The Instigator
baseballkid
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
GreenTeas
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

"Society should use the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 6 votes the winner is...
GreenTeas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,942 times Debate No: 27150
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

baseballkid

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments w/o rebuttal
Round 3: Arguments & Rebuttal (No new arguments from CON)
Round 4: Summary of Arguments
I look forward to this debate GreenTeas.
GreenTeas

Con


Thanks to my opponent, and I look forward to an interesting and enlightening debate!


I will be arguing that society should NOT use the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment.


Debate Round No. 1
baseballkid

Pro

I would like to state that I would be for the death penalty by way of guillotine in the death penalty laws that the United States have as of right now.
1: The exorbitant cost. The other option to killers is life in prison. (http://www.phoenix.edu...) The cost is just much and when they commit a crime causing the death penalty they are really messed up people. These are the people who go on killing spree's. We are not killing little miss perfect we are killing ruthless cold blooded killers who cannot help society as a whole. We cannot "fix" these people. We will be doing nobody any good if we let them live.

2: It saves lives. The people who get the death sentence have a 0% rate of crime afterwards."The report found that 67 percent of inmates released from state prisons in 1994 committed at least one serious new crime within three years." (http://www.patrickcrusade.org...)These people are going to get out and kill more people. The prison system is not working.

3: There are some people where there is no other punishment that fits. If a school is shot up and many people are killed there is nothing good that can become of the person that did it.

In conclusion I would say we need to keep the death penalty.(sorry for the short points I am much better as a rebuttal debater)
GreenTeas

Con

I present the following evidence to support my position that society should not execute prisoners.

1. The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Criminals

Proponents of the death penalty have long claimed that executions of criminals will save the lives of innocent people by deterring future murders. This claim is based on the idea that the prospect of execution, as opposed to life-time imprisonment, is less appealing and will prevent some percentage of future criminals from committing heinous acts of violence. However, the viewpoint that capital punishment deters violence is a product of belief and not based on empirical evidence.[1]

Research suggests that the death penalty has no clear deterrence effect. Consider the following studies:

A study examining police killings found that “police do not appear to have been afforded an added measure of protection against homicide by capital punishment.”[2] A Texas study, using monthly observations from 1984 to 1997, found that there was no relationship between executions and felony murder rates.[3] A second Texas study, examining local effects, found that there was no evidence of executions during homicides during the period between 1999 and 2004.[4] And finally, another study found that there is no systematic evidence that the execution rate influences crime rates during the period between 1950 and 1990.[5]

Thus, there is little evidence to support the position that the death penalty deters future crime, any more than life-time imprisonment.

2. The Death Penalty is More Expensive than Life Without Parole

The financial costs of executing prisoners is extraordinarily high as compared to life-term imprisonment, and results in millions of wasted taxpayer dollars.

In California, the cost of the death penalty has totaled over $4,000,000,000 since 1978.[6] These costs include pre-trial and trial costs, automatic appeals and state habeas corpus petitions, federal habeas corpus petitions, and costs of incarceration.

It’s estimated that confining prisoners to death row costs $90,000 per year, per inmate more than confining prisoners to maximum security prisons under life without parole.[7]

One Maryland study found that lifetime cost to taxpayers for the execution of just five prisoners was over $186,000,000. [8]

Thus, the costs of procedural and incarceration costs of maintaining death row prisoners is extraordinarily high, with no clear benefit. Millions of wasted taxpayer dollars could be saved if states simply removed the death penalty.

3. The Death Penalty May Lead to the Execution of Innocent Prisoners

While there are numerous reasons to remove the death penalty, perhaps the most important is the risk of error. The criminal justice system is a fallible system created and run by fallible people. There is an inherent risk of error that innocent people will be convicted of crimes they did not commit, and there is risk that these people may be executed.

It is well-established that many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted as a result of various factors, including: (1) eyewitness misidentification, (2) unvalidated forensic science, (3) false confessions, (4) government misconduct, (5) and bad lawyering.[9] It is presumed that only a small fraction of innocently convicted individuals are actually exonerated. Often these exonerations are due to DNA evidence, which is not available in most cases.

One conservative estimate, based on the 300 DNA exonerations that have occurred since the late 1980s, calculates that approximately 20,000 current U.S. prisoners are innocent.[10]

With the risk of error so high, and the cost of the process so great, there is simply no justification to take human life through execution.

4. The Death Penalty Punishes the Poor

The death penalty unfairly punishes the poor more than it punishes the rich. Poor defendants must rely on state-appointed attorneys, whereas the rich can acquire their own.

One study found that poor criminal defendants who face the prospect of the death penalty with a state-appointed attorney are 28% more likely to be convicted and 44% more likely to be sentenced to death than wealthy defendants who can hire their own lawyers.[11]

CONCLUSION

There are simply too many reasons to not execute prisoners.

