The Instigator
jq
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Lee001
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Resolved: Capital punishment should be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,425 times Debate No: 76043
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (1)

 

jq

Pro

Resolved: The death penalty should be abolished.

-
Opening Round: Aceptence

-Second Round: Arguments

-Third Round: Rebuttals

-Final Round: Conclusion

I am willing to accpet the first person that is open to debate.
Lee001

Con

I accept.



Debate Round No. 1
jq

Pro

Thanks for excepting, I am excited for a good debate.

















_________________________________________________________

The risk of executing innocent people exists in any justice system.
- No matter how great your justice system is, innocent people may
die, and that is not just.

- Since 1976 about 150 people have been posthumansly pardoned, and about 4% of excecuted
prisionors have been found innocent.


_______________________________________________________________

The Death Penalty costs more in terms of money, and emotions.
-
The death penalty costs much more bcause of the fact that it takes
so long to decide due to the Constitution's requirements.

- Cases with the death penalty cost about $740,000, while cases where the
death penalty is sought cost
$1.26 million.

________________________________________________________________

The death penalty is immoral.
- No matter what the case, human's do not have
right to condem other humans to death, it is murder in itself,
though executed legally.

- Not only is it immoral, but the ways of inflictiong it are cruel and
unusual sentences, against what the constitution says.

EXAMPLE: During the execution of convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett, the drugs
used to kill him went awry, and he was fully awake, convulsing in agony and trying to speak,
while being killed.
Lee001

Con

So, this round didn't call for any rebuttal's. So, I will only post my argument.

My opponent didn't bestow any definitions in the first round, so I will.

Capital Punishment- [1] punishmentbydeathforacrime;deathpenalty.

Morality

One thing about Capital Punishment, is that it helps maintain the law and lowers crime. Not only dose it do these two things, but it also helps grieving families.

In today's society, prisons are being over crowded. So, the government lets outs many prisoners free due to the lack of space. Many of these people whom are set free have committed murder, rape and other terrible crimes. Many of these prisoners when let out, will just continue down to their own path. This leads to my argument over morality. As defined in the dictionary, Morality is [2] The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct:

Is it safe to say, that these convicted felons had acted in a moral way when committing such a crime? Would it be moral to let these felons free, and then have them commit the same crime over. Would also be of good conduct of the government to let these felons free knowing what they have committed, but let them free anyways, due to lack of space?

[3]"Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense."

It is more important to protect our society. Letting a prisoner free, whom has committed murder or had raped an innocent person is immoral. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"

Constitutional

Many people want to argue the fact that, Capital Punishment violated the 8th Amendment, which has to do with "Cruel and unusual punishment" Well, as defined in the dictionary Cruel can be defined as [3] Disposed to inflict pain or suffering:

Some states have adopted a new and humane way of carrying out Capital Punishment.

[4]"Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of harm' [quoting the opinion of the Court from Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 842, 846 (1994)] that qualifies as cruel and unusual... Kentucky has adopted a method of execution believed to be the most humane available, one it shares with 35 other States... Kentucky's decision to adhere to its protocol cannot be viewed as probative of the wanton infliction of pain under the Eighth Amendment... Throughout our history, whenever a method of execution has been challenged in this Court as cruel and unusual, the Court has rejected the challenge. Our society has nonetheless steadily moved to more humane methods of carrying out capital punishment."

So, as you can read, States have adopted more humane way to carry out the procedure, thus not violation the 8th amendment when being called "cruel".


Sources:

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[3] http://deathpenalty.procon.org...

[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[5] http://deathpenalty.procon.org...


Debate Round No. 2
jq

Pro

As this is my rebuttal, I will first refute your points, then clarify my own to the audience in my conclusion.














___________________________________________________________________

You said earlier that

"One thing about Capital Punishment, is that it helps maintain the law and lowers crime. Not only dose it do these two things, but it also helps grieving families."


This statement is actually false, according to the Washington Post, and other leaders in the field. "We're very hard pressed to find really strong evidence of deterrence," said Columbia Law School's Jeffrey Fagan. Dealth Penalty does not help or hurt crime rates, to a siginifigant extent. Often, in area where it was legalized, crime actually grows. Studies publiblished by "The death penalty information center" based on U.S. census shows that since 1900 states with death penalties have actually had more homocides then states that had abolished this law.


Altough hard to prove, many families do not want people to be killed. The fact of the Death Penalty
weight, makes juderical systems have to prolong the case, involving the victim's family even more involved, and often they do not want that, or another person dead.

