The Instigator
Shadowhuntress
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Sk8
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Should we use the 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 3 votes the winner is...
Shadowhuntress
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,765 times Debate No: 55217
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Shadowhuntress

Pro

Round one is acceptance
Round two is arguements
Round theee is rebuttal and closure
I am saying we should allow the death penalty
Sk8

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Shadowhuntress

Pro

The death penalty should be used for several reasons. To begin, people must be held accountable for their actions. If you were horribly bullied in school one day, and you told the principle, who let the bully go without punishment, would you say that they were a good principle?"
Nancy Reagan said "I believe that people would be alive today if there were a death penalty." (http://mobile.brainyquote.com...). And she's right. With consequences that hit home, people are almost certainly going to refrain from doing these things.
Michael Summers said""...[O]ur recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year... The study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources... There seems to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders increase." (http://deathpenalty.procon.org...).
On a poll taken on this very site, over half of people polled stated they supported the death penalty. (http://www.debate.org...). Participants stated "I don't believe we should reward murderers by keeping them alive." And "if a man takes the life of another man, then he deserves death.""
Hammurabi's code, one of the most famous"laws recorded states 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' (http://www.ushistory.org...). And it seems that law worked well for them. Mesopotamia lasted 600 years. (http://www.historyworld.net...). In comparison, Rome only lasted 503. (http://empires.findthebest.com...)."
So ask yourself, if you were brutally murdered, like Jessica Ridgeway, would you like knowing your murderer was still alive?
Sk8

Con

The death penalty shouldn't be used for several reasons. For starters, it violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. The 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents the use of "cruel and unusual punishment".

The death penalty sends the wrong message out to everyone as well. Why should we kill people that kill people if killing is wrong in the first place? It doesn't make sense.

Besides violating human rights, it also hurts other people in a different way. I understand that the victims family may be heart-broken, but have you thought about the offender's family? The offender has family who love them too, even though they committed a crime.

Even though the judge is the most trusted person to make the right decision, they can make mistakes. There is always a possibility that innocent men and women were put to death. There are several documented cases where DNA testing showed that innocent people were put to death by the government. We have an imperfect justice system where poor defendants are given minimal legal attention by often lesser qualified individuals.
Asides the innocent people, some mentally ill people were put to death too. Many people are simply born with defects to their brain that cause them to act a certain way. No amount of drugs, schooling, rehabilitation, or positive reinforcement will change them. Is it fair that someone should be murdered just because they were unlucky enough to be born with a brain defect?

As a society, we should be moving away from the "eye to eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. The "eye for an eye" mentality will never solve anything. A revenge philosophy inevitably leads to an endless cycle of violence. It is important to send a message to society that striking back at your enemy purely for revenge will only make things worse.

Perhaps the biggest reason to ban the death penalty is that it doesn't change the fact that the victim is gone and will never come back. Hate, revenge, and anger will never cure the emptiness of a lost loved one. Forgiveness is the only way to start the healing process, and this won't happen in a revenge-focused individual.

On a different poll taken on this very site, more than half of the people who voted on that poll did not support the death penalty. (http://www.debate.org...). The voters stated, " Why would there be so many serial killers in general population, and rapists that murder, in general population, yet, there are individuals on death row, that are accused of one murder?"

According to (http://www.statcan.gc.ca...), in Canada 2012, a total of 545 males and females together were murdered. Then according to (http://www.disastercenter.com...), in the US 2012, a total of 14,827 males and females together were murdered.

Now, if you think about it. The death penalty is meant to scare offenders and convince them not to murder people. If Canada has no death penalty and the US does, why are there so many more murders in the US? The two countries have a 14,282 difference in murder in the same year.

Consider these factors. Maybe now you'll realize why we shouldn't have the death penalty.
Debate Round No. 2
Shadowhuntress

Pro

Cruel can be described as one of three things."1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
2. enjoying the pain or distress of others: the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
3. causing or marked by great pain or distress: a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)"
The death penalty does cause pain to others, but putting someone in jail is painful and reason for distress also. As you can see, the death penalty cannot be described as cruel without putting our entire punishment system into the picture. In 1960, the supreme court ruled that using the death penalty as punishment for the planned out murder of a human was not cruel or unusual. (http://constitution.findlaw.com...).
"The death penalty sends the wrong message out to everyone as well."
And the what, do tell, kind of message are we sending if we let them live? That there are no real consequences? That you can screw up all you want, and no one will punish you?"
"The offenders family..."
Donald Aldrich, found guilty of murder stated as his last statement: "Yes sir, I would. To the West Family, I would just like to apologize for your loss. I hope that you can forgive me. To my family and loved ones and friends, I thank all of you all for your support and I am sorry for the pain and hurt I have caused you. I love you all and I will see you on the other side. O.K. Warden." (http://thoughtcatalog.com...). These criminals understand what will now happen to their families. They know the pain they cause all around. But they do it anyway. Maybe they should have thought about their families before killing someone else's baby.
"Asides the innocent people, some mentally ill people were put to death too." Yes, mistakes have been made. But the people murdered were innocent also. They did nothing, but were killed anyway."
Mental illness is defined as "Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individuals normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma." (http://www.deathpenalty.org...)
Therefore, someone with ADHD can be defined as 'mentally ill.' This mental illness does not in anyway justify murder. "Oh yes officer, I killed her because I have ADHD," just"doesn't work, does it? Because the definition of mental illness is so open ended, it discredits the above argument severely.
"An eye for an eye will never solve anything"
And giving up thousands of tax payers dollars to keep murders alive in prison will? I'd rather my money go to making sure justice is served.
"the fact that the victim is gone and will never come back."
You, my friend, are correct. It doesn't change the fact the victim is gone. NOTHING changes the fact that the victim is gone. Why should an innocent civilian be brutally murdered and gone from the world, but the person who put the gun to their head still be alive? Does that sound like justice to you? To kill an innocent person, but keep the person who's fingerprints are on the gun alive? We can't bring the victims back. The best we can do is give the murderer what they deserve.
"Why would there be so many serial killers in general population, and rapists that murder, in general population, yet, there are individuals on death row, that are accused of one murder?" The answer to that is simple. They haven't been caught yet. If they are in the general population, then that would imply they have not been put in trial. If they have not been on trial, then they haven't been caught. If they were caught and tried, they would either be on death row, or in a prison, separating them from the "general population". If they haven't been caught, logically, they can't be on death row now, can they?
To compare, ten people took your poll (I did the math), while too many took the poll I found to count. (You can go look at the difference in votes). Because more people where surveyed in my poll, it makes the results more accurate then your poll.
"...in Canada 2012, a total of 545 males and females together were murdered..."
More people are murdered in the USA because the USA has 9.2 times more people than Canada. (http://www.unitednorthamerica.org...) More people inevitably means more murders. Also, the US has many more people in possession of guns. (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com...).
The death penalty isn't a matter of revenge. It's a matter of justice, one of the cornerstones of America. If we cannot be assured of justice, what can we be sure of?
Sk8

