The Instigator
MasturDeBator2009
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gusgusthegreat
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

If We Use The Death Penalty We Should Use the Guillotine

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 2 votes the winner is...
gusgusthegreat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,285 times Debate No: 10930
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

MasturDeBator2009

Pro

The scope of this debate is that we should use the guillotine IF we have the death penalty. We're not debating whether we should have the death penalty in the first place in this debate. Con must argue that IF we use the death penalty the form should not be the guillotine.

If we have the death penalty using the guillotine makes sense because...
1. The Guillotine kills almost instantly so it would be painless or at least nearly painless. Not only does this make it the most humane method of execution it also makes it the least likely to be overruled as cruel under the Constitution.
2. Frightening to onlookers so it would have more deterrence value even though its relatively painless.
3. Would leave organs intact and ready to be donated as opposed to electrocution (which fries organs) or lethal injection (which poisons them).
4. Its cost effective. All you need is some wood, a metal blade, and a rope as opposed to high tech equipment or chemicals.
gusgusthegreat

Con

1. The guillotine, in fact, cannot be conclusively said to be a "painless" method of execution, and it most certainly does not kill "almost instantly". During the Reign of Terror and the French Revolution, use of the guillotine was perhaps the most prominent it has been at any point throughout history. During that period of history, scientists observed executions to determine if, in fact, decapitation via guillotine was "quick and painless". They would ask those condemned to death to blink several times in succession if they were still conscious and alive. Not only were the subjects able to comply, but the blinking would often continue from 13 to 30 seconds after the head had been severed. In addition, in at least one instance, a man was able to call out his friend's name and receive a conscious response. This is the account, from A History of the Guillotine by Alister Kershaw:

"It was then that I called in a strong, sharp voice: 'Languille!' I saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contractions ... Next Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves ... After several seconds, the eyelids closed again, slowly and evenly, and the head took on the same appearance as it had had before I called out."

Furthermore, modern scientists have determined that the actual act of removing the head from the body does not kill the brain, and in turn, the person. Instead, death is due to the suffocation to due to oxygen deprivation; cytochromes in the brain can only function for 13-30 seconds without new oxygen and glucose. Thus, the brain is able to experience the excruciating pain of a severed neck in quantities enough to be considered "as cruel and unusual", without actually killing the subject. Hardly humane or "painless".

Sources:
http://europeanhistory.about.com...
http://aintnowaytogo.com...

2. Even if the guillotine were not "cruel and unusual" to enact in the first place, making a public showcase of the condemned is hardly a function of modern democracy. Civilizations and governments that have done so in the past were some of the most ruthless dictatorships of their time. Additionally, the primary purpose of capital punishment it not to "frighten onlookers" into submission. While this may be a side effect of killing those who have committed serious crimes, the primary objective is to deal justice to the criminal. Whether or not someone will be killed after committing a crime should not be a potential criminal's motivation to refrain. A society in which this is the case is a moral failure. As such, not only is the guillotine inhumane, but any attempt to use it as a fear-inspiring device would be doubly so, in addition to being immoral.

3. Here, my opponent seems to imply that it would somehow be moral to take the organs of criminals for use in donation even if they were not organ donors. This is simply not the case. To do so would be to further violate another human being's rights under the law and make those who took the organs and the beneficiaries arbiters of the principle that "breaking the law is okay when the person you violated was 'bad'".

However, assuming that the criminal had agreed to be an organ donor, the guillotine is not the only method of execution by which organs could be preserved. Execution by firing squad, which most certainly does kill instantly and is thoroughly humane, would preserve all organs preserved by the guillotine, if not more. To suggest that the resorting to the guillotine would somehow be an improvement over the current system of capital punishment due to its ability to preserve organs creates false dilemma. We do not need to choose between the guillotine and organ preservation or electrocution/injection and damaged organs. There are alternatives.

