The Instigator
KyrinAnderson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SnaxAttack
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Is Death Penalty Fair?

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 2 votes the winner is...
SnaxAttack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 660 times Debate No: 81440
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

KyrinAnderson

Con

Our Government says that "killers should be killed" so does that mean that rapist should be raped and arsonist should have their houses burnt down?
In my opinion this is not fair. Just because someone did something bad doesn't give the Government the right to just swoop right in and say "I'm gonna kill you and you".
SnaxAttack

Pro

However, we must consider the fact on who commited the crime. Did the government commit the crime, or the criminal doing the action? The criminal who decided their fate when commiting the crime, and if that crime is murder; they deserve the consequences on the Death Penalty. Of course following the topic "Is the Death Penalty Fair", it is fair because the criminal isn't just killed off after the crime, he or she needs to go through court. The jury, or judge, will then decide their fate which is fair; and also there is the suituation with Death Row where the criminal does get a chance to prove their innocence.

How is this not fair, when the criminal decided upon their fate?
Debate Round No. 1
KyrinAnderson

Con

Yes, but our Government is now showing us that killing is right. It doesn't matter how it looks in their eyes. They are killing the murderer after the murderer killed someone, so it's two murders right there.
SnaxAttack

Pro

Once more, my opponent fails to answer how this is unfair. It isn't because my opponent fails to look at the accountability of the criminal commiting the crime. Why should he or she be able to live after taking the life of another? That isn't fair, but actually keeping the criminal alive while the families are suffering from a loss of their loved one.
Debate Round No. 2
KyrinAnderson

Con

And you don't mention that I quote "In practice, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim." I'm not just fighting for the whites here. So far I haven't mention that blacks are mostly mentioned that they kill more than whites. Well not be racial here, but ever time a white person kills somebody they blame it on the blacks. Well if death penalty is overrated to yes than I rather not live. For death penalty is if the government does it than everybody would wish they were already dead, it's not going to stop the killings it will increase it more than it needs to be. Half the murderers that do kill someone are either ashamed or wish they could die which happens most of the time. 'With respect to race, studies have repeatedly shown that a death sentence is far more likely where a white person is murdered than where a black person is murdered. The death penalty is racially divisive because it appears to count white lives as more valuable than black lives. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 254 black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim, while only 18 white defendants have been executed for the murder of a black victim. Such racial disparities have existed over the history of the death penalty and appear to be largely intractable.' So my argument is that everyone in the world will end up dead if we have a death penalty, because at least once in your life u make a big mistake that will end up killing or getting someone in the hospital.
SnaxAttack

Pro

Before begining my argument, I like to address a few things about my opponents argument in this final round. For starters, my opponent makes many claims but fails to provide any evidence with those claims. No source is addressed, but just stating something that can or cannot be true. In this round, I will disprove all of my opponents points and state how the Death Penalty is fair.

In my opponents main argument, he brings up that more black individuals recieve the death penalty, than white individuals. This is wrong because according to "Death Penalty Information Center" (1), the number of executions on a white individual to a black individual was 55.4%. That is actually more white individuals than black according to my opponent. Also, my opponent claims that black individuals are sentenced more to death row than white individuals. This is also wrong because the difference in percentages is 59% to 41% (2). Technically more white individuals are sentenced to death row than black individuals.

Then, my opponent claims that the death penalty will not deter crime and just killing a life. This is wrong because it can deter crime, the only issue is to eliminate death row. According to David Mulhausen (3), "Studies of the death penalty have reached various conclusions about its effectiveness in deterring crime. But a 2008 comprehensive review of capital punishment research since 1975 by Drexel University economist Bijou Yang and psychologist David Lester of Richard Stockton College of New Jersey concluded that the majority of studies that track effects over many years and across states or counties find a deterrent effect". The reason why death row holds back the death penalty's possible deterrence is because of drawing a long time of trying to prove innocence, than just sentencing the individual for a crime they commited. In fact, one in 25 individuals sentenced the Death Penalty are innocent which is a very low number (4).

To conclude the debate, as we can see the Death Penalty is fair by bringing punishment to those who took the life of another. My opponent fails to prove how the Death Penalty is unfair, with many claims but lack of evidence. As well as neglects my own question on how is it unfair for the individual to suffer from taking another life. My opponent failed to answer, and keeps adding more claims instead of sticking to his core claim. Hence the reason why I urge you voters to vote Pro!

Sources:
1. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
2. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
3. http://dailysignal.com...
4. http://www.newsweek.com...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sarai.K82 1 year ago
Sarai.K82
Respectfully, the idea that "most people who receive the death penalty are serial killers or people who have killed multiple people" is a trope without factual support. The bulk of executions by far involve individuals who have just one victim to their credit. There are any number of sources, but perhaps one of the easiest ways is to go through the Death Penalty Information Center's execution database. It lists the number of victims for each executed individual and the majority by far involve just one victim. Now I'm only talking about people who actually get the death penalty. I'm not arguing that most people who kill just one person get extensive prison time rather than capital punishment. I will also concede that "single victim" crimes invariably involve special circumstances (cop killers, torture, etc.).
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Most people who receive the death penalty are serial killers or people who have killed multiple people. People who kill one person usually just get a long time in prison plus rehabilitation.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by logical-master123 1 year ago
logical-master123
KyrinAndersonSnaxAttackTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources.
Vote Placed by NothingSpecial99 1 year ago
NothingSpecial99
KyrinAndersonSnaxAttackTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had sources. The reason Con has less convincing arguments is because in trying to prove the death penalty unfair, he/she brought up "stats" without a source so there is no credibility behind the claim whereas Pro's claims were backed up and effectively refuted Con's assertions. Therefore Pro had the more convincing arguments.