The execution of prisoners has no deterrent effect on future crime. The process is extraordinarily wasteful and costly to taxpayers. There is a significant risk that the prisoners being executed are actually innocent. And, the death penalty unfairly punishes the poor who cannot attain adequate defense counsel.

All of these factors strongly weigh against the execution of prisoners, and demonstrate that society should not use execution as a form of criminal punishment.

SOURCES

[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

[2] W. Bailey and R. Peterson, Murder, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence: A Review of the Evidence and an Examination of Police Killings, 50 Journal of Social Issues 53, 71 1994

[3] Jon Sorensen, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, & James Marquart
Capital punishment and deterrence: Examining the effect of executions on murder in Texas
Crime and Delinquency, vol. 45, no.4, pp. 481-493 (Oct. 1999)

[4] Randi Hjalmarsson
Does Capital Punishment have a "Local" Deterrent Effect on Homicides?
American Law and Economics Review, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 310-334 (2009)

[5] Lawrence Katz, Steven D. Levitt & Ellen Shustorovich
Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence
American Law and Economics Review, vol. 5, issue 2, pages 318-343 (Fall 2003)

[6] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

[7] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

[8] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

[9] http://www.innocenceproject.org...

[10] http://www.motherjones.com...

[11] David Dow, Executed on a Technicality, pg 83 (2005)

Debate Round No. 2
baseballkid

Pro

I will be assuming by my opponents case that he is fighting for life in prison instead of death by guillotine.
rebuttals
1:In my opponents argument 1 he states that the death penalty does not stop future people from committing murders.
The death penalty is there to stop people who have killed from doing so again.(http://www.slate.com...) This says that 1 in 200 people in prison break out and are AWOL. My statistic earlier showed that 66% of people who get back out of prison commit serious crimes within 3 years. This is the point of the death penalty. We are trying to stop these people from killing again.

2: Remember that I am for death by guillotine and not using the current methods today. You are including this in your huge cost and this is why it is cheaper.$150,000 dollars per year for elderly people. This is not cheaper than the death penalty. This is even exaggerated more when I clearly stated that I would be going for death by guillotine and not by lethal injection or anything else like that. (http://www.phoenix.edu...) This is money that is coming straight out of hardworking taxpayers pockets. Once an inmate reaches the age of 55, you can basically calculate three times the cost. The cost is 50 thousand per year. The solution of life in prison will have far more negative effects than the death penalty.(http://www.kpbs.org...)"More than 2600 juveniles are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18 and if you calculate out the cost, using the 50-grand a year and then the 150-grand after they each reach the age of 55, you're going to be looking at $6.4 billion* to have those 2600 juveniles to serve out a life sentence in prison." This is from a mere 2,600 inmates and they are costing us billions. This is not a cost efficient option at all.

3: They will still get life in prison anyway so this is not a problem to be debating in this debate but a problem with the judicial system. This is a problem that happens with every single punishment of the law.

4: This again is just a problem with the judicial system and not a problem with the death penalty. Poor people will still be subjected to life in prison, and the death penalty has absolutely nothing to do with this contention.This is a problem that happens with every single punishment of the law.

Conclusion: The death penalty is a better option as we get rid of the killers chance to kill again and we save money in the process. The problems in the judicial system will happen no matter what and unless my opponent argues for no punishment of murders those two points are invalid.
GreenTeas

Con


The costs of the death penalty and the absence of positive benefits make execution an unjustifiable form of criminal punishment. I am advocating for life-without-parole as an alternative to the death penalty.


1. Rebuttal to :: The Death Penalty will prevent murders from murdering again


In previous round I argued that the death penalty does not deter future murders and provided an assortment of studies that supported my claim. My opponent does not dispute my claim, but instead responds that the death penalty exists to prevent convicted murders from having the opportunity to murder again.


My opponent argues that 1 in 200 people break out of prison and thus murderers could theoretically escape and commit more murders. He also states that 66% of prisoners who are released from prison after serving their term go on to commit serious crimes within 3 years. I respond to both of these issues.


First, my opponent states that one-half of one percent of prisoners escape, i.e. 1 in 200 hundred. This number is apparently correct, but it is misleading for our purposes. The vast majority of these escapees are minimum security prisoners that are defined as “walk-aways” from community corrections facilities that have minimal supervision.[1] These prisoners are not murderers escaping from maximum security facilities. Instead, they are typically non-violent offenders.


If we look at the facilities where murderers are most likely to be housed – federal prison, maximum security prison, and super maximum security prison – it is clear that escapes are extremely rare. Only one federal prisoner, out of 115,000, escaped in the four years prior to the source my opponent cited, and that prisoner was recaptured.[1] And, no prisoner has ever escaped from a super maximum security prison.[2] Escapes from maximum security prisoners have occurred, but these escapes are also highly rare, and it is even more rare for these prisoners to commit murders after escaping. Therefore, the risk that a murderer will escape from prison and then go on to commit more murders is unlikely.