_________________________________________________________________________


Also, you previously said

"Is it safe to say, that these convicted felons had acted in a moral way when committing such a crime? Would it be moral to let these felons free, and then have them commit the same crime over."



I was not saying that we should set them free, or that we would have too, it is easy to simply give them life inmrisonment. Although prison overcrowding is a problem, it does not mean we can no longer put people in prison, the idea that that may be true, is totally false.

NOTE: The goverment is not letting prisoners out, my opponent is mistaken. Currently the Californian government is letting out prisoners with minor charges, like drug abuse, or druken battery, out about 10% earlier. Not prisoners convicted with murder.



_________________________________________________________________________



You also stated that

"Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact.


This a "straw man" fallacy, abolitionists are not just religious people who are against legal murder, we are simply arguing that you have no right condemm me to death no matter what crimes i have done. And coupled with the moral, economic, and statistical reasons i have stated above, it is much better to simply give life inprisonment.




_________________________________________________________________________



Also you have stated that

"Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of harm"

The fact that the law is not trying to cause a "cruel and unusaul punishment" does not mean its not happening, i clarified this in my example Clayton Lockett, who's punishment went arwy, does not change the reality that inhumane ways of death are happening. I am not trying to state that this is illegal, but inhumane, and should be discontinued.

Also your point that Kentucky, along with 35 other states, have adopted a more humane way of legal murder, is entirely false, considering that only 31 states still use death as a punishment.


________________________________________________________________________


Since there is nothing left for me to refute, i will conclude my Rebuttal.













________________________________________________________________________


- http://www.washingtonpost.com...

- http://www.washingtonpost.com...



- http://www.oadp.org...



- http://www.icomdp.org...




Lee001

Con

Rebuttal #1

My opponent claims that "Since 1976 about 150 people have been posthumansly pardoned, and about 4% of excecuted prisionors have been found innocent."



My opponent does not provide a source to prove this point, he could have made it up for all I know. But anyhow, when a person is convicted, its usually because there has been solid evidence that actually proves them guilty, which is pretty reliable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal #2



My opponent then claims "The Death Penalty costs more in terms of money, and emotions. The death penalty costs much more because of the fact that it takes
so long to decide due to the Constitution's requirements."



Again, my opponent throws out random statistics and random numbers "Cases with the death

penalty cost about $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million.." He doesn't provide a source or any type of evidence, making it invalid. My opponent mentions "emotions" yet, he doesn't touch on that aspect.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal #3

Pro then goes on to say "The death penalty is immoral" So, is letting these prisoners free, immoral? The actions that they had acted out are okay? Murdering someone, raping a child is okay? No, that's immoral.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Rebuttal #4



Pro states "During the execution of convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett, the drugs
used to kill him went awry, and he was fully awake, convulsing in agony and trying to speak,
while being killed."

Again, no source, no proof =invalid. He could have made this up for all I know. In my argument in R2, I had argued that many states are now adopting a more humane and safe way to proceed with Capital Punishment. This humane procedure does that conflict with the 8th Amendment which is Cruel and Unusual punishment. In R2, Cruel was defined as "Disposed to inflict pain or suffering" Again, this new procedure isn't cruel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm running out a character space but one more thing here.

My opponent states "The government is not letting prisoners out, my opponent is mistaken. Currently the Californian government is letting out prisoners with minor charges, like drug abuse, or druken battery, out about 10% earlier. Not prisoners convicted with murder."

This is invalid: if you read this article, you will read that California let out people that were convicted with murder. Read here: http://www.cbsnews.com...

Debate Round No. 3
jq

Pro



NOTE: During Lee's Rebuttal, I was accused of making up facts, its is obvious Lee did not check my links I posted.
In these links I provided facts, and websites from which i got this info, i will now state why i

believe I have won.






COST EFFICEINCY

Image result for how much more does the death penalty cost than prison
As i stated before Cases where the death penalty was not involved cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought after cost $1.26 million. Keeping each of these "Death Row" prisoners costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. The graph above shows the average spending on death row cases in blue, while in green it shows the average cost per case where the death penalty in not involved.


NOTE: I am not making these facts up, and posted them in my rebuttal, but for the convience of the audeince and my opponent i will post them here, again with a few added ones involving my graph.



http://ksabolition.org...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...






Immorality of Legal Murder

- Man does not have the right to condemm
My argument is the realization that you (as in whoever is reading this) have no right at all to condemm me to death, no matter what crimes I have committed. Also the fact that although death sentence punishments may not be "legally" cruel and unusual, they can be very painfull, and cruel.