Con

"If you were horribly bullied in school one day, and you told the principle, who let the bully go..."
Comparing that to the offender receiving a death penalty is completely inaccurate. First of all, the bully is probably either punished or let off with a warning. With the offender, he or she is killed. How is that a fair comparison? Yes, you are correct with the fact that "people should be held accountable for their actions." But not with their lives.

"Micheal Summers said...".[O]ur recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year... The study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004..."
According to the comment MyDinosaurHands put on this very debate: "That 74 less murders stat has been thoroughly denounced as full of statistical inaccuracies." He/she is actually quite correct. I understand the point you are trying to get across, but providing inaccurate information does not count.

"Participants stated "I don't believe we should reward murderers by keeping them alive..."
Technically, we are awarding them by keeping them alive. By killing them, we are shortening their amount of suffering. If they were given a prison sentence for the rest of their lives, they will have to live with the harsh conditions and humiliation around them. That makes them regret what they did. With the death penalty, their death is now supposedly better than their life.

"The death penalty isn't a matter of revenge. It's a matter of justice, one of the cornerstones of America..."
That's where you are wrong. The death penalty is a matter of revenge. Just like you said in the end of your argument, "So ask yourself, if you were brutally murdered, like Jessica Ridgeway, would you like knowing your murderer was still alive?" You're basically asking the audience whether or not they would want revenge for being brutally murdered. Yes, it is for a matter of justice, but most people treat it as revenge.

This is to the audience as well as the instigator. Please consider this:
"We stopped looking for monsters under our bed, when we realized that they were inside us."
-Joker.

That's what we've started inching towards. Some of us have already become one. If you believe in the death penalty, go join them. The monsters.

You don't belong here.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sk8 3 years ago
Sk8
If the voters actually see this comment, FYI I'm a girl. -_-
Posted by Shadowhuntress 3 years ago
Shadowhuntress
Yeah. Not enough temp differences?
Posted by Sk8 3 years ago
Sk8
Never happens in Canada. (The tornados, not WWII movies)
Posted by Shadowhuntress 3 years ago
Shadowhuntress
Yep. I was watching a WWII movie though and thought the sirens were part of my movie. And then my mom screamed at me
Posted by Sk8 3 years ago
Sk8
Hey, his quote makes sense though. I know it kinda dark but there's a seriously true meaning about it. The fact that you live in Colorado, well, that explains the tornado warnings.
Posted by Shadowhuntress 3 years ago
Shadowhuntress
Seriously? The Joker?
I live in Colorado so i was just finding it ironic about the theater shooter James holmes who dressed as the joker and if he will get the death penelty,
Posted by Sk8 3 years ago
Sk8
I apologize to anyone who read my last sentence for round three. I know that it may just be a bit too cruel but you have to understand what I mean. I'm just trying to get a point across.
Posted by Sk8 3 years ago
Sk8
Not a problem :)
Posted by Shadowhuntress 3 years ago
Shadowhuntress
Sorry I couldn't post sooner. Last night was crazy. In the span of 30 min. The tornado sirens went off three times.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
That 74 less murders stat has been thoroughly denounced as full of statistical inaccuracies.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by gtcmoulder 3 years ago
gtcmoulder
ShadowhuntressSk8Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro that the death penalty should be allowed. Unlike what Con seems to thing, the death penalty isn't just thrown around, it is used for people who have no chance to regret their actions and show remorse, unlike people put in jail. And, as Pro stated, it makes more sense to kill people like this than spend thousands of dollars keeping them alive just because their people. It there is no chance they are going to show remorse and feel bad about their actions, there is no point in keeping them alive.
Vote Placed by Cobo 3 years ago
Cobo
ShadowhuntressSk8Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: While I will say the Con won the arguments the con was a huge jaskass. The debate was decent all around, but either side had a huge repository of argument that neither used.
Vote Placed by baus 3 years ago
baus
ShadowhuntressSk8Tied
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: What the actual heck was Cons debate about? It sure wasn't the resolution. Pro made very strong points and uses evidence actually relevant to the debate rather than randomly supplying links that show the amount of people murdered which o relation to the debate. Additionally what is with the Joker reference in the last round? I am literally 0% convinced by Con and 80% convinced by Pro. con was talking about why the death penalty was not the only viable option but he never denied that it was a good option... Monsters and this other nonsense was irrelevant.