The Instigator
ThadeusSmith
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Leo.Messi
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Leo.Messi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,703 times Debate No: 66375
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

ThadeusSmith

Con

Currently there are 3,425 people on Death Row. An incredible 4% are innocent. This totals to 123 people who will be killed, even though they are innocent. The Death Penalty should not be allowed for 3 reasons.
1- It is Morally Wrong

2- It is expensive

3- It is unconstitutional

Rules: There will be 5 rounds. Introduction, Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3, Conclusion. Any personal attacks on the other debater will result in an instant disqualification. Any logical fallacies can be pointed out. Rebuttals are allowed, and in fact encouraged. Remember to cite your sources for each argument, and may the best man win!
Leo.Messi

Pro

I accept! Good luck bro.
I agree no personal attacks on other player (Ad Hominem)
I will offer no rebuttals so it is a fair debate.
Debate Round No. 1
ThadeusSmith

Con

Argument 1) It is morally wrong. In response to Atheist_Person, I did not cite those statistics because I will be using them here. They will be cited here.

There are 3,425 people on death row. 123 of them are innocent. This means that 123 innocent people will be killed, no, murdered. Therefore, the people who are carry out the death penalty on them will be murderers. This is morally wrong, as stated by the Bible in Exodus 20:13.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi

Sources:
http://www.openbible.info...

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

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

http://www.theguardian.com...
Leo.Messi

Pro

Rebuttals: You stated that "this is morally wrong as stated by the Bible in Exodus 20:13" The passage states, "Do not murder." However, the death penalty is not murder, but capital punishment. Murder is in cold blood, the death penalty is a punishment. Besides that, the Bible actually recommends the death penalty in passages 22:18-20 "A sorceress may not be allowed to live. Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be executed. Anyone who sacrifices to any other God must be destroyed..." This is the death penalty as punishment for their actions. Also Leviticus 20:2 "...they must be stoned to death by the people...(for sacrificing their children to Molech). So as you can see, the Bible does not really say that the death penalty is morally wrong, but rather right. Now, my arguments.

I. People do deserve to die. The death penalty Is only instituted for murder or (in rare cases) the rape of a child. Yes, this does unfortunately happen, and these people do deserve a death penalty. Allow me to call Alton Nolen to the witness stand.

"An Oklahoma man who allegedly went on an angry rampage last week after being suspended from his job at a food processing plant was charged Tuesday with first-degree murder and could face the death penalty for beheading a fellow worker with a knife, a prosecutor said.

"Alton Nolen, 30, is accused of killing Colleen Hufford, 54, and of stabbing and injuring a second co-worker, Traci Johnson, 43, at Vaughan Foods in Moore, Okla., on Thursday. He was stopped only after the company's chief operating officer, Mark Vaughan, who is also a reserve sheriff's deputy, shot and injured Nolen in his arm and abdomen with a rifle.
Cleveland County Prosecutor Greg Mashburn said Nolen has been charged with first-degree murder. Mashburn said he might seek the death penalty in the case. He said Nolen would be arraigned after he is released from the hospital.
Mashburn said Nolen, who had recently converted to Islam and has tried to convert some fellow workers, shouted some "Arabic words" during the attacks. He also said Nolen had "some sort of infatuation with beheadings."
"It seemed to be related to his interest in killing someone that way," Mashburn said. "Other than that, it seemed to be related to his being suspended earlier in the day."--USA TODAY

This man was cutting peoples heads off. Of course he deserves the death penalty for this heinous crime.
Also, Allow me to reference the horrible 21 Nazi War criminals in the Nuremberg Trials who were responsible for the death of 6 million Jews and other heinous War crimes. 11 received the death penalty.The Sentencing and Execution of Nazi War criminals.

