The Instigator
joshuaXlawyer
Pro (for)
Tied
2 Points
The Contender
dinokiller
Con (against)
Tied
2 Points

Does death penalty deserve a place in a civilized society?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,857 times Debate No: 14419
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

joshuaXlawyer

Pro

First this is a challenge to dinokiller AKA Edgeworth don't anyone else besides him try to accept.....

Secoundly the first round is the intro/ formalities < no arguments any questions you have should be asked in the first round....

Edgeworth i will thank you in advance for accepting this debate....

Define:
death penalty: the killing of another being as a punishment..
civilized society: a place with higher intelligence and elegance..
deserve: to rightfully/ or justfully to possess..


dinokiller

Con

Phoenix!!, how dare you to put me in such a tight spot!
Im supposed to be Pro for death penalty, but because i feel suicidal, i accept your challenge!

Of course i know you, so i know what im gonna expect. (prepares my ammunition)

Phoenix, begin your arguments as I will object (hope so) against your arguments in round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

1.Executions cost more than life in prison.
$2 million per person vs. $500,000 (4x as much!). Free counsel for defense, for appeals, maximum security on a separate death row wing. Which out weights the benefit of the death sentence.

2.The innocent may be wrongly executed.
Since the DP was reinstated in 1976, 82 inmates have been freed from Death Row. That's 1 Death Row inmate found to be wrongfully convicted for every 7 executed. Which it is not just to be sentenced to death for something someone did not do that is not justice.

3.Is not a deterrent; crime rates have not gone down.
In fact, the murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain and 5 times that of Australia. Neither country has the DP. Texas has twice the murder rate of Wisconsin, a state that doesn't have the DP. Texas and Oklahoma have historically executed the most number of DR inmates, yet in 2003 their state murder rates increased, and both have murder rates higher than the national average. The death penalty does not benefit society as it does not decrease the murder rates of a state, clearly the death sentence has no bearing on the peoples benefit.

4. Many Death Row inmates were convicted while being defended by court-appointed lawyers who are often the worst-paid and most-inexperienced and least-skillful lawyers.
The American Bar Association published guidelines for a good defense in a death penalty case: (a) attorneys with prior experience working a capital case, (b) 2 attorneys, 1 investigator, 1 mitigation specialist, and (c) fully funded to pay for travel, private eyes, evidence testing and other things needed to investigate the case. Yet no state meets these standards. And few states pay their state-appointed lawyers well enough to retain competent, effective lawyers. Clearly an unfair advantage on the wrongly accused, ......

Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993
A two-part investigative series by the Houston Chronicle casts serious doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed in 1993. Ruben Cantu had persistently proclaimed his innocence and was only 17 when he was charged with capital murder for the shooting death of a San Antonio man during an attempted robbery. Now, the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about the case. Moreover, both a key eyewitness in the state's case against Cantu and Cantu's co-defendant have come forward to say that Texas executed an innocent man.

Juan Moreno, who was wounded during the attempted robbery and was a key eyewitness in the case against Cantu, now says that it was not Cantu who shot him and that he only identified Cantu as the shooter because he felt pressured and was afraid of the authorities. Moreno said that he twice told police that Cantu was not his assailant, but that the authorities continued to pressure him to identify Cantu as the shooter after Cantu was involved in an unrelated wounding of a police officer. "The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer. They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified. . . . That was bad to blame someone that was not there," Moreno told the Chronicle.

In addition, David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, "Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person." (
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...)

As you can see the death penalty can be used for evil as wrongly accused people could be killed and that would make the government murders.

5. Murder is wrong, Why you may ask well the governments laws say killing is wrong and anyone to kill anybody gets punished, so why shouldn't the government abid by these laws? Their own laws the death penalty makes the government hypocrites preaching don't kill and they go around a kill even if that person is a criminal justice is suppose to be blind innocent or not its hypocritcal to say don't kill and have the death penalty as a acceptable punishment.

6. Death sentences are handed down arbitrarily, not in a fair manner.
Serial killers such as the infamous Gary Ridgway in Seattle who admitted killing 48 prostitutes and runaways got life in prison. An "angel of death" nurse in NJ who admitted killing 17 people got life. Meanwhile, mentally ill and impoverished murderers who could not afford good lawyers and did not warrant much media attention were given the death penalty. In Alabama, David Hocker was executed after a one-day trial. His mental illness was not sufficiently described to the jury. Alabama also executed a 74-year-old man (James Hubbard) who had been on DR for 27 years and was beset by medical problems which would have probably soon caused his death by natural means: cancer, high blood pressure and the early stages of Alzheimers. In Texas, a man with schizophrenia was executed (Kelsey Patterson) even after the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended clemency after learning of his time spent in mental hospitals and his unintelligible rambling.
Clearly we can see the injustice of these cases where people who have murdered 40 to 10 people and got life while a person who commited one got the death penalty.
The death penalty is wrong and unjust in a civilized society...

http://www.antideathpenalty.org...


dinokiller

Con

Nice copy and pasting there Phoenix

DEFEND ; Slams desk*

"1
.Executions cost more than life in prison.
$2 million per person vs. $500,000 (4x as much!). Free counsel for defense, for appeals, maximum security on a separate death row wing. Which out weights the benefit of the death sentence.
"

Well its their problem for raising such high costs for the prison wings, it doesnt say anything to death penalty directly.


"2.The innocent may be wrongly executed.
Since the DP was reinstated in 1976, 82 inmates have been freed from Death Row. That's 1 Death Row inmate found to be wrongfully convicted for every 7 executed. Which it is not just to be sentenced to death for something someone did not do that is not justice."


You must know that around the 19th century, they dont have the same technology as we have.(Fingerprints, DNA tests, etc.) Of course the innocent could be brought to death at that time, but now that we have the technology to ascertain who the guilty parties are, innocent being found guilty are very rare.
Also, people know that the suspect could be innocent hence the long years wait.


"3.Is not a deterrent; crime rates have not gone down.
In fact, the murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain and 5 times that of Australia. Neither country has the DP. Texas has twice the murder rate of Wisconsin, a state that doesn't have the DP. Texas and Oklahoma have historically executed the most number of DR inmates, yet in 2003 their state murder rates increased, and both have murder rates higher than the national average. The death penalty does not benefit society as it does not decrease the murder rates of a state, clearly the death sentence has no bearing on the peoples benefit.
"

You dont even know how much bigger US is compared to UK or Australia.
If more people lives in a place, then of course the chance that more people commits crimes are higher. Also, the goal of the death penalty was never to reduce the crime rates, its to punish criminals that have committed such terrible crimes that they no longer have the right to live.
Benefits? You get rid of the criminal. In jail, the criminal could just escape from it.

"4. Many Death Row inmates were convicted while being defended by court-appointed lawyers who are often the worst-paid and most-inexperienced and least-skillful lawyers.
The American Bar Association published guidelines for a good defense in a death penalty case: (a) attorneys with prior experience working a capital case, (b) 2 attorneys, 1 investigator, 1 mitigation specialist, and (c) fully funded to pay for travel, private eyes, evidence testing and other things needed to investigate the case. Yet no state meets these standards. And few states pay their state-appointed lawyers well enough to retain competent, effective lawyers. Clearly an unfair advantage on the wrongly accused, ...... "

TL;DR
This is the fault of the court (or whoever brought those lawyers) as extremely serious crimes that has the death penalty on it should never be handled by rookie lawyers.
Also, the long story you gave to me has nothing to do with lawyers.
The police acted corrupted there by forcing a witness to testify against an innocent and they judged one too much by the cover.
You cant blame the death penalty for this.


"5. Murder is wrong, Why you may ask well the governments laws say killing is wrong and anyone to kill anybody gets punished, so why shouldn't the government abid by these laws? Their own laws the death penalty makes the government hypocrites preaching don't kill and they go around a kill even if that person is a criminal justice is suppose to be blind innocent or not its hypocritcal to say don't kill and have the death penalty as a acceptable punishment."

You are completely right, murder is wrong. But the ones that murders is the one that actually gets the death penalty. The murderers killed innocents and we kill them because they arent innocent. Basically thats what we all believe, they already lost their rights the moment they killed someone innocent.


