The Instigator
Miguelang1701
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

People who commit crimes are often giving lenient sentences. For serious crimes the death penalty sh

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 3 votes the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 716 times Debate No: 53988
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Miguelang1701

Pro

People who commit crimes are often giving lenient sentences. For serious crimes the death penalty should be brought back. If this is not brought back, criminals will do repeated things and not get executed for such a huge number of crime.
CJKAllstar

Con

C1: The Death Penalty Is Not an Effective Deterrent

Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.[1]

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have anymajor effect on murder statistics.[1]

The death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Ever so liberal Norway, sentences can only be a maximum of 21 years[2], they have the nicest prisons in the world, such as Bastoy, which offers fun activities, rehabilitation and is nice to prisons. Unlike European prisons with an average of a 70% reoffending rate, this prison has 16%[3]. Norway however has a murder rate of 0.69 people per 100,000, against the U.S' 4.7 per 100,000[4][5]. And to top it all off, Norway has one of the highest scores in the Happy Planet Index, at a fantastic 51.4[6], against America's 37.3, and Ethiopia has 39.2, and Libya has 40.8[6]. The general consensus of what we see is that the death penalty does not work, and that a more liberal prison system fares well.

There is not much I can argue against now. BOP is on the claimant and my role is to negate any contentions. Pro must either win with statistics, or syllogistically prove how the death penalty is better. Until then, I rest my case and have my premise.

Sources:

[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.theguardian.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.happyplanetindex.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Miguelang1701

Pro

Yes, the death penalty should be reintroduced world wide as a consequence for serious crimes such as murder. The death penalty should be reinstated because it acts as a deterrent, it provides justice to the families of murder victims, and it get rids of the worst people in society, who would cause harm if allowed to live. The death penalty has been utilised throughout history as an effective deterrent to would-be murderers and rapists. The knowledge that in all probability a murderer will be caught and sentenced to death, provides an ample reason for a would-be murderer to rethink his decision before actually committing his crime. It also deals that it should not be made in court to allow criminals to live or get lesser sentences, if a suspect is convicted of first degree murder, he/she should be executed, with no questions asked. In this way, the death penalty not only provides justice to those who have lost family to an evil, but it also deters people from becoming criminals in the first place.
CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal

"Yes, the death penalty should be reintroduced world wide as a consequence for serious crimes such as murder.

BOP?

The death penalty should be reinstated because it acts as a deterrent

It does not. I have sourced my assertion and youy have failed this BOP you now have over mine, as it is not sourced or syllogistically proven.

, it provides justice to the families of murder victims, and it get rids of the worst people in society, who would cause harm if allowed to live.

BOP?

The death penalty has been utilised throughout history as an effective deterrent to would-be murderers and rapists.

It is not a deterrent as I have sourced and proven.

The knowledge that in all probability a murderer will be caught and sentenced to death, provides an ample reason for a would-be murderer to rethink his decision before actually committing his crime.

The knowledge that a murderer is going to spend most of his life rejected and abstinent and ostracized from society can do the same. You have BOP to prove that my assertion that it cannot do the same is false, or prove why the death sentence is better. Both you have failed.

It also deals that it should not be made in court to allow criminals to live or get lesser sentences, if a suspect is convicted of first degree murder, he/she should be executed, with no questions asked.

BOP? After all, Norway as I have shown, has a very liberal prison system where nobody can stay in a jail longer than 21 years. Scandanavia in general is liberal, but crime is lower. Also, the Happy Planet Index there is higher. You once again have not met any burden of proof to prove this.

In this way, the death penalty not only provides justice to those who have lost family to an evil, but it also deters people from becoming criminals in the first place."


Again, I have disproved the deterrence point and you have not proved this at all.


In fact, this whole argument is not argued. You have just asserted claims over and over again without any syllogistic proof or actual evidence, whereas I have. I do not need to make any new arguments, as mine do already stand. I urge the flor to side with the side that isn't just asserting, but arguing and sourced.


Sources:

As before.
Debate Round No. 2
Miguelang1701

Pro

Miguelang1701 forfeited this round.
CJKAllstar

Con

I withhold my arguments until a response from Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Miguelang1701

Pro

Miguelang1701 forfeited this round.
CJKAllstar

Con

I withhold my arguments until a response from Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
Miguelang1701

Pro

Miguelang1701 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
Miguelang1701CJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: T'was a forfeit... Good show from Con
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Miguelang1701CJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Miguelang1701CJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits, obviously. Tempted to award S&G, but it's not QUITE enough to warrant it, and I kind of suspect English is not Pro's first language, so I'm being a bit lenient. Sourcing should be obvious, too, and leads into the arguments point: Con made an unrebutted case against Pro's justification, that of deterrence, and sourced himself. Pro merely repeated his claims, then forfeited. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.