4. It's really not all that cost effective. We already have electric chairs, guns, and syringes with chemicals. The cost of building ethically- and physically-approved guillotines and jumping through all the governmental loops to institute them as a common method of execution would far outweigh the cost continuing current, alternative methods.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDeBator2009

Pro

"The guillotine…conclusively…execution"

Notice the word "conclusively". This doesn't mean that it isn't painless just that it has not been proven to be. Even if there's pain this doesn't show that the guillotine isn't the best method. The person's alive for 13-30 more seconds but consciousness is lost in 2-3 seconds per Con's own sources[1]. This limits the possible length of pain to 2-3 seconds. Since "pain" is a brain function that'd also decrease as brain cells die so it's not necessarily true that pain is felt for the entire 2-3 seconds. We can't be sure pain is felt at all. It could be the case that damage is done faster than pain can be felt. But even if there's pain other forms of execution can be conclusively proven to cause worse pain.

Let's compare the possible pain from the guillotine to the known pain caused by other methods of execution.

=Electrocution=

There're major problems with this. For starters even if it kills the first time the inmate will feel a painful shock through their body before it reaches the brain.

But there are worse problems. It has proven hard to guarantee death from the first jolt[2]. People who don't die at first are shocked over and over until they die. In one case after a failed electrocution, that of Willie Francis there was an appeal before putting him through it again[3]. The machine was set up wrong by an intoxicated prison guard. Unlike electric chairs guillotines don't need to be "set up". All that needs to be done is lift the blade up, put the person's head in the hole and drop the blade.

Electric chairs have been mostly replaced by lethal injection. Nebraska even ruled them unconstitutional[4]. In Florida an inmate's head caught fire during the procedure [5]. Since Nebraska's ruling there's no state where inmates must be executed by electric chair, only states where this is an option where inmates can choose their execution method[6].

=Lethal Injection=

Lethal Injection has many problems. Sometimes it takes over an hour poking the inmate over and over to find a vein[7]. In one case they missed the vein, going into soft tissue. This failed to kill the inmate and he was injected again[8]. A big problem is the AMA discourages physicians from participating in the death of an inmate[9], so the people administering the lethal injection often don't have professional training.

But operating a guillotine is simple and would hardly require any training at all as all you're doing is raising a blade and dropping it[10].

If the guillotine's cruel just because it causes pain for 2-3 seconds then other methods must be cruel too. Since this debate concerns "if we have the death penalty" it makes sense to use the guillotine to minimize cruelty and potential constitutional challenges.

"Even…democracy."

It doesn't have to be performed publicly. People knowing its going on will be enough.

"Additionally…criminal."

There are many reasons for the death penalty not just one "primary objective". Between "Justice/Retribution" and "Deterrence" deterrence is the more compelling justification. "Deterrence" if it works prevents death if the death penalty is used against murderers. While justice is important what is even more important is saving lives. Since beheaded is more frightening than other methods it increases the deterrence the death penalty may have making it more useful for that purpose than other methods. In the end regardless of which function of the death penalty is more important there's no reason to think that the "guillotine" would deliver "justice" any less than other methods.

"Whether… failure."

And whether or not someone will be imprisoned after committing a crime shouldn't be a potential criminal's motivation to refrain. The motive should be because it's wrong. But unfortunately a few people feel no moral compulsion against committing crimes. That's why there's laws. If people just did the right thing we wouldn't need laws, police or sentences. That a few must be persuaded not to commit crime by threat of punishment doesn't prove society is a moral failure.

"Here…donors."

Now Con is putting words in my mouth. I never implied forced retrieval. My point was this form of execution gives inmates the choice of donating. This could not only save lives but help give convicts a chance at redemption, a way to make amends for their crimes if they choose.

"Execution…more."

Execution by firing squad does NOT kill instantly[11]. It causes hemorrhage and shock which would not be instant from a shot to the chest and would be painful. That's if it's done right. In some cases an additional shot to the head is necessary to kill the inmate. Besides this if done right the bullet will kill by destroying the heart and lungs, ruining the organs and preventing transplant.