6. Death sentences are handed down arbitrarily, not in a fair manner.
Serial killers such as the infamous Gary Ridgway in Seattle who admitted killing 48 prostitutes and runaways got life in prison. An "angel of death" nurse in NJ who admitted killing 17 people got life. Meanwhile, mentally ill and impoverished murderers who could not afford good lawyers and did not warrant much media attention were given the death penalty. In Alabama, David Hocker was executed after a one-day trial. His mental illness was not sufficiently described to the jury. Alabama also executed a 74-year-old man (James Hubbard) who had been on DR for 27 years and was beset by medical problems which would have probably soon caused his death by natural means: cancer, high blood pressure and the early stages of Alzheimers. In Texas, a man with schizophrenia was executed (Kelsey Patterson) even after the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended clemency after learning of his time spent in mental hospitals and his unintelligible rambling.
Clearly we can see the injustice of these cases where people who have murdered 40 to 10 people and got life while a person who commited one got the death penalty.
The death penalty is wrong and unjust in a civilized society...

Those are all caused by corruption and wrongful sentences.
As I said, we should never allow a rookie to have a case like this.
Corruption exists (dealings, forged evidences, false testimonies) which also affects the sentence. Clearly, this argument shows how much the court has fallen, not how bad the death penalty is.



ATTACK ; Points the finger at your direction*

1. Death penalty cleans up extreme criminals.
Assassins, drug lords, crime syndicates, you name it. All those criminals doesnt deserve to live as they have committed such a sin thats beyond serious felony.
If we keep them in jail, they could either wait or escape from the jail to be free and they continue their usual crime or killing. More reasons why we shouldnt drop the death penalty.


Summary:
Money has no real impact on death penalty, its a sentence against really really evil and demonic criminals. Show me what you've got Phoenix.

Dont feel like bringing arguments up. *sleeps*


Sources:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.city-journal.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

Defending my case

1.Well its their problem for raising such high costs for the prison wings, it doesnt say anything to death penalty directly.
_ objection!! without the death penalty they couldn't charge these taxes_

2.You must know that around the 19th century, they dont have the same technology as we have.(Fingerprints, DNA tests, etc.) Of course the innocent could be brought to death at that time, but now that we have the technology to ascertain who the guilty parties are, innocent being found guilty are very rare.
Also, people know that the suspect could be innocent hence the long years wait.
_Objection!! Slams hands on table* Clearly my opponent thinks that the cops have time to review old cases this is a false assumption as cops have 72 hours to solve a homicide case after that its a cold case cops dont have the time nor would they want to because they have already got their verdict in their eyes your guilty for a case to be reviewed and appealed you would need a good lawyer and a PI which are very expensive im afraid to say most people can't afford this. My opponent clearly is saying let them rot till we figure it out but the fact of the matter is even if the cops look over it this will take years in prison waiting while the people "possibly" yes possibly look over your case and get you out._

3.You dont even know how much bigger US is compared to UK or Australia.
If more people lives in a place, then of course the chance that more people commits crimes are higher. Also, the goal of the death penalty was never to reduce the crime rates, its to punish criminals that have committed such terrible crimes that they no longer have the right to live.
Benefits? You get rid of the criminal. In jail, the criminal could just escape from it.
_ Objection!! No longer have the rights to live well are you saying the court hasn't sent an innocent person to the DP? saying no would be wrong then why does the courts judges,jurists,prosecutor, and police that investigated it not be given the DP?
Secondly you claim they can escape jail but we have all this technology DNA and finger prints and all that other stuff but we can put people in a cell located in a bob wired fence heavily guarded compound? thats idiotic to say.

4.TL;DR
This is the fault of the court (or whoever brought those lawyers) as extremely serious crimes that has the death penalty on it should never be handled by rookie lawyers.
Also, the long story you gave to me has nothing to do with lawyers.
The police acted corrupted there by forcing a witness to testify against an innocent and they judged one too much by the cover.
You cant blame the death penalty for this.
_ Yes your right it is the courts fault and it is corruption why should we allow a corrupt court to possess the power of life or death when clearly the innocent may be incompatantly defended or like this case corruption took hold and get them the death sentence in this sense the court is not innocent. when you put an innocent person on death row and his time comes and you find out too late what are you gonna say to his family? Oops? I'm sorry i unjustly convicted and killed your son, husband,grandfather i can keep going. In your sense of justice the court should sentence itself to death._