In November 1945, twenty-one men sat in the dock of a Nuremberg courtroom on trial for their lives. The group represented the "cream of the crop" of the Nazi leadership including Herman Goering, Hitler's heir apparent until falling out of favor in the closing days of the war, and Rudolph Hess, Hitler's deputy who had been in custody since parachuting
into England in 1941. (A 22nd defendant - Martin Bormann - had escaped capture and was tried in absentia).
Each defendant was accused of one or more of four charges: conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts; crimes against peace; war crimes; or crimes against humanity. Specific charges included the murder of over 6 million Jews, pursuing an aggressive war, the brutality of the concentration camps and the use of slave labor. The judges represented the major victors in the war in Europe - Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States. The defendants all proclaimed their innocence, many declaring that they were just following orders or questioning the authority of the court to pass judgment. The verdicts were announced on October 1, 1946. Eighteen of the defendants were found guilty while three were acquitted. Eleven of the guilty were sentenced to death by hanging, the remainder received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life."-http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...

If there was no death penalty, these crimes would go as "20 years to-life imprisonment" or go unpunished. The death penalty is a just punishment for those committing horrible acts.

II. Conclusion. We should have the death penalty because some people deserve it and, contrary to your point, it is not morally wrong. The Bible supports it. By saying that the death penalty's morally wrong you are saying the bible is morally wrong. Obviously not! The Bible is all about strict morality! So we can conclude that since God commands The death penalty it is a moral practice.

And for those of you who do not believe in God, look at the men that have received the death penalty! Horrible crimes were committed by them! They deserve the death penalty. We need to keep this punishment in practice so that criminals can get what they deserve!

Good luck with your next argument Thadeus.
Debate Round No. 2
ThadeusSmith

Con

Rebuttal: You are correct. I should have been more careful with my words. The correct word is manslaughter, not murder.

2- Expensive + Better Punishment. The cost for to defend in court and keep in death row is around $2,000,000. LOP (Life without Parole) has a cost of only $1,000,000. The cost is $1,000,000 cheaper than the death penalty. Also, LOP is a better punishment than the Death Penalty.Imagine dying, quickly and painlessly. That isn't really a punishment, especially for somebody who has already sent people to the grave. Then, look at a life spent in tiny rooms with disgusting food and countless fights with other prisoners. Given the option, I would choose dying. But if we make it clear the tiny rooms, horrible/little food, fights and injuries, and dying alone and scared are what murder and rape get you, the crime rTe would go down dramatically.
Leo.Messi

Pro

Rebuttals: You said that the death penalty (and the process) costs around 2 million, however this is incorrect. The true statistic is 1.26 million. "The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million."

Also you stated that the cost of life in prison is 1 million dollars. Dudley Sharp, Death Penalty Resources Director of Justice For All (JFA), in an Oct. 1, 1997 Justice for All presentation titled "Death Penalty and Sentencing Information," wrote:

"Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million MORE than equivalent death penalty cases..."
So you can see that, contrary to your point, it is LESS cost for the death penalty.

Also, you stated that it would be horrible to go to prison for life based on "tiny rooms, horrible/little food, fights and injuries etc.". However death is most peoples greatest fear. Because they don't know what will happen after they die. As you can see from the Nuremberg trials, when Hermann Goering was sentenced to death, he was extremely scared when he was sentenced to death by hanging. Many others expressed this same fear. Since death is peoples greatest fear, DEATH WILL STRIKE FEAR into criminals hearts and give them what they deserve. the consequences (prison, jail, monetary fines etc.) of committing a crime already bring down the crime rate. So how much more will fear of death bring down the crime rate?

Argument II.
"TheUnited States Supreme Court said this about the death penalty (In Gregg v. Georgia, 1976):

"The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance both in the United States and in England. . . ."

"It is apparent from the text of the Constitution itself that the existence of capital punishment was accepted by the Framers. At the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified, capital punishment was a common sanction in every State. Indeed, the First Congress of the United States enacted legislation providing death as the penalty for specified crimes. The Fifth Amendment, adopted at the same time as the Eighth, contemplated the continued existence of the capital sanction by imposing certain limits on the prosecution of capital cases:"

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . ."

"And the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted over three-quarters of a century later, similarly contemplates the existence of the capital sanction in providing that no State shall deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law."