Second, my opponent states that 66% of prisoners who are released from prison go on to commit serious crimes within 3 years. This may be true, but it is not relevant to our issue. I am arguing that lifetime imprisonment without parole should be an alternative to the death penalty. Lifetime prisoners without parole will not be released from prison, and therefore my opponent’s statistic is not relevant with regard to these prisoners. If a prisoner is not released from prison, he can’t possibly go on to commit serious crimes out in society.


2. Rebuttal to :: The Death Penalty by guillotine will be cheaper than life without parole


I previously stated that the death penalty is extraordinarily expensive. For example, it has cost California approximately $4,000,000,000 since 1978. And, it costs an additional $100,000 per inmate, per year to house a death row inmate, as opposed to housing a standard life-without-parole prisoner. [3][4].


My opponent argues that execution by guillotine will help reduce the costs of the death penalty, however this is not true. The majority of the costs associated with the death penalty do not come from the manner of execution, but instead these costs come from two places: (1) specialized housing for death row inmates; and (2) immense judicial and procedural costs associated with death row inmates.


First, death row inmates are housed in special facilities that are separate from the general population. These special facilities incur greater costs because prisoners must be housed in separate individual cells, prisoners must be supervised and guarded by additional staff, and these facilities must be maintained by additional staff. These specialized housing costs for death row inmates will continue to exist even if the manner of execution is changed – i.e. by guillotine.


Second, death row inmates cost taxpayers an immense amount of money because of the procedural and judiciary costs associated with the process of death row and execution. These greater costs do not exist in the judicial process for life-without-parole cases.


As stated in my previous round, death row cases have extraordinarily high taxpayer costs associated with pre-trial and trial phases, automatic appeals and state habeas corpus petitions, and federal habeas corpus petitions. These various procedural steps are in place to help prevent innocent people from being executed, but instead they end up costing billions of dollars to taxpayers. Changing the manner of execution will have no effect on these costs.


Thus, the manner of execution is not a significant cause of the immense costs associated with the death penalty and changing the method of execution will have little to no effect on reducing those costs.


3. Rebuttal to :: Accidental conviction is not a problem with execution, but instead is widespread


In my prior arguments, I argued that the risk of erroneous conviction and execution were too great to allow for the death penalty. I noted that as many as 20,000 U.S. prisoners are suspected to be innocent, a significant amount of which could be on death row. [5]


My opponent argues that erroneous conviction is a problem that is widespread within the criminal justice system and is not specific to execution. I agree that the problem is widespread, but it is only in capital punishment cases that an erroneous conviction could lead to an innocent person losing their life.


When weighing the costs of potential erroneous conviction, we must also weigh the punishment that would be imposed. Clearly the costs of erroneous conviction are lower if the punishment is only 10 years in prisoner, or 20 years, or even life imprisonment, when compared to execution. We may be able to morally justify some risk of error when the penalties are lesser because these people will still have their lives, but we cannot justify it when the penalty is death.


Thus, the cost of error is much larger in death penalty cases than in any other type of cases, and this error cannot be justified in the absence of any positive benefit by the death penalty.


4. Rebuttal to :: Unfair punishment of poor people is not a problem with execution, but instead is widespread


This issue relates to the previous one. My opponent is correct that this problem affects poor people in every type of case. But, again I reiterate my point that the cost of losing is much greater in capital punishment cases, where the wealthy will live and the poor may not. Without a positive benefit to the death penalty, there is simply no way to justify this recognized and unfair punishment and execution of poor people.


CONCLUSION


There is simply no positive benefit to the death penalty. It takes the life an individual and provides no demonstrable benefit to society. The costs associated with the death penalty, both economic and moral, are too great to justify its use.


Just like the death penalty, life without parole will keep murderers from reentering into society and inflicting harm onto innocent people. Maximum security prisoners rarely escape, and when they do, they rarely commit murders.


The death penalty burdens taxpayers with extraordinary economic costs that could be eliminated if convicts were instead sentences to life-without-parole.


The death penalty also burdens society with immense moral costs due to its high risk that innocent people may be erroneously convicted and executed. This moral cost and risk extends even further to poor individuals, who lack the financial resources to defend themselves against this absolute and final sentence.


Without any clear positive benefits and with so many negative costs associated with the death penalty, society cannot justify using execution as a form of criminal punishment.


SOURCES


Sources 1 through 5 in comments.