4.
You are completely right, murder is wrong. But the ones that murders is the one that actually gets the death penalty. The murderers killed innocents and we kill them because they arent innocent. Basically thats what we all believe, they already lost their rights the moment they killed someone innocent
. _ Objection!! o wow so its only if we kill an innocent person hey lets go kill some gangsters or pedofiles or abusive husbands or wifes, maybe so drug dealers they arn't innocent are they if i get sent to court and prove that they were criminals will they let me go? No they won't in fact you would be better of accepting a guilty sentence, because im sure the court would laugh at you. Justice is blind remember.... or so they say._

5.You are completely right, murder is wrong. But the ones that murders is the one that actually gets the death penalty. The murderers killed innocents and we kill them because they arent innocent. Basically thats what we all believe, they already lost their rights the moment they killed someone innocent.
_ Slams hand on table* again with innocents as i have stated already murdering a crime lord would be that same as killing an everyday joe._

6.Those are all caused by corruption and wrongful sentences.
As I said, we should never allow a rookie to have a case like this.
Corruption exists (dealings, forged evidences, false testimonies) which also affects the sentence. Clearly, this argument shows how much the court has fallen, not how bad the death penalty is.
_ Objection!!!!!! points finger* yet they still allow rookie lawyers to have them. Corruption works for me this proves how the courts can be underminded by the police for a verdict and the DP kills an innocent person why allow this to happen; innocent lives would be saved from death. Not allowing the courts to be underminded by the police like the case i have shown you this person would still be alive if the death penalty did not exist. Is this Justice?? No Edgeworth you clearly need to find some new underware because im about to make you crap your pants!~_

Attacking his Case ( more like paragraph).

1. Death penalty cleans up extreme criminals.
Assassins, drug lords, crime syndicates, you name it. All those criminals doesnt deserve to live as they have committed such a sin thats beyond serious felony.
If we keep them in jail, they could either wait or escape from the jail to be free and they continue their usual crime or killing. More reasons why we shouldnt drop the death penalty
_ Objection!! good people of debate.org i would like to share with you the contradicting truth of this paragraph. Stare down Edgeworth* Pulls out paper reading and tapping it slightly with my hand* For one i have stated that escaping a prison is very very unlikely .., secondly them waiting it out would be impossible for such crimes we would have made a new type of sentence keeping them there for their entire life, this would be a better alternative as we would never have them on the streets again and as well dare i say keep "accidental convictions to the death row" or corruption.


Summary:
Money has no real impact on death penalty, its a sentence against really really evil and demonic criminals. Show me what you've got Phoenix.

_Objection!! Money does have an impact as it affect society which benefiting society is a great value to uphold.
dinokiller

Con

dinokiller forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

Ok will just sit this round out because of edgeworth ..... so yeah
dinokiller

Con

Drinks super soda*
Ok internet is back on, and yeah, i accept lost of conduct.


DEFEND - Gone to drink a cup o joe.


"1. without the death penalty they couldn't charge these taxes"

Without the death penalty, taxes for prisons still exists.




"2. Clearly my opponent thinks that the cops have time to review old cases this is a false assumption as cops have 72 hours to solve a homicide case after that its a cold case cops dont have the time nor would they want to because they have already got their verdict in their eyes your guilty for a case to be reviewed and appealed you would need a good lawyer and a PI which are very expensive im afraid to say most people can't afford this. My opponent clearly is saying let them rot till we figure it out but the fact of the matter is even if the cops look over it this will take years in prison waiting while the people "possibly" yes possibly look over your case and get you out._"


This makes no difference, we now have high tech gears to analyzes crimes.
If someone was found guilty back in the years 1900 and we know that he/she was innocent, we would investigate it. If no sign of innocence was ever found, well too bad.





"3. No longer have the rights to live well are you saying the court hasn't sent an innocent person to the DP? saying no would be wrong then why does the courts judges,jurists,prosecutor, and police that investigated it not be given the DP?
Secondly you claim they can escape jail but we have all this technology DNA and finger prints and all that other stuff but we can put people in a cell located in a bob wired fence heavily guarded compound? thats idiotic to say."


Seems i watched too much movies, but you cant rule out the possibility of jail breakouts.
Also, not everyone should be punished by DP if an innocent is sentenced to DP. Police investigates, prosecutors builds case, judges declares verdict based on evidence and jurists votes also depending on the evidence and situation. If even 1 fails, everything falls. We should be looking at where the wrong thing existed and punish them depending whethers its an accident or corruption.





"4. Yes your right it is the courts fault and it is corruption why should we allow a corrupt court to possess the power of life or death when clearly the innocent may be incompatantly defended or like this case corruption took hold and get them the death sentence in this sense the court is not innocent. when you put an innocent person on death row and his time comes and you find out too late what are you gonna say to his family? Oops? I'm sorry i unjustly convicted and killed your son, husband,grandfather i can keep going. In your sense of justice the court should sentence itself to death._"

Partly right. But, technology at this point can and will easily identify corruption like falsified evidence or fake testimonies. First of all, we have the lie detector (magatama works better IMO) that detects lies and those new lab equipments that can identify things that even the human eye cant see.
Not to mention, corruption in a court is easily noticable. (contradicting evidence, arguments, unjustified sentences, false votes)



"4. . _ Objection!! o wow so its only if we kill an innocent person hey lets go kill some gangsters or pedofiles or abusive husbands or wifes, maybe so drug dealers they arn't innocent are they if i get sent to court and prove that they were criminals will they let me go? No they won't in fact you would be better of accepting a guilty sentence, because im sure the court would laugh at you. Justice is blind remember.... or so they say._"

Wow, after 4 comes 4 again? Nice counting Phoenix.
Of course you cant expect to be innocent after you go around to shoot some gangsters just because they aint innocent. But at the same time, you dont even know if the gangster really had committed a crime or not. If they did, the police would be coming to haul their asses in.
Basically, no one except the court has the power to kill someone, if you do, you are a murderer too. (Well, punishment are always lower)



"5. Slams hand on table* again with innocents as i have stated already murdering a crime lord would be that same as killing an everyday joe._"

Points finger* Hates to repeat myself*
Court has the power, thats all.


"6. yet they still allow rookie lawyers to have them. Corruption works for me this proves how the courts can be underminded by the police for a verdict and the DP kills an innocent person why allow this to happen; innocent lives would be saved from death. Not allowing the courts to be underminded by the police like the case i have shown you this person would still be alive if the death penalty did not exist. Is this Justice?? No Edgeworth you clearly need to find some new underware because im about to make you crap your pants!~_"

My pants are new, too bad huh? Nothing to argue here except that if they were to prevent rookies from handling, it prevents such things.
However, that case you provided says nothing about now as its in the year 1900s.
Prove it that such thing still exists in 2011 (doesnt have to be exactly 2011 lol)



DEFENDING MY PARAGRAPH - I like paragraphs :D

"good people of debate.org i would like to share with you the contradicting truth of this paragraph. Stare down Edgeworth* Pulls out paper reading and tapping it slightly with my hand* For one i have stated that escaping a prison is very very unlikely .., secondly them waiting it out would be impossible for such crimes we would have made a new type of sentence keeping them there for their entire life, this would be a better alternative as we would never have them on the streets again and as well dare i say keep "accidental convictions to the death row" or corruption."


As I said, the chances of breakouts are small, but not impossible.
I never supported that DP was better in any way, im only allowing DP, nothing else.
If you prefer life sentence, then have it your way, but that doesnt make DP look so bad that it should be removed.





Summary:
Karma is a b*tch, nuff said. Money problem never existed because of DP, its the wrong use of the government. They invested too much into prisons. Too lazy to type longer.


Debate Round No. 4
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

Defending my case!

Number 1: Good voters of debate.org i would like to say that we are at a very similar situation to say that either case no dp or yes dp their will be taxes that follows so either way this argument works on neither side.

attack on my defense of number 2: This makes no difference, we now have high tech gears to analyzes crimes.
If someone was found guilty back in the years 1900 and we know that he/she was innocent, we would investigate it. If no sign of innocence was ever found, well too bad.
( Well too bad , well thats what you would tell their mother,dad,wife,husband and/or children. Is that the kind of judical system we want? Of course not. There is no justice in it, for cases given back in the 1990's were most likely excuted by the time they found the truth, all the cases on www.deathpenaltyinfo.org source which i have given were 1990's cases all executed then proven innocent years later without the DP these people would still be alive and released alas they were murdered by the state. well too bad, we will try better next time tell that to their families. As for the high tech gear yes we have high tech gear which is very helpful to finding the truth but however evidence only works how its interpreted and if there isn't any missing evidence.As well as wittnesses lying and etc, Framing evidence isn't perfect and innocent people are still being put in jail however i will agree that it is very unlikely now thanks to CSI and the technology we have but it can still happen. I only want DP gone as a safe guard for those incidents were innocents were put in death row and executed without DP their are no innocent deaths and possible a release when the police find the truth.)

