And as "Harlan" says: "Also, if it is determined that a prisoner is so dangerous that not only are they not suitable for society, but not suitable for being with other human beings (inmates) at all, they can be put in a mental institution." Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe. And also, "Harlan" still doesn't get the point. The death sentence is a fair punishment for a an "attrocious" crime. "Harlan" is relating the death sentence as a way of getting rid of people. That's not my point! And even more important, isn't a "mental institution" just another phrase for "jail"? They do have rehabilitation places in prisons you know.

And lastly, "Harlan" says: "There are many practical solutions that would make the death sentence wholly unnecessary." This proves again that "Harlan" does not understand. We are not trying to get rid of people. We are not trying to find ways to donate organs or blood. We are not trying to find ways of lowering a population. We are just trying to find a way to fairly punish someone for what they've done.

And can I also say, that there are spelling and grammar mistakes in "Harlan's" argument. Take the word "attrocious" for example. That was in "Harlan's" argument.
Harlan

Con

You know you don't need to put my name in quotation marks.

Allright, my opponent's rebuttal was quite lengthy so I will answer each of his points in turn.

"This tells us that "Harlan" agrees with my point of view, and would like to see the death penalty applied in some cases."

This is false. Punishment does not necessarily mean death. Punishment can mean exile, jail, a fine, or even public service. You have twisted my words around so that the punishment means death. That's a cheap card to play, man.

"I would like to point out that we are thoroughly educated when we are young. Police come to our schools to talk about what to do and what not to do. But does this serve any purpose?"

I would like to clarify that I am in no way suggesting that education will completely eliminate all crime. And likewise, the fear of being punished will also (and does) not eliminate all crime. By citing a single incident of education failing to discourage a man from crime in no way proves that education is completely useless in the effort of decreasing crime. If I so pleased, I could do the same thing with your method of decreasing crime via fear, by citing incidents of people going on killing sprees despite the fact that they will almost certainly wind up in prison or in the electric chair.

But regardless of the effectiveness of education when compared to fear, it must be acknowledged that education is a better foundation for society than fear. It creates a healthier atmosphere, and makes the populace moral people, rather than immoral people who are scared to act out their immoral ideas. And once more, I am not saying that punishment should be completely eliminated, I am saying that a balance should be made, with alot of emphasis on education, and less emphasis on punishment.

"So what 'Harlan' is saying here, that the death sentence is in place to 'kill more people in order to get organs'. Thats what he's saying. The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment."

Here you go again twisting my words. I never said that the death sentence is in place for any purpose. This is a hypothetical debate (see resolution), and has nothing to do with any death-sentence policy that exists in real life. I was merely responding to your hypothetical death-sentence ideas, which you happened to justify on the basis that "organs and body parts they have could be donated to those who need them" (see round 1). Those are your words, not mine.

What you have done in the above quote is completely changed your argument to "The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment.", while completely ignoring my rebuttal to your original point (the one you just pretended you didn't make), which was that the felon's organs could be used.

"This proves that he is feeling sorry for the criminal who has killed lots of people and thinks that this is dishonoring the person."

It's not so much a matter of "feeling sorry", as you have twisted my words to say, as it is honoring every Human being's fundamental rights, regardless of their personality. Once more, 2 wrongs do not make a right, and with that in mind it can be said that it is not justified to deny a fellow Human being of his rights, no matter what the scenario is. I think using their organs against their will would be immoral and dishonoring.

"Why doesn't 'Harlan' feel sorry for those who were killed?"

Where could you have possibly made this conclusion out of anything that I said in round 1? Now you are simply making up stuff that I said.

"I am not talking of prison break outs. I am talking of how people are released because their time is up and then they get put out into the public, and then they kill more people (which is almost always the case), and then they get sent to jail again, and then the cycle continues."

Once more, this is a problem that has a simple and practical solution: don't release them. You have made it clear that the crux of the problem is not that they are alive, but that they are being released from jail when they shouldn't be. The same people who you are suggesting to be jazzed with electricity could simply be kept in jail for life.

"Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe."

Well, too bad. It's their job.

"We are not trying to get rid of people."

Neither of us said this.

"We are not trying to find ways to donate organs or blood."

Those were your words, not mine.

"We are not trying to find ways of lowering a population."

I never said this either.

"We are just trying to find a way to fairly punish someone for what they've done."

Fairness is a narrow-minded and naive way of punishing criminals. Punishment should never be about fairness. It should be about discouraging criminals, and (if the punishment is one compatible with this goal) possibly keep them away from society for practical reasons. I fail to see a reason to punish people for the sake of fairness.

"And can I also say, that there are spelling and grammar mistakes in 'Harlan's' argument. Take the word "attrocious" for example. That was in 'Harlan's' argument."

Fine, if we ARE playing that game, then I guess I'll play too. In the above quote, his first sentence did not need a comma and should have had a quotation mark instead of a period, since it was phrased as a question. Also (I wasn't going to say anything, but I suppose I will), he misquoted Al Capone earlier.

-Harlan
Debate Round No. 2
The_Punisher

Pro

Your argument is good, your points are well made, and I have just realized one thing. That is, that each of us agree that education and punishment should be balanced, right?

Now that I have isolated the things that we agree on, we can look at more concerning matters.

Harlan: "I think using their organs against their will would be immoral and dishonoring." Can I just say, that criminals decide to donate their organs, as with the case of the gang leader in Singapore. He said to his wife and mistress that he wanted to donate his organs. After he was hanged, the organs were given to needy people, saving at least 5 lives.

Harlan: "You have made it clear that the crux of the problem is not that they are alive, but that they are being released from jail when they shouldn't be. The same people who you are suggesting to be jazzed with electricity could simply be kept in jail for life." Harlan, do judges really put them in for life? Face the reality, they will not be put in for life. After another 10-20 years, they'll come out and kill more.

'One-third of the nation's executions take place in Texas—and the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation's executions.' That is a good point made by whoever made that.

Harlan: "'Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe.' Well, too bad. It's their job." I can point out that people can find new jobs.

Harlan: "Fairness is a narrow-minded and naive way of punishing criminals. Punishment should never be about fairness. It should be about discouraging criminals, and (if the punishment is one compatible with this goal) possibly keep them away from society for practical reasons. I fail to see a reason to punish people for the sake of fairness." If everyone was as narrow-minded as Harlan, people would kill more openly, knowing that they won't be jailed up for long. Knowing that they will be out soon. To do it all again. Thats usually/always the case.

'Two gun' Crowley: "Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one - one that would do no body any harm." And when Crowley arrived at the electric chair, did he say: "This is what I get for killing?". No. He said: "This is what I get for defending myself."

Al Capone: "I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man."

So I would like to conclude, that I reckon that education and punishment should be used together with greater effectiveness and greater efficiency. The death sentence will be used in appropriate situations. But if possible, be deterred. Therefore, the death sentence should stay, and be used under certain circumstances.

Also, alright has one L.
Harlan

Con

Harlan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Sorry I missed it. I meant to do it yesterday, but forgot.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
The_PunisherHarlanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01