The Instigator
BlairSharpe
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Guardian
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Should capital punishment be abolished?

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...
BlairSharpe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,232 times Debate No: 26221
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

BlairSharpe

Pro

On moral ground, capital punishment should be abolished. "Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The judicial decree that someone be punished in this manner is a death sentence, while the actual process of killing the person is an execution." - Wikipedia.

"Nobody has the right to take another life" - Roger Elbert

If society defines it immoral to take a human life, how can society then take a turning point and take the life of the murderer. subsequently, they are both wrong for the same reason. Capital punishment occurs to seek revenge for what has been done to another human being.

""Death is real, irreversible, and awful." - Alexander Jablokov
Going beyond immoral grounds, capital punishment ought to be abolished because it leaves no possible way to reverse if the suspect is innocent. Mistakes in judgment should be correctable. in 2004, Cameron Todd Williamson was executed in Texas for starting the fire that killed his children. Forensic scientists specializing in fires and hired by the state of Texas have found that the fire was accidental.

"The death penalty doesn't stop others from committing murder. Homicide rates are consistently higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in those without it. The most recent FBI data confirms this." - Susan S

Capital punishment has shown no help in crime. Statistics all over the world show this. the proverb "two wrongs don't make a right" also support that the theory of taking a human life because of his/ her actions is outrageous.

With all statistics and with moral grounds noted, Capital punishment should be abolished.
Guardian

Con

Thank you BlaireSharpe for the excellent debate topic.

"If society defines it immoral to take a human life, how can society then take a turning point and take the life of the murderer."

Society is not the determining factor if something is wrong or not. Society in Germany during the 1940's determined that it wanted Hitler as its leader and Jews massacred in concentration camps, but that did not make the genocide moral. Society does not determine morality. Morality comes from a source outside ourselves.

In Romans 13 the Bible says "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God"s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God"s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."

Society does not determine morality as seen in the example of Nazi Germany. Doubtless some will argue against the validity of the Bible as a source in a debate. To those who would question the merits of using it in a debate I would say that the Bible has more evidence supporting it than any other ancient writing. There are over 25,000 manuscripts (some dating back to 40-60 years after Christ) of the New Testament in existence. All of these manuscripts are remarkably in agreement with each other besides minor grammatical differences. While this is a very brief part of the debate on the veracity of Scripture, it does show that I have legitimate reasons for quoting the Bible in a debate.

"The death penalty doesn't stop others from committing murder. Homicide rates are consistently higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in those without it. The most recent FBI data confirms this." - Susan S

I would appreciate it if you could cite the FBI's study on this subject so I can view the report.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...
The studies on this website clearly show that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime.

Also, DNA testing is making investigations much more accurate and decreasing the incidents of innocent people being charged with crimes they did not commit.

The death penalty has a positive effect in another way also. It provided prosecutors with a valuable bargaining chip to help them make plea deals and relieve the severely clogged court system.
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Guardian 1 year ago
Guardian
BlairSharpe... I accepted your friend request. I do have to warn you that between work and family I'm not on this site very often though. Thanks again for the great debate!
Posted by BlairSharpe 1 year ago
BlairSharpe
@Guardian, don't worry about it. I do not remember the certain graph that I looked at my apologies also for not keeping track. Also, did you get my friend request? i'd love to have someone in my friends list with experience in debating. i'v just started getting into the debating world because i just entered grade 10 and became interested in debating. thanks.
Posted by Guardian 1 year ago
Guardian
My apologies BlaireSharpe... I asked you to clarify the FBI study not realizing this was a one round debate.
Posted by adontimasu 1 year ago
adontimasu
I am surprised no one has accepted this challenge yet. It's quite a heated issue on here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 1 year ago
TheHitchslap
BlairSharpeGuardianTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: While both arguments were incredibly weak, I'm giving arguments to Pro. Con noted biblical grounds for justification. Not good enough, what makes them significant? Even if it was legitimate it actually appears to improve Pro's side not con's. Also a concession was made because the answer of morality was a non-sequitur.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
BlairSharpeGuardianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side presented great arguments. Pro was unable to defend his position, and con dud ok on rebuttals. Neither aside can win in one round unless one side gives a stellar case, or stellar in comparison to the other, neither did so. Args tied, sources con: he had them. Rest tied.