Attack on my defense for number 3:
Seems i watched too much movies, but you cant rule out the possibility of jail breakouts.
Also, not everyone should be punished by DP if an innocent is sentenced to DP. Police investigates, prosecutors builds case, judges declares verdict based on evidence and jurists votes also depending on the evidence and situation. If even 1 fails, everything falls. We should be looking at where the wrong thing existed and punish them depending whethers its an accident or corruption.
(Well we might not have to rule out the possiblity of a jail break but that possiblity is as slim as edgeworth actually beating pheonix wright in the game.... very very small, or you just suck at the game you pick lol, As well i would like to point out my opponent isn't very clear saying not everyone should get DP i would like him to clarify. By the way a verdict is not determined by the judge!!! But the jury.. i would like my opponent to think of bia's jurist can easily vote guilty upon race,gender,what kind clothes you wear just what ever the dislike jury nulification can be used wrongly and has been in some cases.)

Attack on my defense for number 4: Partly right. But, technology at this point can and will easily identify corruption like falsified evidence or fake testimonies. First of all, we have the lie detector (magatama works better IMO) that detects lies and those new lab equipments that can identify things that even the human eye cant see.
Not to mention, corruption in a court is easily noticable. (contradicting evidence,arguments, unjustified sentences, false votes)

(easily noticable yes always stopped? no)

Attack on Defense number 5:Points finger* Hates to repeat myself*
Court has the power, thats all

(Objection!!! Thats my point no one should have such power. Its hypocritcal...)

Attack on my Defense number 6:My pants are new, too bad huh? Nothing to argue here except that if they were to prevent rookies from handling, it prevents such things.
However, that case you provided says nothing about now as its in the year 1900s.
Prove it that such thing still exists in 2011 (doesnt have to be exactly 2011 lol)

http://researchnews.osu.edu... you go rates of innocently convicted people in the years of the 21st centry. And the fact is state paid lawyers are under paid rookies and still used today thats the fact no If they dont let rookies do it the facts are they still do.

Attacking his defense( less than 3 sentences) for his paragraph:


As I said, the chances of breakouts are small, but not impossible.
I never supported that DP was better in any way, im only allowing DP, nothing else.
If you prefer life sentence, then have it your way, but that doesnt make DP look so bad that it should be removed.

Yeah not impossibly but very very unlikely with all this technology that you keep going on about.
If its not better why have it that doesn't even help your case more likely it weakens it.
Actually it does as it prevents accidental deaths of the wrongly accused No DP mean no possiblity of innocent death at all.
dinokiller

Con

Time to wrap things up

COUNTER; *YELLS OBJECTION*


"( Well too bad , well thats what you would tell their mother,dad,wife,husband and/or children. Is that the kind of judical system we want? Of course not. There is no justice in it, for cases given back in the 1990's were most likely excuted by the time they found the truth, all the cases on www.deathpenaltyinfo.org source which i have given were 1990's cases all executed then proven innocent years later without the DP these people would still be alive and released alas they were murdered by the state. well too bad, we will try better next time tell that to their families. As for the high tech gear yes we have high tech gear which is very helpful to finding the truth but however evidence only works how its interpreted and if there isn't any missing evidence.As well as wittnesses lying and etc, Framing evidence isn't perfect and innocent people are still being put in jail however i will agree that it is very unlikely now thanks to CSI and the technology we have but it can still happen. I only want DP gone as a safe guard for those incidents were innocents were put in death row and executed without DP their are no innocent deaths and possible a release when the police find the truth.)"



You keep repeating about 1990, yet we're talking about here and now. A case that has happened at nearly 1990 clearly has no impact on the modern day. In other words, you cant compare 1990 with 2011 if we looked at DP.






