The Instigator
EAT_IT_SUKA
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
AlternativeDavid
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should Capital Punishment/Death Penalty 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 4 votes the winner is...
EAT_IT_SUKA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 890 times Debate No: 71814
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

This argument will be about whether or not the death penalty [1] should be legal, and my thesis will be: 'the death penalty should be legal.' My opponent's thesis will be: 'the death penalty should not be legal.' The burden of proof will be an equal amount between me and my opponent. Any information gained from internet research needs a link (and if you use an expert's [2] opinion, you need the expert's name as well as the link you found the information from), and any research from books needs to have the title and author of the book, as well as the chapter and page. This will be a formal debate, no insulting. The format for the debate will be as follows:
Round 1) Acceptance--no arguments
Round 2) Opening Arguments--no rebuttals
Round 3) More arguments/Rebuttals
Round 4) Conclusion and Summary of your Arguments/Any Impact Turns
*Please note that you have only 24 hours to respond to a post*
[1]-A sentence of death imposed on a convicted criminal
Reference: http://www.duhaime.org...
[2]-A person who has enough experience and knowledge in a specific field to be a
reliable source for a specific part of that field (eg: an elementary school teacher is an expert in elementary education)*Note: my own definition*
By accepting this debate, you also accept all of the terms above. Good luck.
AlternativeDavid

Con

I accept the terms and conditions. As somebody who recently changed from being pro-death penalty to being against it, I hope to give you a reason to question your own beliefs.

I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

Alright, thank you CON for accepting the debate. This is going to be good. Let's jump right into it. Oh, just so the audience knows, if CON violates any rules I made above, you vote for PRO by default.

1) MORALITY
By killing people who have committed serious crimes, we are holding them responsible for their actions (Note: I don't agree with killing somebody for any crime other than murder). It's what Martin Luther King Jr. wanted, as he clearly stated: 'I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character'[1]. Have you ever heard of taking responsibility of your actions? The person being executed decided their own fate. They CHOSE. The shaped their fate, not us. I basically summed up what Bruce Fein, JD, General Counsel for the Center for Law and Accountability, said [2]. (exception for severely mentally ill people who can't control their actions)

2) DETERRENCE
The death penalty does indeed deter crime. As evidenced by this book: 'Contemporary Issues Companion: The Death Penalty.' It was made by David Bender, Bruno Leone, Hayley Mitchell, Bonnie Szumski, Stuart Miller and Brenda Stalcup, but it doesn't seem to have one author.
I'd like to point your attention to 'Chapter 2: Perspectives on the Death Penalty' Page 60-62. The chapter states: 'In the following article, George E. Pataki, the governor of New York, explains why he signed a law that reinstated the death penalty in his state. Pataki contends that the death penalty helps to ensure the application of laws by giving the government a means to provide justice for wrongs committed against its people. The death penalty is an effective deterrent of crime, Pataki asserts.'
The first paragraph under the subtitle 'The Death Penalty can Save Lives' on page 61, George E. Pataki states: 'The death penalty will not bring back the victims of violent crime, but I am confident that it will act as a deterrent of crime and it will save lives. Those who disagree only need to look to the account of the August 1977 riot at Eastern Correctional Facility, where correctional officers being held hostage overheard inmates deciding against executing the hostages because, at that time, it was a capital offense. The deterrent saved lives. Without the death penalty as a tool for jurists, a murderer can kill again without consequence.'
Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD, late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, in an Oct. 17, 1983 New York Times Op-Ed article titled "For the Death Penalty,' stated: "Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder, if anything can. People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death. Death is final. But where there is life there is hope... Wherefore, life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death. (Only an infinitesimal percentage of murderers are suicidal.) Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder."[3]
I also found these two charts that show that as the number of executions go down, the number of murders go up, therefore, showing that the death penalty deters crime: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...

3) PUBLIC SAFETY
By executing a guilty murderer, we are making sure that they will not murder again. My point is, guilty murderers who go to prison are still a threat to society.
On page 61-62 in 'Contemporary Issues Companion: The Death Penalty' (creators listed in last argument), in 'Chapter 2: Perspectives on the Death Penalty,' the second paragraph under the subtitle 'The Death Penalty can Save Lives' is George E. Pataki stating: 'Another flawed position held by death penalty opponents is that once a criminal is behind bars he or she is no longer a threat to society. Consider the case of Corey Jackson, an inmate who was serving a 25-years-to -life sentence for a 1994 homicide. On May 9, 1996, he was convicted of murdering three teens, on a drug dealer's orders, and was sentenced three more life sentences. While awaiting transfer to a state prison from the Brooklyn House of Detention, Jackson slashed a handyman at that facility, Robert Manning in the face with a razor. The attack on Manning left him with 60 stitches and a permanent scar. Manning was lucky to escape with his life. What makes this case even more disturbing is the fact that Manning sat on the jury that found Jackson guilty of the teen murders, and after Jackson's savage attack on Robert Manning , he yelled 'you thought I couldn't get you, but I got you.' It is evident that Jackson has no regard for the rules of our society.'
Also, take into consideration the case of Ted Bundy [4]. Bundy was first put to trial and convicted for, as the Wikipedia article states: 'On March 1, after a four-day trial and a weekend of deliberation, Judge Stewart Hanson, Jr. found him guilty of kidnapping and assault. He was sentenced to one to 15 years in the Utah State Prison on June 30. In October he was found hiding in bushes in the prison yard carrying an 'escape kit' --road maps, airline schedules, and a social security card--and spent several weeks in solitary confinement. Later that month Colorado authorities charged him with Caryn Campbell's murder. After a period of resistance, he waived extradition proceedings and was transferred to Aspen in January 1977.'
He tried to escape, but was caught a couple days after. But then, he escaped for real, and continued his crimes, stealing a car and driving to Atlanta, where he resumed, as the articles states: 'shoplifting and stealing credit cards from women's wallets left in shopping carts.'
The article states more: 'Sometime during the evening of January 14 or the early hours of January 15, 197--one week after his arrival in Tallahassee--Bundy entered FSU's Chi Omega sorority house through a rear door with a faulty lock. Beginning at about 2:45 am he bludgeoned Margaret Bowman, 21, with a piece of oak firewood as she slept, then garroted her with a nylon stocking. He then entered the bedroom of 20-year-old Lisa Levy and beat her unconscious, strangled her, tore one of her nipples, bit deeply into her left buttock, and sexually assaulted her with a hair mist bottle. In an adjoining bedroom he attacked Kathy Kleiner, breaking her jaw and deeply lacerating her shoulder; and Karen Chandler, who suffered a concussion, broken jaw, loss of teeth, and a crushed finger. Tallahassee detectives later determined that the four attacks took place in a total of less than 15 minutes, within earshot of more than 30 witnesses who heard nothing. After leaving the sorority house Bundy broke into a basement apartment eight blocks away and attacked FSU student Cheryl Thomas, dislocating her shoulder and fracturing jaw and skull in five places. She was left with permanent deafness, and equilibrium damage that ended her dance career.'
Ted Bundy was later caught and has been executed.