My example (for which i provided a link at the bottom of the page) was that of the execution of convicted murderer and rapist Clayton Lockett, the drugs used to kill him went awry, and he was fully awake, convulsing in agony and trying to speak, while being killed.

Also made the undisputed point that no matter how good a justice system is it will have faults, and innocent people will be excecuted and wrongly accused.

- Innocent people will be killed
Also i made the undisputed point that no matter how good a justice system is, it will have faults, and innocent people will be excecuted and wrongly accused. University professor Samuel Gross led a team of experts who concluded that at least 4% of people on death row were innocent. Also, according to the "Death Penalty Information Center" (a nationally respected team of experts) said that "there had been 152 exonerations of prisoners on death row in the United States since the year of 1973, and many of the were pardonned after death.


- A second chance, inside jail
Finally, im making the point that we must give these criminals a second chance at life, because we've all failed in one point or another. I do not mean, "Let them out of jail", but give them a chance at living, albiet inside jail.

NOTE: My opponent was also making the weak point that we must kill these criminals because we can't let convicted criminals on the street again. I believe this is true, but in the example she used, it was "life in sentence" criminals, who had spent many years in prison, being realeased in 1 state, and has not been repeated since.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...





Since I have refuted all of my opponents points, and she has done little to refute mine, except lack of evidence, (which is false) I now believe I have won this argument based on these counts.



1. My opponent did nothing to refute the evidence that it costs less to give life in jail, except lack of evidence

(the links to the evidence you can find links to above, and on my previous rebuttal)

2. My opponent did nothing to refute the evidence of the Moral limits of man condemming man.

3. My opponent did nothing to refute the fact that innocents will be killed

4. My opponent did nothing except attempt to refute my points based on falty facts, which i have proven wrong,
and did not have any points of her own.












Lee001

Con

My opponent finally decides to give me *some* evidence after I had already pointed out that his claims lack evidence. I, as Con, has successfully showed you (with evidence) the Capital Punishment does not only help prevent crimes, but it also is humane. I have showed that Capital Punishment for 1. Doesn't violate the 8th Amendment, because it is humane. It rarely occurs when someone is actually put to death when they are actually innocent (no proof from Pro that, that was actually the case)

My biggest problem here is that Pro decides to use sources in the very last round, after I had pointed out that none of his claims were backed up by proof, he then decides to give us proof in the very last round (when it is too late) Therefore vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=================================================================
>Reported vote: SummerLover19 // Moderator action: Removed<

5 points to Con (arguments, sources). Reasons for voting decision: In the second round, unlike Con, Pro has failed to provide sources to back up his arguments. As for Con, I do not know why she didn't provide any sources on prisons letting out murderers ('lifers') in the second round but she unveiled at least one in the third round. Con successfully mentioned what the meaning of morality truly was and refuted Pro's argument on the death penalty being immoral by asking the ironic question, "Is it safe to say, that these convicted felons had acted in a moral way when committing such a crime?". Pro might have received more points if he would have used his final argument in the first round; it was completely last minute how he provided sources for his arguments, despite some of them being from wikipedia... Con wins the votes.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources. Strategic vote. Sources should be evaluated in the totality of the debate. Pro did offer sources in other rounds, besides Round 2. Quantity is also not a valid way to evaluate "reliability" of sources. (2) Arguments. Too generic. This RFD merely picks out one arguments Pro made (morality) and copy-pastes a rhetorical question Con said in response. It does not do its *own* analysis about why Con's argument overall was more convincing.
==================================================================
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Oh and guess what ?? I vote on Lexu's debates too?? Does that mean anything?? jeez
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Dude...that's lame.
Posted by jq 1 year ago
jq
oh yea I understand that @lexus, thanks you for voting, your critique was very helpful, however, lee'a friend didn't say anything except that lee won, and offered no reasons except a quote that showed she had not even read the argument, I also checked and found out that they both vote often on each other's polls and debates often biasedly
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Jq, you're saying that because Lee has friends that vote on debates she will automatically win those debates. If you look on our pages, we've added each other as friends and we regularly communicate, but I still voted what I thought was fairly.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
jQ, you asked for feedback. Just keep on Zaradi to make sure he votes, and he'll give you some good feedback. If the vote is short of providing you all the feedback you need, just contact me afterword, and I'll see what I can do.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Thank you!!
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Yep just checked. Lee clearly won. Contact me if you fall behind. I assume you won't, and am too lazy to construct an RFD right now
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
The voting period isn't even over. You're worried for nothing
Posted by Lulzy 1 year ago
Lulzy
That gif though. I support that gif.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
jqLee001Tied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments