The Instigator
Jeeexo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Siege
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Should there be a death penalty?

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...
Siege
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 440 times Debate No: 34856
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Jeeexo

Pro

Yes, there should be a death penalty, however only for very extreme crimes, such as murder, rape, and manslaughter to name a few. Especially murder, because if somebody murdered and killed somebody, they should be killed as well. However the problem with this is that there could be a possibility that the person that the court accuses of being guilty could be innocent, and so I think that there has to be proof, a witnesses, and a lot of evidence.
Siege

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

First, I would like to point out to voters exactly where the burden of proof lies. It is up to Pro to prove to the best of his ability, why the death penalty benefits society. I think it is obvious from his opening argument that he has failed to do this and simply stated the situation he thinks the death penalty would apply.

I ask that you vote against the motion on that ground alone.

However, I will still attempt to explain how the death penalty does not benefit society.

First, ask yourself, what exactly does the death penalty accomplish? Keeping murderers off the street? Well, surely putting them in jail for life would accomplish the same thing. Additionally, there have been many instances where the wrong person is convicted and sentenced to death, however, after they have been killed we can not bring them back simply with an "I'm sorry, we made a mistake". However, if you put them in jail for life, if evidence comes up that there was a mistake,they can always be set free. To put it simply, the death penalty is much to final with too much room for error. Now, my opponent argues that the death penalty should only apply when there is a witness and "a lot of evidence", however, not even this can ensure that the person being sentenced is 100% guilty. Witnesses can lie, and evidence can be planted.

Additionally, the death penalty is not a fair system. In some cities, no matter what you do, you will not receive the death penalty. Is it fair that you can be put to death simply based on where you live? I do not think so. Additionally, since 2002, there have been 178 black defendants execute for murdering white victims, while there have been only 12 white men executed for murdering black victims[1]. The shows the possibility of a structurally racist system. Not only this, but the system is built against the poor, as studies have shown that murderers using public defendants are more likely to be sentenced.

So I ask again, what exactly does the death penalty accomplish? Certainly not justice. Killing the perpetrator will not bring the victim back to life. But surely it saves tax payer dollars from having to pay to keep these murderers alive in our prisons? Studies have shown that this is not the case. It costs far more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. A 2011 study found that California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978 and that death penalty trials are 20 times more expensive than trials seeking a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole[2].

With this evidence, I would like to put forward the motion that the death penalty accomplishes nothing, and is much to imperfect of a system to be legal. Additionally, my opponent has put forward no evidence to the contrary. With this, I put forward that voters dismiss the motion.

[1]http://www.aclu.org...
[2] http://www.deathpenalty.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Jeeexo

Pro

Jeeexo forfeited this round.
Siege

Con

I will forfeit this round as well.
Debate Round No. 2
Jeeexo

Pro

Jeeexo forfeited this round.
Siege

Con

Disappointing that an interesting topic ended this way, but I urge you to vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
JeeexoSiegeTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
JeeexoSiegeTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con uses sources, and gets conduct points for not forfeiting. Also, Con says that witnesses can lie when it comes to justifying death penalty for someone.