"(Well we might not have to rule out the possiblity of a jail break but that possiblity is as slim as edgeworth actually beating pheonix wright in the game.... very very small, or you just suck at the game you pick lol, As well i would like to point out my opponent isn't very clear saying not everyone should get DP i would like him to clarify. By the way a verdict is not determined by the judge!!! But the jury.. i would like my opponent to think of bia's jurist can easily vote guilty upon race,gender,what kind clothes you wear just what ever the dislike jury nulification can be used wrongly and has been in some cases.)"


With not everyone should be getting DP, im obviously referring to corruption.
If you did something that influenced the trial like forging testimonies or faking evidence, you deserve to be put to DP. And getting caught is very easy.
Also, what were you thinking? You should be knowing that that isnt allowed. Juries cant vote on personal dislikes. Everyone will find it odd if evidences and testimonies points a defendant innocent while you chose guilty. Of course with such actions, there will be harsh punishments for the jury.




(easily noticable yes always stopped? no)

Thats bs, if it is easily noticeable, THEN IT IS EASILY STOPPED.
The judge has the power to do so, and if he doesnt, hes either dumb or corrupted.
If the judge doesnt stop, another invidual will stop. (duh, its easily noticeable)




(Objection!!! Thats my point no one should have such power. Its hypocritcal...)

Well, the court has the power to sentence the guilty party punishments, DP belongs there as a punishment, i see no problem why they have such power.




"http://researchnews.osu.edu...... you go rates of innocently convicted people in the years of the 21st centry. And the fact is state paid lawyers are under paid rookies and still used today thats the fact no If they dont let rookies do it the facts are they still do."


Giving me broken links doesnt help much either, broken link means NOT A SOURCE.
But it has nothing to do with the DP and my point was that if they didnt allow the rookies to defend, the need to banish DP is no longer an issue.



DEFEND; *SHINES MY BADGE*


"Yeah not impossibly but very very unlikely with all this technology that you keep going on about.
If its not better why have it that doesn't even help your case more likely it weakens it.
Actually it does as it prevents accidental deaths of the wrongly accused No DP mean no possiblity of innocent death at all."

You are absolutely right, if theres no DP, there will be no accidental deaths.
But what are the odds of an innocent sent to jail now? Clearly none.
So, banishing DP is a waste of time.


SUMMARY:
Punishments by the court like life sentence and DP is fine, it doesnt need banishing.
DP is a punishment with the sole reason of punishing the guilty parties, it can be seen as any other punishments. (except the part where you get shot in the head)


Yeah i dont like summaries to be honest with you Phoenix.




Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 5 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Juries are charged today with the responsibility of reaching a verdict based on the facts of a case within the law as it is explained by the trial judge. Almost since the beginning of the jury in England, however, jurors have engaged in "nullification," where the jury exercises its discretion "in favor of a defendant whom the jury nonetheless believes to have committed the act with which he is charged" (Green, 1985). Jury deliberations are secret; thus, nullification is both a covert and controversial activity. When people suspect that it has occurred, nullification is seen as a fundamental threat to the rule of law, a triumph of democratic government, or (paradoxically) a little of both.

This section of "The American Jury" offers background and resources on jury nullification- what it is, how and when it occurs, and why it arouses such strong passions. It also offers lessons and classroom resources to help students explore and understand this issue.

http://www.crfc.org...

Dinokiller stop ignoring the truth, Jury nullification exists.
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
Well i cant check if its true or not :O
I could say that Kentucky is still alive and granted me a mountain of chickens, yet we cant see it so we cant prove it.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Jury nullifications was in a NFL LD debate topic its real trust me
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
lol, not brothers, its just rivals.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Like two brothers arguing lol.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
@FREEDO haha yeah I know, funny.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Yup, I noticed those 2 sources conflicts each other... and they're both from wikipedia...

Now i dont know which one is right.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
wiki is not reliable lol but here

the jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict.[citation needed] It was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. However, in most modern Western legal systems, juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, and the weight accorded to the evidence,[1] but not the application of that evidence to the law. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification.
Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve the refusal of American revolutionaries to convict a defendant under English law.[2] Juries have also refused to convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general,[3] or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases.[4] There have also been cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
http://en.wikipedia.org...

You know where to look, trust me.
Now its your turn to prove yourself.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
keep saying that yet you cant prove that they can't so go look it up im not kidding
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
joshuaXlawyerdinokillerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: He failed to capitalize.