On the other hand execution by guillotine if done right would leave the person aware at worst 2-3 seconds after the beheading and it preserves everything. Since it severs the neck it doesn't go through any organs leaving all intact for donation if the inmate consents.

"It's…chemicals."

Electric chairs take electricity, which is costly, leading to a higher electric bill for the prisons where the sentence is carried out. And in prisons that get their electricity from fossil fuels this leads to more more pollutants in the atmosphere and contributes to global warming.

As for guns, bullets aren't reusable and so firing squad executions require new bullets be bought, and are even more expensive considering that it's done by a squad instead of one person.

Chemicals cost a great deal of money to develop, produce and distribute, are also not reusable and so must be replaced.

The guillotine on the other hand only requires that a single instrument be built. This may be used over and over again. There's no element of the execution that requires constant replacement.

"The cost…methods."

It wouldn't be that expensive. It's not hard to build a guillotine. The only important thing is making sure the blade's sharp enough and will cut all the way through. We already have designs that work well from when the French used it. If we use the same design it should be fine. And once built it's not necessary to rebuild for the same place. One per jurisdiction would be enough.

Also old equipment can be recycled. Metals, plastics, and other materials could be extracted from the old equipment, or alternatively the old methods of execution could be placed in a museum and money could be made from people coming to see things like the "electric chair" once they become historical artifacts.

This could lead to more commerce. When someone's executed by electrocution or lethal injection it isn't usually that news worthy. People are used to it. Imagine how many newspapers would be sold when the guillotine is back and then during the first couple executions and even the trials leading up to it. Just the speculation that a person might eventually face the guillotine would sell papers. That means more people buying papers, more money in our economy and more jobs.

It'd also increase jobs for people who build guillotines and people paid to disassemble old equipment like electric chairs.

1.http://aintnowaytogo.com...
2.http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...
3.http://www.jstor.org...
4.http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...
5.http://www.nydailynews.com...
6.http://en.wikipedia.org...
7.http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk...
8.http://www.newsdaily.com...
9.http://www.ama-assn.org...
10.http://en.wikipedia.org...
11.http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...
gusgusthegreat

Con

"Notice...pain."

The word "conclusively" was NOT included in my previous argument as a way for Pro to suggest that the guillotine might be acceptable because "we really can't say we 'know' either way". If, in fact, our knowledge concerning the guillotine's pain causing capabilities is as questionable as Pro says, my argument is furthered. Do we REALLY want to execute people and call it humane if we really don't know whether or not they're conscious long enough to experience pain? I think not. Furthermore, "Con's own sources" were not given in their full context during Pro's use of them for his argument. He says that they say people are only aware for 2-3 seconds. This is true. But here is the context in which this is said:

"Guillotining was considered more humane because the blade was sharper and execution was more rapid than accomplished with an axe. Death occurs due to separation of the brain and spinal cord, after transection of the surrounding tissues. This must cause acute and possibly severe pain. Consciousness is probably lost within 2-3 seconds, due to a rapid fall of intracranial perfusion of blood." (1)

So it's more humane than an ax because it's faster, but they still experience vast amounts of pain. The guillotine is an artifact of the 18th century. It has been discontinued in modern, enlightened nations for a reason.

"Electrocution...challenges."

I never said that the electric chair or lethal injection were good alternatives to the guillotine. I merely said that continuing such methods would be more cost effective than introducing the guillotine as a new method of execution. As such, I feel no obligation to discuss the merits of lethal injection or the electric chair in modern society. Furthermore, to suggest that we're either stuck with switching to the guillotine or staying with the modern methods to which Pro is opposed is a false dilemma. As I said in my last argument, "we do not need to choose between the guillotine and organ preservation or electrocution/injection and damaged organs. There are alternatives."

"But operating..dropping it."

Do you really think that if the government's and the people's goal is to make execution more humane that they'll still used untrained people to "do the deed"? Even if the process is as simple as lifting a blade and dropping it, I find it highly unlikely that the government or the people will consent to random people doing it if they honestly want to reform the death penalty.