"For nearly two centuries, this Court, repeatedly and often expressly, has recognized that capital punishment is not invalid per se. . . ."

Summary

The US Supreme Court has for over 200 years, repeatedly declared the death penalty to be constitutional (except for the four years from 1972 to 1976). It based it's decisions on two Amendments to the Constitution that specifically mention the death penalty as follows:

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution says: "No person shall be ... deprived of life ... without due process of law."

The 14th Amendment says: "No state shall ... deprive any person of life ... without due process of law."

Plus the Supreme Court noted that when the Eight Amendment was written regarding cruel and unusual punishment, capital punishment was a common sanction in every State"---http://constitution.now77.com...

The constitution supports the death penalty as long as there is a "due process of law", which means a person must be tried by a judge in order to receive the penalty. But make no mistake, The constitution does allow it.

Refutations. III.
Some may say that the death penalty violates the constitutional amendment 8. No one should receive cruel and unusual punishment. However the death penalty is not cruel. It is a just punishment for ones actions against the public and the state. And it is not unusual. It is practiced by 37 of the 50 states. That's the majority of states that practice this law.
So you can obviously see, that the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual. And therefore it is not in a violation with the constitution. As long as it is enacted after the person is tried in a court of law.

I look forward to your next argument.
Good luck!
Debate Round No. 3
ThadeusSmith

Con

ThadeusSmith forfeited this round.
Leo.Messi

Pro

Since my opponent forfeits,
I will briefly restate my arguments.
"The United States Supreme Court said this about the death penalty (In Gregg v. Georgia, 1976):

"The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance both in the United States and in England. . . ."

"It is apparent from the text of the Constitution itself that the existence of capital punishment was accepted by the Framers. At the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified, capital punishment was a common sanction in every State. Indeed, the First Congress of the United States enacted legislation providing death as the penalty for specified crimes. The Fifth Amendment, adopted at the same time as the Eighth, contemplated the continued existence of the capital sanction by imposing certain limits on the prosecution of capital cases:"

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . ."

"And the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted over three-quarters of a century later, similarly contemplates the existence of the capital sanction in providing that no State shall deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law."

"For nearly two centuries, this Court, repeatedly and often expressly, has recognized that capital punishment is not invalid per se. . . ."

Summary

The US Supreme Court has for over 200 years, repeatedly declared the death penalty to be constitutional (except for the four years from 1972 to 1976). It based it's decisions on two Amendments to the Constitution that specifically mention the death penalty as follows:

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution says: "No person shall be ... deprived of life ... without due process of law."

The 14th Amendment says: "No state shall ... deprive any person of life ... without due process of law."

Plus the Supreme Court noted that when the Eight Amendment was written regarding cruel and unusual punishment, capital punishment was a common sanction in every State"---http://constitution.now77.com......

The constitution supports the death penalty as long as there is a "due process of law", which means a person must be tried by a judge in order to receive the penalty. But make no mistake, The constitution does allow it.

Refutations. III.
Some may say that the death penalty violates the constitutional amendment 8. No one should receive cruel and unusual punishment. However the death penalty is not cruel. It is a just punishment for ones actions against the public and the state. And it is not unusual. It is practiced by 37 of the 50 states. That's the majority of states that practice this law.
So you can obviously see, that the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual. And therefore it is not in a violation with the constitution. As long as it is enacted after the person is tried in a court of law.
Debate Round No. 4
ThadeusSmith

Con

ThadeusSmith forfeited this round.
Leo.Messi

Pro

My opponent forfeits!
Vote con!

Thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Oops,
meant vote pro!
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Like Your Gandhi quote, but how does it apply to the debate?
Posted by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
*States statistics without citing*
*Says to cite your statistics*
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ThadeusSmithLeo.MessiTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
ThadeusSmithLeo.MessiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided very little for his case. Pro refuted his points and even provided additional ones. Conduct to Pro as Con forfeited 2 rounds.