The Instigator
MadisonReneN
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should Capital Punishment Be Allowed?

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 2 votes the winner is...
TheRussian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 342 times Debate No: 88911
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

MadisonReneN

Pro

Round one will be for acceptance, round two for arguments, and round three for rebuttals.
TheRussian

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
MadisonReneN

Pro

Capital Punishment or the death penalty, is punishment by death so forth ordered by the government. In order to receive this type of punishment, the convict may commit a capital crime. Capital crimes include first degree murder, rape with the addition of bodily harm, and also treason. All of those serve as examples of capital crimes and by committing those crimes, the person may receive the possible punishment of capital punishment.

Dudley Sharp, the Director of Death Penalty Resources at Justice for All says, "JFA [Justice for All] estimates that LWOP (Life Without Parole) cases will cost $1.2 million-$3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases." As many people say that it would be much more of a punishment for the convicts to receive LWOP, they don"t realize how costly it is to feed and provide other necessities for the inmate. Capital Punishment cases, don"t cost nearly as much. So, wouldn"t it be more cost efficient just to kill the convicts rather than to spend millions on them? Its far more cheaper which is only one of the reasons that Capital Punishment should remain in place.

People often say that Capital Punishment isn"t morally right, but is killing or raping someone morally right? Many people only see the fact that they"re being sentenced to death, they don"t look at the reasons why. How would it be fair if they took someone"s life, but got to keep theirs? Any man who shall kill, shall not be able to live himself. Capital punishment is completely justified, in a case of murder, rape, or treason. If one is sentences to capital punishment, then it is clear that the person committed a heinous crime. The death penalty should not be taken away, it serves a very important purpose in our society; to rid of the filth that walk the earth. Capital Punishment stays, hardcore criminals gone.

(There is more reasons that I could use to back up this claim, however, I currently have limited time.)

definitions.uslegal.com/c/capital-offense

http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
TheRussian

Con

I'd like to that my opponent for putting out such an interesting topic for debate.

Firstly, I'd like to say that capital punishment, surprisingly, is significantly more expensive than keeping the person in jail for life. Cited below is a link to many studies which all make the above conclusion.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

Secondly, executing the prisoner doesn't allow room for error. That is, if the wrong person was convicted, nothing can be done after they're killed, however if they are simply imprisoned, then they could be released in the case of a mistake.

Third, there is little to no evidence that the death penalty actually deters crime. If this is the case, there's literally no point of doing it.
http://nccadp.org...

Finally, if the voter or my opponent take the position of wanting to brutally punish criminals, doesn't life in prison sound worse than just ending the criminals' misery in an instant?

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
MadisonReneN

Pro

I"m noticing there are some inconsistencies with my research. I realize there are lots of different websites stating different price ranges on the cost of death penalty cases. So, if you would disregard that statement in my previous argument, that would be great, seeing as there is no true average cost for a death penalty case. I apologize, but moving on.

You say that if a person is wrongfully convicted and given the death penalty and they are killed, there is clearly no way to take it back. While you are right, the statistics show that only 4% (or 1 in 8) of people put on death row are wrongfully convicted. So, would it be reasonable to rid of the system because of a few injustices? 96% (give or take) are rightfully convicted and are meant to be on death row.

http://www.theguardian.com...

http://www.newsweek.com...

http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...

Although the death penalty has proven not to show a decline in violent crimes such as murder and rape, it still serves a purpose. Even if it"s not declining crime rates, the system is a perfect example of serving justice. It gives the victim and/or the family a sense of justice because the crime they committed was heinous enough for them to be put on death row, so they should be killed. What I"m trying to say is that they"ve done the crime, now they deserve to pay the price, and that price being their life. Capital Punishment may not decrease crime rates, but it serves a purpose, a purpose to the people; a purpose of justice.

(Sorry for the long wait of a response. I was unaware that it was my turn to argue. I must say, this is the best debate I"ve been in so far. You"ve put a very well proposed argument.)
TheRussian

Con

My opponent's first point was about the cost of capital punishment, which I think I refuted in my opening Round with a source that links to many papers claiming the opposite.

My opponent's second point is essentially a rebuttal to a classic argument I might have said, but since I didn't say it, it is an irrelevant point.

So it seems the argument for Capital Punishment rests solely on it supposedly being cheaper, which was disproved in my opening Round.

I thank my opponent for providing this interesting topic for debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: stschiffman// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 2 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Even though I agree with Con, I still believe Pro had better arguments. I feel like in Round 3, Con should have done more to summarize and explain their points. But I must give Con the reliable sources points, as Pro even admitted his sources on the cost of the death penalty were likely flawed.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than generalize about what Con could have done better in order to explain why Pro is winning the debate. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained, as the voter must justify these points by comparing sources from both sides not merely pointing to flaws in one side's sources.
************************************************************************
Posted by TheRussian 8 months ago
TheRussian
Also the time limit actually, it is difficult to manage to put up a thorough response given only 24 hours, you will find that most of the good debates by good/experienced debaters on here will give each contestant the full 72 hours to respond.
Posted by TheRussian 8 months ago
TheRussian
Try making more rounds next time, makes for a more thorough and better debate :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
MadisonReneNTheRussianTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The offense I have from Pro is two-fold: costs and retributive justice. The impact from the former is very unclear, because Pro doesn't explain why wasting that money is bad. The whole argument is only a link. I can gauge some impact from the argument implicitly, but it doesn't stand much against 4% of those convicted being innocents. Lives easily outweigh costs because as far as that argument is concerned, that's the only impact. Costs is lost magnitude-wise. It doesn't do so well based on probability either, because both sides have a source suggesting the opposite. Neither side adequately rebuts the other source. So I'm not buying costs. The justice argument isn't sufficiently explained at all. Pro doesn't tell me how important justice is either. They don't explain how retributive justice provides solid impact or offense. When weighing that against innocents, it doesn't stand. Pro also doesn't provide evidence of recidivism (an attempted impact from R1). Thus, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 8 months ago
Greg4586
MadisonReneNTheRussianTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: We have a few arguments on the table here, justice, economic cost, and deterrence, Con has demonstrated the death penalty is very taxing on our government which pro concedes. Con demonstrates that there's no evidence the death penalty deters crime which Pro concedes. Pro states that it is the punishment for the crimes the committed that they deserve, Con states that live in the hellhole we call prison is worse and innocent people are executed. I voted Con because even if it's justice I don't see any good reason to create additional expenses to the state for absolutely no practical purpose. On justice I think this argument goes to Con. Con brings up a good point that making them spend their entire lives in prison is worse than just ending their lives quickly which I found persuasive, also innocent people are killed when they're wrongfully on death row. Considering that fact I see no reason to keep a practice that is expensive, useless and kills innocent people no matter how few