"If the guillotine's cruel...challenges."

Here, again, Pro poses a false dilemma. He essentially says that if the guillotine is cruel because it causes pain for 2-3 seconds, then other methods are cruel as well. This is not the case. There are alternatives to both lethal injection, the electric chair, and the guillotine that DO kill instantly and are not shrouded in debate. "If we have the death penalty" does not, therefore, constitute use of the guillotine.

One method of execution that may be more humane are firing squad to the HEAD, though there may be others. The point is that we do not need to resign ourselves to the guillotine because it "might be more humane".

"It doesn't...other methods."

You'd think the electric chair, or even death in general, would act as a deterrent, but it doesn't. The death penalty is still dealt. There is no reason the guillotine would be any better. Anyone deterred by the death penalty would have already been deterred by the prospect of life in prison. People who are not deterred by that cannot be deterred by any punishment. (2)

"And whether...moral failure."

No, it doesn't prove that society is a moral failure, but it certainly doesn't make it morally justifiable for those with "moral compulsion" to enact scare tactics. Furthermore, the guillotine, and, in fact, the death penalty in general, are not effective deterrents to crime. See the above.

"Now Con...choose."

I'm glad to see that Pro doesn't intend to violate an inmate's choice of organ donation, despite his willingness to decapitate them. However, his argument here fails on the grounds that the guillotine is the only method of execution which preserves organs. Firing squad using shots to the head would preserve the organs just as effectively, and there are certainly other methods which could be concocted to do the same, provided a societal moral decision to find one.

"Execution by firing squad...transplant."

I'll agree that the current firing squad system is flawed. This is why squad's should shoot the head, not the heart, providing instant death and preservation of organs.

"Electric chairs...replacement."

The electricity will be produced regardless of whether or not it is used for the execution by the electric chair. Furthermore, uses of the electric chair are are few and far between, making any use of the electric chair completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Bullets are manufactured en masse regardless of their ultimate usage. The cost of production of bullets will not decrease if the guillotine is used instead of firing squad

The chemicals used in lethal injection are usually just excessive doses of medical anesthetic or easily obtainable toxins. In the case of the former, they'll be manufactured anyway, and the amount used for lethal injection is insignificant in the overall scheme.

It is somewhat apparent that Pro does not fully understand the concept of supply and demand, at least not inasmuch as it applies to this case. Each of the modern methods of execution Pro listed, if discontinued, would not have ANY effect on overall demand for the supplies needed in each case.

"It wouldn't...old equipment like electric chairs."

Institution of the guillotine would also require that far more than "a single instrument be built". It would be necessary to have them at convenient locations all over the country in order to carry out execution. Getting federal and state governments to approve the guillotine in the first place would be tedious, let alone the process of getting a standardized, humane design approved. Recycling old equipment, as Pro suggests is feasible, would likely be rejected as foolish by anyone concerned with the specifications of the proposed guillotine. Even if the blade is "the only important thing", it is unlikely that the politicians of modern bureaucracy would see it that way. Achieving widespread acceptance of the guillotine would be nigh impossible.

Finally, Michael Radelet, chairman of UF's sociology department and a longtime researcher of death penalty issues, has said "the cost of executing a prisoner in Florida averages about $3.2 million, mostly in trial costs. Keeping that same person in prison for life costs only about $600,000, and the millions of dollars spent on executing prisoners could be put to much better use."(2)

To suggest the guillotine is a good idea because it'll sell papers and provide more money for the "uncondemned" is ludicrous. There were only 52 cases of capital punishment in the United States in all of 2009. (3) This is about the average each year. Do you recognize even 3 names on the list of people provided in source (3)? Even one? Likely not. This fact alone attests to the "massive" press coverage death penalties get. There may be some press hype over the guillotine after its introduction, but this would soon wear down. People would get used to it and press sales would return to normal, just like after every Presidential speech. To suggest that the execution of 52 people and the associated jobs and sales, even if they were all done by guillotine, will have any impact on the population or economy of the United States is absurd to the highest degree.

Sources:
1. http://aintnowaytogo.com...
2. http://news.ufl.edu...
3. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDeBator2009

Pro

MasturDeBator2009 forfeited this round.
gusgusthegreat

Con

My opponent has forfeited the round, but this action was apparently due to an unexpected case of appendicitis, which I deem to be a most valid excuse. As such, I will refrain from adding further contentions to my argument until my opponent responds in the next round. I would also like to wish my opponent a speedy recovery.
Debate Round No. 3
MasturDeBator2009

Pro

I would like to thank Con for his understanding.

"So it's more humane than an ax because it's faster, but they still experience vast amounts of pain."

For at most 2-3 seconds. This does not disprove that as a method of execution it is superior to other possible methods.

"Do you really think that if the government's and the people's goal is to make execution more humane that they'll still used untrained people to "do the deed"? Even if the process is as simple as lifting a blade and dropping it, I find it highly unlikely that the government or the people will consent to random people doing it if they honestly want to reform the death penalty."

I'm sure the person would have to undergo some training, but this also goes for operators of current methods, especially the rarely used firing squad method. It would take even more training and therefore more money to get the shot precise.

"One method of execution that may be more humane are firing squad to the HEAD, though there may be others. The point is that we do not need to resign ourselves to the guillotine because it "might be more humane"."

This would NOT kill instantly any more than the guillotine would kill instantly. There would have to be at least a short amount of time between when the bullet penetrates the skin, goes through the skull, and enters the brain causing death.

In fact shooting a person in the head does not guarantee death. There are many instances of people surviving being shot in the head. One woman was shot through her head by her husband and lived[1]. One man shot himself five times in the head and still survived[2]. Though they lived it must have been excruciatingly painful. The same thing could happen in the context of an execution. The inmate would go through excruciating pain before having to be shot again. With the guillotine death is a guarantee, because the head is completely severed from the body and therefore any vital organs such as the heart and lungs.
"You'd think the electric chair, or even death in general, would act as a deterrent, but it doesn't. The death penalty is still dealt. There is no reason the guillotine would be any better. Anyone deterred by the death penalty would have already been deterred by the prospect of life in prison. People who are not deterred by that cannot be deterred by any punishment."
There is substantial evidence showing the death penalty does have a deterrent value[3]. A 1973 study showed that for every executed inmate 7 lives were saved because others were deterred from committing murder. Other studies might not be conclusive, because the amount of time due to appeals limits the deterrent value of the death penalty. Using the guillotine would lower the number of appeals. With current methods there are too many factors the inmates can complain about, and the very real risk of a failed execution attempt. With the guillotine there is no risk of a failed execution attempt so the inmate can't complain that he is likely to face extra pain due to having to go through it more than once.
"I'm glad to see that Pro doesn't intend to violate an inmate's choice of organ donation, despite his willingness to decapitate them. However, his argument here fails on the grounds that the guillotine is the only method of execution which preserves organs. Firing squad using shots to the head would preserve the organs just as effectively, and there are certainly other methods which could be concocted to do the same, provided a societal moral decision to find one."
And what if the squad misses? Also Con has brought up the cost of training people to run the guillotines. Switching to firing squad would produce the same costs, since there are few states that use it and training people to be perfect shots would take more effort than training someone to use a guillotine.
"The electricity will be produced regardless of whether or not it is used for the execution by the electric chair."
It would only knock a little off the prison's electric bill but over enough time it would mean real savings for the prison and therefore taxpayers.
"Bullets are manufactured en masse regardless of their ultimate usage. The cost of production of bullets will not decrease if the guillotine is used instead of firing squad"
I don't expect they would go straight to the factory to ask them to produce the bullets. They would go and buy them at a store. It is a very small expense, but an expense nonetheless and one that piles up over time. Over the course of a few centuries savings could be huge for not having to buy bullets.
"The chemicals used in lethal injection are usually just excessive doses of medical anesthetic or easily obtainable toxins. In the case of the former, they'll be manufactured anyway, and the amount used for lethal injection is insignificant in the overall scheme."
Again the point isn't whether they will be manufactured but whether the government will have to spend tax payer money to buy them. And yes chemicals produced in labs are fairly expensive. Again this might be a drop in the bucket for one execution, but over time the amount would add up.
"Institution of the guillotine would also require that far more than "a single instrument be built". It would be necessary to have them at convenient locations all over the country in order to carry out execution."
There are many states that have only one execution instrument and it is enough because not that many people are sentenced to death. The condemned are all shipped to the same prison to await sentence. I don't see why we would have to change this if we started using the guillotine.
"Getting federal and state governments to approve the guillotine in the first place would be tedious, let alone the process of getting a standardized, humane design approved."
We already have a design. Just use the old French one. There was never a case where the French guillotine failed to decapitate the first time or slowed down in the middle.
"Recycling old equipment, as Pro suggests is feasible, would likely be rejected as foolish by anyone concerned with the specifications of the proposed guillotine."
Exactly what is foolish about recycling old parts that used to be electric chairs and such?
"Even if the blade is "the only important thing", it is unlikely that the politicians of modern bureaucracy would see it that way. Achieving widespread acceptance of the guillotine would be nigh impossible."
There would undoubtedly be some red tape, but to suggest it is "nigh impossible" is ridiculous. Other forms of execution passed fine, and many pro-death penalty people might be easily persuaded when reminded that the currently used methods are being challenged all the time and are easier to rule "cruel" and therefore "unconstitutional" than the guillotine.
"To suggest the …highest degree."
Just because interest in "guillotine executions" might die down does not mean there will not be a lasting impact on newspaper sales and therefore the economy as a whole. This might bring people new habits. People who buy newspapers to read about the executions might keep buying newspapers into the future.
Sources:
1.http://www.politicalwrinkles.com...
2.http://thepirata.com...
3. http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...
gusgusthegreat

