The Instigator
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ProfessorJake
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Do you agree with me?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 45014
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Soundsamplifyinmyhouse

Pro

There are several reasons why we punish people for an offense:
1. for public safety (getting dangerous criminals of the streets)
2. as a deterrent for other criminals
3. retribution
4. rehabilitation

#1 is for me the most important reason. But lifelong imprisonment is just as effective as death.
#2 plays less of a role. Both lifelong imprisonment and death penalty have some deterrent effect. However, for the type of criminals that receive a death penalty, this deterrence is minimal. For example, a gang member is much more likely to get kill by other gangs than by a death penalty. Since the fear of being killed does not deter the gang member to commit crimes, this gang member will also not be deterred by the death penalty.
#3 I do not think that the death penalty is much more severe than a lifelong sentence. As I have explained in #2, the type of criminals we are talking about usually have no fear of death. Families of victims may ask for a death penalty. But often the execution does not give closure to them as they had hoped. [1]
#4 plays no role here I think, because the type of criminals we are talking about are beyond rehabilitation.
ProfessorJake

Con

Rebuttals

1. for public safety (getting dangerous criminals of the streets)

Yes. If you penalize someone by death, they can no longer murder (The act of unlawfully killing someone[1]).

#1 is for me the most important reason. But lifelong imprisonment is just as effective as death.

No, it is not. If you penalize someone by death, you don't take the risk of that criminal breaking out (Escape) and again, committing crimes (Which aren't sanctioned by law (Which are legislated based upon our accepted interpretation of Morality(For those who derive arguments from the Bible, according to it, sin wages death, thus being morally justifiable))), thus not being as effective.

2. as a deterrent for other criminals

Yes. The existence of the death penalty deters people. It for sure deters me.

#2 plays less of a role. Both lifelong imprisonment and death penalty have some deterrent effect. However, for the type of criminals that receive a death penalty, this deterrence is minimal. For example, a gang member is much more likely to get kill by other gangs than by a death penalty. Since the fear of being killed does not deter the gang member to commit crimes, this gang member will also not be deterred by the death penalty.

Examples are context. I disagree with it. The gang member is not dettered to murder because, the gang won't murder that gang member for that particular and sole reason.

3. retribution

Yes. Punishments (In some cases) are imposed for retribution of an offense.

#3 I do not think that the death penalty is much more severe than a lifelong sentence. As I have explained in #2, the type of criminals we are talking about usually have no fear of death. Families of victims may ask for a death penalty. But often the execution does not give closure to them as they had hoped. [1]

I have already replied to that. Also, did you forget to cite a source, as there is a [1] in the end?

4. rehabilitation

#4 plays no role here I think, because the type of criminals we are talking about are beyond rehabilitation.

If punishments were imposed for the person to learn, then the death penalty wouldn't be considered (And rightfully so) a punishment, as you wouldn't give them a chance to rehabilitate and change, but rather completely remove them from existence. However, AS YOU LISTED (#3), some punishments are imposed rather, in retribution of an offense.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.

Source

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse

Pro

Death penalty is not a deterrent

For seasoned criminals, the death penalty is not a deterrent. I gave the example of a member of a crime gang. Anyone entering a gang knows that there are risks to it, including death. So gang members are not really afraid to die. So the death penalty does not deter them. In fact, many inmates on death row prefer death to life [1].

PRO: "That is so because the gang member is going to be killed for a different reason. A gang won't kill the gang member for committing crimes. He/She will be deterred to do what THAT PARTICULAR GANG doesn't want him/her to do."

No, once you enter a crime gang, the probability of getting killed is increased. You might be killed by a (literally) back-stabbing member of your own gang, or by a member of a rival gang. Once you are a gang member, there is no conduct that would shield you from these risks.
ProfessorJake

Con

Rebuttals

Death penalty is not a deterrent

PRO: "That is so because the gang member is going to be killed for a different reason. A gang won't kill the gang member for committing crimes. He/She will be deterred to do what THAT PARTICULAR GANG doesn't want him/her to do."

No, once you enter a crime gang, the probability of getting killed is increased. You might be killed by a (literally) back-stabbing member of your own gang, or by a member of a rival gang. Once you are a gang member, there is no conduct that would shield you from these risks.

Alright. It is probably that you will be murdered. And one reason could be because you murdered another gang member. However, that gang member is probably dettered from doing that. However, he is not dettered to be murdered by murdering someone else, as he won't be murdered by the crime gang (Imposition of punishment of death) FOR THAT PARTICULAR AND SOLE REASON!

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse

Pro

I concede with my 2nd argument (In 2 round).

Public safety

Both life imprisonment and death penalty keep the public safe from the criminal. My opponent mentions the possibility of escape. There are escapes from low by Start Savin" href="../../Should-there-be-a-death-penalty/7/">security prisons. But the most severe criminals should stay at high security prisons. With enough security it is nearly impossible to escape. For example, nobody ever escaped from a federal "supermax" prison [2].

retribution

My opponent has not countered my argument that an execution rarely gives family members of the victims closure. In fact, it often prolongs the family victims' suffering because there are many appeals to the death sentence and every time there is such appeal it will reopen the wounds.
ProfessorJake

Con

Rebuttals

Public safety

Both life imprisonment and death penalty keep the public safe from the criminal. My opponent mentions the possibility of escape. There are escapes from low by Start Savin" href="../../Should-there-be-a-death-penalty/7/">security prisons. But the most severe criminals should stay at high security prisons. With enough security it is nearly impossible to escape. For example, nobody ever escaped from a federal "supermax" prison [2].

Yes. And I should have mentioned: I will use that as contention until that is changed. By the way, it is, nonetheless, possible for break-out (Escape) in a high security prison, while when penalized by death, you can not, as you no longer exist in Earth/You're in Heaven/Hell, which is a completely different place.

Retribution

My opponent has not countered my argument that an execution rarely gives family members of the victims closure. In fact, it often prolongs the family victims' suffering because there are many appeals to the death sentence and every time there is such appeal it will reopen the wounds.

Actually, the criminal's family members can argue for his life. Also, it's both for public safety and retribution of an offense, as first of all, there's no risk, even the slightest, for that criminal to break out (Escape) and again, commit crimes (Which aren't conform to the laws), and, you reward the victim. In retribution of an offense. Both the criminal and the victim have to come out evenly, in which they do. Consent? What if that victim he/she murdered did not have the family members of that guy's consent? What if the criminal, as he is a threat like everyone else, but is most expected to commit unlawful acts, murders his parents? Uh-uh. It also benefits (Gives an advantage) to the parents.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse

Pro

Soundsamplifyinmyhouse forfeited this round.
ProfessorJake

Con

ProfessorJake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Soundsamplifyinmyhouse

Pro

Soundsamplifyinmyhouse forfeited this round.
ProfessorJake

Con

ProfessorJake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.