CON, you may part 2's for your opening arguments in round 3 if you wish. I will also ask CON to not continue any part of his post in the comments section. Those are my opening arguments.
[1]- http://www.brainyquote.com...
[2]-http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
[3]-http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
[4]-http://en.wikipedia.org...

Back to CON.
AlternativeDavid

Con

AlternativeDavid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

I must say, CON's forfeit is very disappointing. I clearly stated that he had 24 hours to respond to a post. In fact, CON stated this in the first round:

'I accept the terms and conditions. As somebody who recently changed from being pro-death penalty to being against it, I hope to give you a reason to question your own beliefs.
I look forward to a good debate.'

I was looking forward for a good debate as well. I thought that this debate would be a serious one, no trolling, no forfeiting, etc.

Anyway, because of CON's forfeit, I will not be posting any arguments this round. However, because this is a refuting round, if CON comes back in this round with his own arguments, I will be allowed to refute them in round 4, as he didn't give me a chance to refute anything in this round. If CON forfeits again this round, I will win by default, because the only thing CON can do in round 4 is make impact turns and summarize his arguments...if he has any.

I'm disappointed, CON. Don't disappoint me again.
AlternativeDavid

Con

AlternativeDavid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
EAT_IT_SUKA

Pro

CON's forfeit in round 3 marks the end of an anticlimactic debate. I explained last round how I felt about CON's forfeit in round 2, but this is the last straw. CON has no arguments, and he can't make any arguments now, nor an argument summary, because, again, he doesn't have any. I have had to rebut nothing, and only made 3 arguments. Nevertheless, I will still make a conclusion and summary of my 3, still standing, non-refuted arguments:

SUMMARY OF PRO'S ARGUMENTS:
By killing people who have committed serious crimes, we are holding them responsible for their actions. Any fully sane person who is being executed got themselves there. We didn't force them to commit a crime to end up with a rope around their neck. I basically summed up what Bruce Fein, JD, General Counsel for the Center for Law and Accountability, said [1].

The death penalty does deter crime. In the book 'Contemporary Issues Companion: The Death Penalty,' in 'Chapter 2: Perspectives on the Death Penalty,' on page 60-62, George E. Pataki, Governor of New York, talks about why he allows the death penalty in his state. On page 61, Pataki says he is confident that the death penalty will deter crime because of the August 1977 riot at Eastern Correctional Facility, where correctional officers who were being held hostage heard inmates deciding to not kill the officers because it was a capital offense at the time. Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD, late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, in an Oct. 17, 1983 New York Times Op-Ed article titled "For the Death Penalty,' stated: "Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder, if anything can. People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death. Death is final. But where there is life there is hope... Wherefore, life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death [2].' There are also these two charts that show that as the number of executions go down, the number of illegal murders go up, and the more executions there are, the less illegal murders there are, therefore, showing that the death penalty deters crime: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...

Murderers who go to jail and aren't executed can still be a threat to society. In the same book above, in the same chapter and on the same page, George E. Pataki mentions Corey Jackson, who was guilty murderer, who slashed a handyman named Robert Manning in the face with a razor (the attack left Manning with 60 stitches--he is lucky to still be alive) while awaiting transfer to a state prison--Jackson was later found to be guilty of more murders. Also consider the case of Ted Bundy [3], who was originally charged with kidnapping, assault and the murder of Caryn Cambell. He later escaped prison, stole a car, drove to Atlanta, and sometime during an evening or early hours of the day, he murdered Margaret Bowman, physically and sexually assaulted Lisa Levy, and then attacked Kathy Kleiner, Karen Chandler and Cheryl Thomas, all in a short period of time.

[1]-http://deathpenalty.procon.org......
[2]-http://deathpenalty.procon.org......
[3]-http://en.wikipedia.org......

CONCLUSION OF THE DEATH PENALTY
The death penalty doesn't kill people who were forced to commit crimes, is successful at deterring crimes and prevents murderers from murdering again. The death penalty is not only acceptable, but an effective system in society.

























































AlternativeDavid

Con

I feel like a total idiot. I apologize for forfeiting my rounds. I was busy but didn't even think of getting on. Sorry for ruining this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Futurepresident2048 2 years ago
Futurepresident2048
EAT_IT_SUKAAlternativeDavidTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited every round...
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
EAT_IT_SUKAAlternativeDavidTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
EAT_IT_SUKAAlternativeDavidTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
EAT_IT_SUKAAlternativeDavidTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF