The Instigator
sassypup419
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TBR
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev face a death penalty from the Boston Marathon bombings?

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...
TBR
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/22/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 73953
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

sassypup419

Pro

I think Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should face the death penalty. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should because he hurt and killed more than dozens of innocent people. He could've also been working along side Isis. He did this because he didn't care about what people thought. Minutes after the bombing, him and his brother walked into a market like they didn't care or know what just happened. He caused the death of an eight year old boy. He caused a runner losing both of their legs and ending up with prosthetics. It is unfair that he put the lives of innocent people to end.
TBR

Con

All the normal arguments against the death penalty are equally valid regardless of severity of the crime, however, this one has a unique twist. It involves Islamic terrorism. If the concentration must then be on terrorism, does it deserve a unique place in our justice system, and are the normal pro-death penalty arguments weaker or stronger in the case of terrorism.

Since we have a four round debate, and arguments are starting in round one, I will not bombard pro with affirmative arguments, only offering one this round.


Deterrence

On the pro-death penalty side, deterrence is a prime topic. Generally this topic has been covered with the anti-death penalty argument comes out ahead. 88% of leading criminologists, citing enumerable studies and datasets state this fact unequivocally, the death penalty is not a good deterrent to crime [1]. The public understand this fact generally too [2].

What makes this case unique is trying to evaluate the deterrence effect of the death penalty on terrorists. This is in fact unique. Are terrorists more or less likely to be deterred from this action with the death penalty as an option in sentencing? They don’t see suicide, or death connected with an attack as a loss, but an absolute guaranteed way of entry into Paradise. An enemy of Islam is the target, then the terrorist can think of himself as a loyal martyr for Islam. We have given the terrorists exactly what they wish, the glorious death as a martyr.

[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[2] http://content.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 1
sassypup419

Pro

You probably copied and pasted all that into the text box. I think Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should face the death penalty. He should because then he's out of the way and he won't bother innocent civilians any more. You must be not very smart because you probably don't realize that he killed an innocent eight year old boy. He hurt innocent people and he cause one women to have two fake legs. In court, he didn't show any sign of care or thought that he did something bad and it hurt millions of people across the world.
TBR

Con

Rebuttals

I think Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should face the death penalty. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should because he hurt and killed more than dozens of innocent people. He could've also been working along side Isis. He did this because he didn't care about what people thought. Minutes after the bombing, him and his brother walked into a market like they didn't care or know what just happened. He caused the death of an eight year old boy. He caused a runner losing both of their legs and ending up with prosthetics. It is unfair that he put the lives of innocent people to end.

The causality count for the incident are three deaths directly from the bombings, the death of one officer and the death of Tamerlan in the attempt to apprehend Dzhokhar and Tamerlan. The total injury count is ~264 running from minor to life changing loss of limbs [1]. The human suffering was terrible, this was life altering for a great many innocent people, and is unquestionably despicable.

As to the point of potential ISIS connections, this point is highly implausible. ISIS was still al Qaeda in Iraq (and Yemen) at the time, however, there is no denying the influence the brothers felt from the turmoil in the middle east at the time of the attack.

You probably copied and pasted all that into the text box.

If you are implying plagiarism, you should back that with some fact.

I think Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should face the death penalty. He should because then he's out of the way and he won't bother innocent civilians any more.

Death sentence or life in prison, civilians will not be bothered with him any more.

You must be not very smart because you probably don't realize that he killed an innocent eight year old boy. He hurt innocent people and he cause one women to have two fake legs.

Ad-hominem.

In court, he didn't show any sign of care or thought that he did something bad and it hurt millions of people across the world.

All the more reason to lock him away. He should die with remorse, not in a personal state of satisfaction of his greatest desire – to die as a martyr.