Con

gusgusthegreat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MasturDeBator2009

Pro

MasturDeBator2009 forfeited this round.
gusgusthegreat

Con

gusgusthegreat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MasturDeBator2009 4 years ago
MasturDeBator2009
Rats. Got caught up in my assignments. Oh well.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 4 years ago
gusgusthegreat
I apologize for forfeiting the round. It was not due to anything pressing, such as appendicitis, but was rather the cause of negligence on my part. Feel free to add further contentions to your argument. I will respond to each of then categorically. Again, I apologize for my forfeiture.
Posted by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
good debate
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
Oh man sorry about that. You have a good point in this debate though.
Posted by MasturDeBator2009 4 years ago
MasturDeBator2009
It was a laproscopic surgery so I got discharged the same day (today) but was there yesterday. Didnt expect it 2 actually turn out to be appendicitis. Thought they'd just find the stomach flu or a bad muscle cramp. So they kept me over night 4 surgery this morning. Had been planning 2 respond but ran outta time at the hospital.
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
Nooooooo! WHY THE FORFEIT???
Posted by MasturDeBator2009 4 years ago
MasturDeBator2009
No fair I had 2 get my appendix out.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
Why don't we just use a guillotine that cuts into the brain?
Posted by sherlockmethod 4 years ago
sherlockmethod
Con,
You are doing well so far (I won't give advice during a debate). Good luck as I would like for you to blow this one up; the resources are there for you to do it.

Pro,
Love some of your points. You have a hard challenge here, but you can do well. I am looking forward to this one.
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
I'm not going to argue with that. The best I could do would be some sort of 'coarsening society' bit from doing it in public that I don't believe is worse than status quo.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by new-world-order 4 years ago
new-world-order
MasturDeBator2009gusgusthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by gusgusthegreat 4 years ago
gusgusthegreat
MasturDeBator2009gusgusthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07