The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1994bookworm
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

One of the issues in your profile.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,108 times Debate No: 5560
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Okay, so what you'll do is look at my profile, and find an issue we disagree on. You will state that issue. If you are PRO, you will also post your argument. If you are CON, you will only post the issue.
1994bookworm

Con

The death penalty is an unjust form of punishment.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Okay, the death penalty is an unjust form of punishment.
I disagree. The death penalty is most certainly just. The death penalty saves lives. Statistics show that every execution prevents 8 murders. So basically, I kill a bad guy, and I save 8 good guys. Sounds pretty just to me. I will expand later.
1994bookworm

Con

The death penalty saves lives."
--> The death penalty takes away the life of a person which is most certainly not considered saving a life.

"Statistics show that every execution prevents 8 murders."
-->Which statistics show that? Who researched it? It is impossible to prove this because once a criminal is murdered, it is impossible to tell how many people he/she they might have killed (if they kill any at all) had they been allowed to live.

"So basically, I kill a bad guy..."
-->What makes a person bad? What makes a person good? Everyone has done something wrong in their life. No one is righteous. Therefore it is impossible to to sentence a "bad" person to death and have the action considered just.

The 7th amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The death penalty clearly falls under the category of "cruel and unusual punishments" because it takes away a person's life which is one of the inalienable rights (rights that cannot be taken away.)

Humans are also fallible. Therefore, human judgement is fallible. This makes the death penalty a faulty and imperfect form of punishment. Once a person has been executed, and new evidence appears and proves them innocent, there is no way to bring the executed person back to life. However, if there was no death penalty, and the person was simply sentenced to a life sentence in jail. When the new evidence appears, the accused person can be released from jail.

Even if the accused person really did commit the crime, I believe that humans have the ability to change. If you kill the guilty person, they will never have time to repent nor will they ever have time to change.

Killing a person, whatever the reason, is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"--> The death penalty takes away the life of a person which is most certainly not considered saving a life."

I should say, the death penalty saves innocent lives. 6% of murderers repeat their crime. If they are executed, then they can't repeat their crime. That's saving lives.

"-->Which statistics show that? Who researched it? It is impossible to prove this because once a criminal is murdered, it is impossible to tell how many people he/she they might have killed (if they kill any at all) had they been allowed to live."

Read this: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...

"-->What makes a person bad? What makes a person good? Everyone has done something wrong in their life. No one is righteous. Therefore it is impossible to to sentence a "bad" person to death and have the action considered just."

Generally murder is considered bad. I don't know about you, but I think murder is pretty immoral. Also, I'm looking at this from a utilitarian point of view. I am causing more good by executing this person, because I am saving innocent lives. Clearly execution is the way to go.

"The 7th amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The death penalty clearly falls under the category of "cruel and unusual punishments" because it takes away a person's life which is one of the inalienable rights (rights that cannot be taken away.)"

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty numerous times. It is not cruel and it is not unusual. It is a legal punishment.

"Humans are also fallible. Therefore, human judgement is fallible. This makes the death penalty a faulty and imperfect form of punishment. Once a person has been executed, and new evidence appears and proves them innocent, there is no way to bring the executed person back to life. However, if there was no death penalty, and the person was simply sentenced to a life sentence in jail. When the new evidence appears, the accused person can be released from jail."

The system of appeals that we use for capital crimes is so thorough that inmates on Death Row are 6 times more likely to be let out on an appeal than they are to be executed. The odds of an innocent being executed are miniscule. Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person.

"Even if the accused person really did commit the crime, I believe that humans have the ability to change. If you kill the guilty person, they will never have time to repent nor will they ever have time to change."

6% of murderers let out on parole repeat their crime. Face it, some things never change.

"Killing a person, whatever the reason, is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right."

Saving lives is most certainly just, and that's what execution does, it saves lives. It is not wrong to kill an evil person. Even if we look at it from a deontological perspective, we are justified in killing them, because we are still treating them as an end, albeit a bad one.

I affirm the death penalty.
1994bookworm

Con

6% of murderers repeat their crime. If they are executed, then they can't repeat their crime."
--> 6% of murderers repeat their crime? What of the 94% who don't repeat their crime? Clearly, the majority of killers do not make the same mistake again and therefore have a chance to repent and reform.

"Statistics show that every execution prevents 8 murders....Read this: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... "
--> Every execution prevents 8 murders? Doesn't that contradict your previous statement which says that only 6% of murderers repeat their crime?

"Generally murder is considered bad. I don't know about you, but I think murder is pretty immoral. Also, I'm looking at this from a utilitarian point of view. I am causing more good by executing this person, because I am saving innocent lives."
--> Indeed murder is bad. That, however, doesn't justify executing the murderer because the act of execution is also considered murder. More good is also not caused by executing the murderer because it is in human nature that we, as people, are able to change and be reformed.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty numerous times. It is not cruel and it is not unusual. It is a legal punishment."
--> Legal does not equal just. The Supreme Court's decisions are based on human judgement which is fallible. Taking away a HUMAN life sounds pretty cruel to me. The accused person could be someone's parent or someone's children. Tearing families apart is very heartless thing to do.

"The odds of an innocent being executed are minuscule. Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person."
--> The chances of an innocent being executed may be small, but yet the risk is still there. 25 people have been wrongfully executed since the start of this century. The reason for you supporting the death penalty is to protect the lives of the innocent and prevent their murder. How is this possible when innocents are being executed? Therefore, it is nothing like Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person. Innocent people have ALREADY been killed.

"6% of murderers let out on parole repeat their crime. Face it, some things never change."
--> Indeed, SOME people (the 6%) will never change. But what of the 94% who do change? They deserve the chance to change. Executing them will prevent that from happening.

"Saving lives is most certainly just, and that's what execution does, it saves lives. It is not wrong to kill an evil person. Even if we look at it from a deontological perspective, we are justified in killing them, because we are still treating them as an end, albeit a bad one."
--> Saving lives is just, but not when it occurs at the expense of others' lives. No one person is truly evil and nor is one person completely good. People can change and preventing that from happening is the true evil.

The death penalty is an unjust form of punishment. An eye for an eye and the world will be blind.
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"--> 6% of murderers repeat their crime? What of the 94% who don't repeat their crime? Clearly, the majority of killers do not make the same mistake again and therefore have a chance to repent and reform."

6% is far too many. Can you look the family of people murdered by repeat offenders in the eye and say "I thought they would repent." I assume not. Murderers need to be kept off the streets, permanently, we need to save innocent lives, and capital punishment saves them.

"--> Every execution prevents 8 murders? Doesn't that contradict your previous statement which says that only 6% of murderers repeat their crime?"

No, I'm speaking of the deterrent effect of the death penalty. It deters others from murdering.

"--> Indeed murder is bad. That, however, doesn't justify executing the murderer because the act of execution is also considered murder. More good is also not caused by executing the murderer because it is in human nature that we, as people, are able to change and be reformed."

Murder is killing an innocent, capital punishment is killing a guilty man, who may kill again, and if not, the execution will save 8 people.

"--> Legal does not equal just. The Supreme Court's decisions are based on human judgement which is fallible. Taking away a HUMAN life sounds pretty cruel to me. The accused person could be someone's parent or someone's children. Tearing families apart is very heartless thing to do."

This was a rebuttal to your argument that it was unconstitutional. Human Judgement may be fallible, but it does not fail countless times on the same issue.

"--> The chances of an innocent being executed may be small, but yet the risk is still there. 25 people have been wrongfully executed since the start of this century. The reason for you supporting the death penalty is to protect the lives of the innocent and prevent their murder. How is this possible when innocents are being executed? Therefore, it is nothing like Saying the death penalty is immoral because it might kill one innocent is like saying the chicken pox shot is immoral, because it might kill one person. Innocent people have ALREADY been killed."

And more than 25 people have died from the chicken pox shot. Is it a huge deal? No, because comparatively we save many innocent lives. It's very much the same thing. You kill when you save, it's inevitable. Just think, who do you want to save, an innocent, or a murderer. Oh, and by the way, 60% of those executed "innocents" had no evidence suggesting they were innocent.

"--> Indeed, SOME people (the 6%) will never change. But what of the 94% who do change? They deserve the chance to change. Executing them will prevent that from happening."

Just because they didn't murder again doesn't mean they suddenly became a wonderful person. Besides, with the death penalty, the statistic will be 0%. We need to save innocent lives, reforming the lives of murderers should not be our priority.

"--> Saving lives is just, but not when it occurs at the expense of others' lives. No one person is truly evil and nor is one person completely good. People can change and preventing that from happening is the true evil."

You need to sacrifice lives sometimes. People have to die, it's your choice though, a few murderers of many innocents.

"The death penalty is an unjust form of punishment. An eye for an eye and the world will be blind."

It's not an eye for an eye, we are killing them to save lives. That must be society's focus. Innocent lives are much more important than murderer's lives. Also, voters, remember, only the worst get murdered. First degree premeditated murder gets capital punishment, while crimes of passion would not. These are people who made a conscious choice to do evil.

"
1994bookworm

Con

6% is far too many. Murderers need to be kept off the streets, permanently, we need to save innocent lives, and capital punishment saves them."
-->Capital punishment is not the only way to keep murderers off the streets and protect innocent people. Life imprisonment would be sufficient in doing that and would prevent the killing of the accused.

"It [death penalty] deters others from murdering."
--> The death penalty does not deter others from murdering. Murders are often committed when the criminal is blinded with passion, when emotions prevail over reason. Murderers are sometimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or in panic moments, when the culprit is caught in an act that breaks the law (robbing the bank, etc.) the way to deter people from committing murder is not by increasing the severity of the punishment but by increasing the possibility that the crime will be discovered and the culprit will be caught.

"Murder is killing an innocent, capital punishment is killing a guilty man."
--> Murder is defined as the killing of one human being by another especially when premeditated (taken from the American Heritage College Dictionary.) Therefore, the death penalty clearly falls under the definition of murder, and, under no circumstances, is murder acceptable, justifiable, or moral.

"Human Judgement may be fallible, but it does not fail countless times on the same issue."
--> Indeed, it can. When Copernicus first discovered that the Earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around, no one believed him. His works on astronomy were discredited for hundreds of years. This was all because the people's judgement was clouded by the church's teachings. Therefore, human judgement can also fail when deciding whether or not the death penalty is just.

"And more than 25 people have died from the chicken pox shot. Is it a huge deal? No, because comparatively we save many innocent lives. It's very much the same thing. You kill when you save, it's inevitable."
--> Is the killing of an innocent person a huge deal? Of course it is. Killing, in order to save, is not inevitable. There are other ways of protecting the innocent from criminals such as life imprisonment.

"Just because they didn't murder again doesn't mean they suddenly became a wonderful person. Besides, with the death penalty, the statistic will be 0%. We need to save innocent lives, reforming the lives of murderers should not be our priority."
--> I agree that saving innocent lives is very important and should be a priority. However, without capital punishment and with the substitution of life imprisonment, we can save innocent lives as well as reform the lives of criminals.

"You need to sacrifice lives sometimes. People have to die, it's your choice though, a few murderers of many innocents."
--> Sacrificing lives is not necessary. I have already stated (above) that life imprisonment would save the lives of both innocents and murderers as well as giving the murderers a chance to reform. If it is found that the accused person is innocent, then the accused person could be released.

"Also, voters, remember, only the worst get murdered. First degree premeditated murder gets capital punishment, while crimes of passion would not. These are people who made a conscious choice to do evil."
--> In the past, crime of passion have gotten the death penalty. Such an example can be found in the execution of Bruce Callins. In 1980, Callins went to a dancing establishment named Norma's Lounge, told the bartender to put the club's receipts in a bag, and ordered the patrons to empty their pockets. Allen Huckleberry, who was sitting at the bar, did not surrender his wallet quickly enough and Callins shot him in the neck, causing him to bleed to death. The murder of Allen Huckleberry was not premeditated. It was based on passion alone. Therefore, my opponent is wrong in his statement that only the worst of murderers get the capital punishment. Capital punishment is not the only solution to preventing more murders. Life imprisonment would also get the job done without killing another life in the process.
Debate Round No. 4
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"-->Capital punishment is not the only way to keep murderers off the streets and protect innocent people. Life imprisonment would be sufficient in doing that and would prevent the killing of the accused."

That's how it already is. So...no.

"--> The death penalty does not deter others from murdering. Murders are often committed when the criminal is blinded with passion, when emotions prevail over reason. Murderers are sometimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or in panic moments, when the culprit is caught in an act that breaks the law (robbing the bank, etc.) the way to deter people from committing murder is not by increasing the severity of the punishment but by increasing the possibility that the crime will be discovered and the culprit will be caught.'

Okay, that's fine argue with statistics that show that you are wrong...like the one I just posted. The death penalty deters 8 murders from occurring.

"--> Murder is defined as the killing of one human being by another especially when premeditated (taken from the American Heritage College Dictionary.) Therefore, the death penalty clearly falls under the definition of murder, and, under no circumstances, is murder acceptable, justifiable, or moral."

Murder, at least in a philosophical sense, is the intentional killing of an innocent, and you brought up a philosophical matter.

"--> Indeed, it can. When Copernicus first discovered that the Earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around, no one believed him. His works on astronomy were discredited for hundreds of years. This was all because the people's judgement was clouded by the church's teachings. Therefore, human judgement can also fail when deciding whether or not the death penalty is just."

Uhh...yeah...no. The people who rejected Copernicus were uneducated peasants. The Supreme Court is comprised of brilliant men and women.

"--> Is the killing of an innocent person a huge deal? Of course it is. Killing, in order to save, is not inevitable. There are other ways of protecting the innocent from criminals such as life imprisonment."

Life imprisonment, a) does not deter as well, and b) it allows criminals to cause more harm, my mother, a psychologist has treated many prison guards who have faced emotional challenges after injuries resulting from prison breaks.

"--> I agree that saving innocent lives is very important and should be a priority. However, without capital punishment and with the substitution of life imprisonment, we can save innocent lives as well as reform the lives of criminals."

Except, you're wrong, we can't. That's the status quo I compare capital punishment to. Capital punishment save lives comparative to life imprisonment.

"--> Sacrificing lives is not necessary. I have already stated (above) that life imprisonment would save the lives of both innocents and murderers as well as giving the murderers a chance to reform. If it is found that the accused person is innocent, then the accused person could be released."

And I already stated that you're wrong, sacrifice is necessary. Life imprisonment won't deter as well.

"--> In the past, crime of passion have gotten the death penalty. Such an example can be found in the execution of Bruce Callins. In 1980, Callins went to a dancing establishment named Norma's Lounge, told the bartender to put the club's receipts in a bag, and ordered the patrons to empty their pockets. Allen Huckleberry, who was sitting at the bar, did not surrender his wallet quickly enough and Callins shot him in the neck, causing him to bleed to death. The murder of Allen Huckleberry was not premeditated. It was based on passion alone. Therefore, my opponent is wrong in his statement that only the worst of murderers get the capital punishment. Capital punishment is not the only solution to preventing more murders. Life imprisonment would also get the job done without killing another life in the process."

I am saying that the death penalty should only be applied to murder 1, and this was a murder 2 case, and should not have been made a capital offense. I only have to affirm capital punishment, I can choose the conditions.

Vote Pro.
1994bookworm

Con

"Okay, that's fine argue with statistics that show that you are wrong...like the one I just posted. The death penalty deters 8 murders from occurring."
--> These statistics are completely sound. When a criminal planning the murder of someone, the criminal obviously doesn't expect to be caught and therefore would have no regard of the punishment (in this case, capital punishment). However, if the possibility of being caught was increased, there would be a greater chance that the criminal is deterred from committing the crime. Therefore, preventing murders is not done by increasing the harshness of the punishment but by increasing the possibility that the person responsible for the crime will be caught.

"Murder, at least in a philosophical sense, is the intentional killing of an innocent, and you brought up a philosophical matter."
--> What is murder if it is not the intentional killing of an innocent? If the intentional killing of an innocent is defined as murder, then I do not see what the fuss is about.

Uhh...yeah...no. The people who rejected Copernicus were uneducated peasants. The Supreme Court is comprised of brilliant men and women."
--> They were not all uneducated. They were humans who carried some prejudices and biased opinions. The same can be said of Supreme Court judges. They are human and are therefore liable to error and the other faults of humans. They may not be extremely biased or prejudiced, but are still a biased to a certain extent. Indeed, this can be proved through the fact that statistics show that two-thirds of any case involving a black or hispanic killing a white result in the death penalty. Overall, a black person is 5 times more likely to get the death penalty.

"Life imprisonment, a) does not deter as well, and b) it allows criminals to cause more harm, my mother, a psychologist has treated many prison guards who have faced emotional challenges after injuries resulting from prison breaks."
--> I'll say that life imprisonment deters just as well as the death penalty. Spending a life time in a small cell v. getting a quick death both sound pretty grim to me. The reason for prison breaks is because of the faults with security, not because of the faults with the punishment. Since the death punishment is currently legal, those criminals who caused emotional challenges to guards were not sentenced to death for a reason. Therefore, with or without the death penalty, the same prison breaks that have occurred in the past would still have occurred.

"And I already stated that you're wrong, sacrifice is necessary. Life imprisonment won't deter as well."
--> I have also stated that both will deter the same amount. Both life imprisonment and capital punishment are grim consequences. There is no difference. The true way to deter criminals is to increase the possibility of them being caught.

"I am saying that the death penalty should only be applied to murder 1, and this was a murder 2 case, and should not have been made a capital offense. I only have to affirm capital punishment, I can choose the conditions."
--> You are saying that only murder 1 should get the death penalty. Yet, in this case, murder 2 also got the death penalty. Therefore, this shows that either a) my opponent's definition of the crimes deserving the death penalty is faulty, or, b) that human fallibility can cause errors when judging and do not always judge both fairly and according to the rules laid out, or, c) both of the above.

Therefore, the death penalty is a fallible form of punishment and there are other alternative punishments that would work just as effectively in both preventing murders from happening and assuring the safety of innocents.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
Sorry I realize this is an old topic but I wanted to throw this in

PRO SAID:
an you look the family of people murdered by repeat offenders in the eye and say "I thought they would repent."
----
But then could you look the Family of an executed murderer in the eye and say, "he wasn't good enough to change"
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Yeah
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Would a debate on the flat tax be reasonable?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
LR4N6FTW4EVA1994bookwormTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
LR4N6FTW4EVA1994bookwormTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03