Vengeance

Pro's entire argument is resting on vengeance at this point. Meting out justice based on vengeance is hate. The state is not responsible for seeking vengeance for the victims of a crime. The states only responsibility is punishment and rehabilitation when possible. Since this case has little potential for rehabilitation, we can look at punishment. Punishment for this criminal is not served by killing him while he is in a deluted state of grace.

As a young man, he will have a very long life to regret his actions, and suffer for the harm he has done.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
sassypup419

Pro

Wow. (Claps sarcastically.) YOU stole my opinion. He should face death penalty because he did something horrible. He should experience the pain of hundreds of people. He may be away from everyone but he should be dead because that way he can't break out and he can't hurt anyone knowing where he would go. He can't just rip people from their families for absolutely no reason at all. If you saw the view from the ground, you would've seen blood and BB's from the bomb. The striking evidence shows that him and his brother walked into a store minutes later and acted like what he just did was no big deal. Looking at video evidence minutes after the blast, you could hear innocent CHILDREN crying. The blast even affected the most innocent of people and hurt their parents as well. It may have happened a while ago, and I know I'm living in the past, but I still do believe that he should still deserve death penalty. By the way, you should NOT use Wikipedia as a source. (Just helping with propor college writing systems.
TBR

Con

Wow. (Claps sarcastically.) YOU stole my opinion. He should face death penalty because he did something horrible.


Not at all - You are proposing imposing the death penalty, I am not.


He should experience the pain of hundreds of people. He may be away from everyone but he should be dead because that way he can't break out and he can't hurt anyone knowing where he would go. He can't just rip people from their families for absolutely no reason at all.


He had reasons; just none of them were good, legal, or acceptable. He should experience punishment, and you have yet to connect the death penalty to proper punishment. To this point, you have offered no rebuttal of my contention that life imprisonment would be more punishment than dyeing a martyr.


If you saw the view from the ground, you would've seen blood and BB's from the bomb. The striking evidence shows that him and his brother walked into a store minutes later and acted like what he just did was no big deal. Looking at video evidence minutes after the blast, you could hear innocent CHILDREN crying. The blast even affected the most innocent of people and hurt their parents as well. It may have happened a while ago, and I know I'm living in the past, but I still do believe that he should still deserve death penalty. By the way, you should NOT use Wikipedia as a source. (Just helping with propor college writing systems.


Well… You have not established where I was, or what I have seen. I will say I was not there that day. I had a friend wife running in the marathon, and got some chilling reports back on that day.


As to sourcing, you have provided none. The Wikipedia source was fine for causality count, and your non-source was simply wrong. I have no idea what “propor college writing systems” is.



Debate Round No. 3
sassypup419

Pro

sassypup419 forfeited this round.
TBR

Con

Well I didn't expect much from the last round. Extend uncontested points.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
"He cost millions of lives all for the sake for Americans to believe in his [and his brother's] religion beliefs." - Where are you going with that point?
Posted by Rainyi 2 years ago
Rainyi
I believe in Pro, about 3 million dollars will be spent on Tsarnaev throughout his life in jail, no death penalty is just too easy. He cost millions of lives all for the sake for Americans to believe in his [and his brother's] religion beliefs. I would understand if this was an incident, but it wasn't. He and his brother planned this for months maybe years, collecting bombs, and finding the best route to go. I believe in Pro.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
I as on the fence if I was going to take it. One more min delay I clicking you would have had it.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
You beat me! I had just figured out a hilarious Hilary Clinton inspired victim blaming defense.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
sassypup419TBR
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, and left many of con's points uncontested in the end. They lost points for conduct for accusing Con of cheating repeatedly as well. Con was also the only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by kingkd 2 years ago
kingkd
sassypup419TBR
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Horrible Pro conduct accusing Con of plagiarizing. TBR has better sources and explains his reasons better, saying that the arguments for death penalty fail in this case.
Vote Placed by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
sassypup419TBR
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF'd, insulted Con, dropped several points, and provided zero sources while make multiple fallacies. Clear win for Con.