The Instigator
JBphilo
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
mostlogical
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

My version of capital punishment should be legal

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 1 vote the winner is...
mostlogical
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 393 times Debate No: 74656
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

JBphilo

Pro

I believe that the best form of capital punishment is to, once a year, randomly select an individual that is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and rip them apart using a rack and broadcast this on national television. This individual has to be guilty of murder or anything worse than murder to have the possibility of being chosen.

I believe this is better than conventional capital punishment for numerous reasons and should become law.

Definition of capital punishment: the death penalty for crime

First round is for acceptance only. I look forward to an informative debate.
Debate Round No. 1
JBphilo

Pro

Thanks for accepting this. Should be a juicy debate!

So my version of CP (capital punishment) has several benefits compared with standard CP (e.g. lethal injection).

1. It avoids the problem of killing an innocent as everyone that could be picked has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
2. It avoids discrimination as black people are just as likely to be selected as white people (even though the number of black names may be marginally higher). There is no discrimination of the judge when picking randomly.
3. Only one person needs to die a year.
4. One gruesome death would be far cheaper than hundreds of painless deaths (lethal injection costs a lot).
5. It is more likely to deter criminals from committing crime. Big moment every year, big build up. People will watch or at least know about this gruesome death and even with big odds in my favour I still would think twice about murdering someone.
6. If you think its unfair to kill the criminally insane then lets make the choice just between those that aren't.

So it is a good method of CP. Then there is the issue of whether CP deters. All the studies have been inconclusive about whether it helps or not. But firstly I think that the most painful death imaginable is more frightening than dying with little pain.
A rack would scare anyone into thinking twice about killing someone. Have a read of this and tell me it would not deter someone (even marginally more) than death by lethal injection. [1]

Studies are inconclusive but I believe that this does not matter. Here I borrow from Ernest van den Haag's best bet argument. [2] To bet that CP does not deter is to bet against the innocent rather than the murderer. We are accountable for what we let happen as well as what we do. If I have good evidence that a bomb on a plane will go off and do not inform the pilot (assuming I can) then I am morally accountable as my action could have prevented hundreds of deaths.
If this gamble pays off then we have saved the lives of the innocent. If we're wrong, unfortunately, we've sacrificed the lives of some murders. Therefore, I believe betting against the innocent is wrong. The criminal knew the consequences of his actions so it is not unfair and the innocent are exactly that, innocent. Therefore, we should bet that CP works and implement my version.

[1] http://www.medievality.com...
[2] Ethics in Practice by Hugh LaFollette (eds.), Blackwell 1997, East Tennessee State University
mostlogical

Con

Pro's form of capital punishment = once a year a murderer is put on the rack and ripped apart.

I only need to show a better version, so I'll stick with lethal injection which is the primary method of execution in America and is used on any number of serious criminals. Lethal injection kills the person by first putting the person to sleep, and then stopping the breathing and heart, in that order [1]

I don't believe in capital punishment, and so you might think I would prefer your form where less people die. However I don't believe your form of capital punishment is best. I've accepted this debate because I have had a similar idea in the past and I realise that if criminals were put into a lottery, that would mean their best chance of living would be to encourage others to commit violent crime. That's one reason why it's a bad idea.

Here is some more

+ If only one person were selected, criminals have a good chance to get away with murder. Are people who have lost loved ones supposed to be satisfied by watching a different criminal die to the one who murdered their relative? Wouldn't they know the real murderer is still alive, and will probably never face justice?

+ Innocent people would therefore risk the rack to avenge someone they love. Desperate or greedy criminals who want to get away with robbing a bank etc will not be deterred either.

+ Innocent people should not be killed (or become criminals), but even with your form of CP innocent people can die, though I admit it would be less likely. However suppose a life was executed, and everyone watched it but later it was found he/she was innocent, the public will be far more outraged.

+ People don't need to feel discriminated against because criminals are executed in a humane way and it's very unlikely that an innocent person will be imprisoned and less likely to be executed. If your form of CP were used people would feel discriminated against if after 10 years there hasn't been one white man killed, or one black woman killed, or one Chinese person, or one Christian, or one Muslim etc.

+ If this execution event of yours is held on let's say Christmas Day, that means the day after i.e. Boxing Day is a better day to kill someone, meaning innocent people will be afraid to go out on that day or around that time.

+ For my final point I'd like to say by that people should find it in their self to forgive others, it's how we move on in life and enjoy life, your method of CP takes that opportunity away.

My opponent says his method would cost less money, but what about the other costs I have shown?

sources:

wikipedia
Debate Round No. 2
JBphilo

Pro

Lethal injection kills the person by first putting the person to sleep, and then stopping the breathing and heart, in that order"
Not as scary as getting ripped apart. Common sense would tell you that, to some degree, this would be a worse deterrent.

""if criminals were put into a lottery, that would mean their best chance of living would be to encourage others to commit violent crime. That's one reason why it's a bad idea."
You"d have to be very good at persuading in order to convince others to commit crimes they wouldn't"t otherwise commit and risk a horrible death. Also I think the excruciating death would deter more criminals than the criminals could encourage.
The chances YOU will be chosen are already very unlikely so getting a few more murderers to commit crime is not ultimately going to make much difference. It is just the fact that there is a possibility that you will suffer a painful death.

"+ If only one person were selected, criminals have a good chance to get away with murder. Are people who have lost loved ones supposed to be satisfied by watching a different criminal die to the one who murdered their relative? Wouldn't they know the real murderer is still alive, and will probably never face justice?"
Firstly all other criminals will face justice with a lengthy prison sentence so its not like they"re walking away free men. Also, it is not about revenge so loved ones are not relevant. It is about deterring future crime.

"+ Innocent people would therefore risk the rack to avenge someone they love. Desperate or greedy criminals who want to get away with robbing a bank etc will not be deterred either."
Robbing banks would not entail murder and therefore they could not be executed.
For revenge crime the judge would have to decide whether due to circumstances of a loved one being killed, the murderer should be let off to a degree. This would be done on a case by case basis.

"+ Innocent people should not be killed (or become criminals), but even with your form of CP innocent people can die, though I admit it would be less likely. However suppose a life was executed, and everyone watched it but later it was found he/she was innocent, the public will be far more outraged."
Public outrage is not an issue. If it deters it is ok. All our decisions are made on likelihood. We cannot know for certain an innocent won"t be killed but that shouldn"t stop us putting forward a policy that will save innocent lives as a deterrent. Allowing people to drive cars is a policy decision which may have the consequences of innocent death. It"s a risk we have to take. Most people will be satisfied if the murderer was convicted beyond reasonable doubt. There are some crimes like school shootings where it is beyond doubt who committed the crime.

"+ People don't need to feel discriminated against because criminals are executed in a humane way and it's very unlikely that an innocent person will be imprisoned and less likely to be executed. If your form of CP were used people would feel discriminated against if after 10 years there hasn't been one white man killed, or one black woman killed, or one Chinese person, or one Christian, or one Muslim etc."
No because discrimination involves a choice by a man. This system (picking names out of a hat) would not be down to a man"s decision so could not be discriminatory.

"+ If this execution event of yours is held on let's say Christmas Day, that means the day after i.e. Boxing Day is a better day to kill someone, meaning innocent people will be afraid to go out on that day or around that time."
It is not a better day to kill someone as everyone that commits murder in that year are equally included in the group of murderers, one of which will be executed.

"+ For my final point I'd like to say by that people should find it in their self to forgive others, it's how we move on in life and enjoy life, your method of CP takes that opportunity away."
The victims can forgive but the state will carry out CP. I do not see this as a problem. I"m sure those who want to forgive would prefer innocents don"t die in future rather than a murderer be forgiven.

"My opponent says his method would cost less money, but what about the other costs I have shown?"
The moral costs do not outweigh the moral benefits. And on the plus side it also saves money.

Thanks for a great debate!
mostlogical

Con

Let's face it ripping people apart is a bit extreme, I'm not sure how it can be acceptable. Killing someone in a gruesome way degrades human life, at least when someone is injected it is kind and considerate i.e. humane, the people who are on death row get to know the man who is going to kill them, and can feel reasonably comfortable. If people are put on a rack it sends out the wrong message that some people are pure evil and unworthy of being forgiven by God.

You only have to look at the effectiveness of speed cameras to know that deterrents don't work. Human beings have a tendency do bad things regardless of how harsh the punishment is for doing them, e.g. bank robbers, they may be given firearms, and although they'd rather not shoot anyone they will if they feel it will help them to avoid a very lengthy time in jail. It wouldn't be hard to persuade someone to take a gun, some risks seem worth taking when you are in an emotional state. If you look at every case on a case by case basis you'd find they had no or bad parents, were carrying a knife to defend them self if attacked and similar things. People are not inherently evil, and so they shouldn't be treated like they are.

Murderers don't tend to care about their victims pain, and it might seem fair that we shouldn't either, but we shouldn't be the same level as them when we have it in ourself to be the better person.

Deterring serious crime can lead to serious crime being committed e.g. revenge attacks, which I think is relevant, as this shows that your method of CP can't prevent murders, and the public's opinion does matter even if statistics show less murders, because the quality of life is also important to consider.

Any system can be rigged, votes for political parties are occasionally rigged. If only one person were killed each year and over 10 years they were all black, or all women or something, it could happen, then people may become more racist or more sexist, this impacts people's lives.

I'm not sure how murderers can be equally included in a group which get executed. This has not been explained to me.

It would be harder to forgive someone who was unworthy of being buried, or who you know is not alive any more.

To sum up, some taxes are worth paying, if it costs more to give someone a humane death and helps us respect life then it is worth paying for.

Thanks for having this debate, and I hope you have found my posts interesting.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by EAT_IT_SUKA 2 years ago
EAT_IT_SUKA
Cool debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 2 years ago
salam.morcos
JBphilomostlogicalTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources. Con showed examples of why this type of CP is not necessarily the best. Pro did a good job of rebutting, but couldn't prove that this would deter away people.... he simply believes it. He claimed that the main reason for his type of CP is best because it deters people. Con failed to show that the trauma it causes to people to watch a brutal death could be significant. Con didn't mention that criminal might choose not to watch this punishment. Those who watch this brutal callings might find it enjoyable, which is not good. Pro had better sources. Con had better arguments.