Debate Round No. 3
baseballkid

Pro

1: The death penalty will prevent murders from murdering again.
Some will still break out and it costs a lot more money for a maximum security prison than for somebody in a grave.You state that people cannot break out of maximum security prisons. This costs money to put them in a maximum security prisons. You can either have a low cost or you can have prisoners breaking out. This is a lose-lose situation. My statement of 66% of people committing more crimes was for the people that break out.

2: You state that the cost of the death penalty in California is 4 billion dollars. This is an incredibly small amount of money for 35 years of the death penalty. Just look at this.(http://www.kpbs.org...) "More than 2600 juveniles are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18 and if you calculate out the cost, using the 50-grand a year and then the 150-grand after they each reach the age of 55, you're going to be looking at $6.4 billion* to have those 2600 juveniles to serve out a life sentence in prison." For a mere 2,600 people It costs more than the death penalty has cost California in 35 years. The death penalty is far cheaper and this is easily proven by this fact. The guillotine will reduce costs and And to your court fees complaint i show you the 2,600 inmates costing more than the death penalty in California for 35 years. The death penalty is far cheaper.

3: Rebuttal to :: Accidental conviction is not a problem with execution, but instead is widespread
The outcome is the same no matter what. They get their lives taken away from them. Life without parole is what you are going for and the same thing will happen."we must also weigh the punishment that would be imposed." This is a debate about capital punishment and not sentencing of 10 to 20 years. If you are advocating this then look to my 66% marker. The positive is the money that we will not have to spend in prison.

4: "My opponent is correct that this problem affects poor people in every type of case." Like I said before Life in prison takes peoples lives away the same just at a higher cost.

This case comes down to two main points. It comes down to cost and morals. The death penalty costs less as I have proven and the death penalty takes away peoples lives the same as life without parole. There is almost no difference. If my opponent states any statistics on cost that are not from a maximum security prison he must remember that the murders will break out and commit more crimes as per my first contention. The cost is not worth keeping them in a maximum security prison and any less of a prison and they can break free. I urge a pro vote.
GreenTeas

Con


1. Murderers rarely escape and murder again


There is almost no risk that murderers will escape from prison and then proceed to murder again. Murderers are housed in maximum security prisons. As shown in the previous round, the number of prisoners escaping from these facilities is extremely low.


My opponent argues that 67% of inmates who break out of prison will commit serious crimes. This is not correct and my opponent has misread his own source. His source states that “67% of inmates RELEASED from state prisons in 1994” committed a serious crime within three years.[1] This statistic tells us nothing about prison escapees and is not relevant to our discussion.


My opponent has not provided any evidence that murderers are escaping from prisons and harming other people. And, I have provided evidence showing that escapes from maximum security facilities are extremely rare. Thus, the evidence supports that murderers can be safely incarcerated within maximum security prisons without concern that they will escape and harm other people.


2. The Death Penalty is extraordinarily expensive


In the previous rounds, I noted that the death penalty is extraordinarily expensive. Death row inmates must be housed in specialized facilities and are afforded extremely expensive judicial procedures – including lengthy pre-trial and trial phases, automatic appeals, state habeas corpus process, and federal habeas corpus protections.[2]


Death row inmates aren't executed immediately. They sit on death row in these costly, specialized facilities for decades while they meander through expensive appeals processes that cost taxpayers billions of dollars.


By way of example, I pointed to California which has incurred $4,000,000,000 in taxpayer costs due to the death penalty. My opponent says that because these costs are since 1978, that $4,000,000,000 is not much money. However, it is important to remember that only 13 people have been executed in California since 1978.[3] Therefore, each execution in California since 1978 has cost taxpayers $308,000,000. Consider that point again – each individual execution has cost $308 million dollars. This is an absurdly high cost.


My opponent also argues that, in California, sentencing juveniles to lifetime imprisonment will cost more than the death penalty. He cites a source that states that the 2,600 juveniles serving life sentences in California will cost $6.4 billion.


Unfortunately, this number proves nothing and tells us nothing.


We can’t compare the cost my opponent has provided with the cost of the death penalty. Why not? First, they compare different amounts of prisoners. Second, they compare different periods of time.


First, we would be comparing the costs associated with two different numbers of prisoners. My opponent says 2,600 juveniles with life-terms will cost $6.4 billion. But, 2,600 prisoners is 4 times as many prisoners as there are on death row. There are 700 prisoners on death row in California.


We simply can’t compare these costs when they do not involve an equal number of prisoners. If we use my opponent’s numbers to calculate the theoretical cost of 700 juveniles with life imprisonment, we can see the cost is $1.7 billion for 700 lifetime prisoners, which is much less than the $4 billion for 700 death row inmates. Thus, my opponent’s source supports my argument that the death penalty is more expensive than life-without-parole.


Second, juveniles sentenced to lifetime imprisonment are by definition under the age of 18. Assuming these prisoners live to 70, they will be imprisoned for at least 52 years. However, the death penalty has only been instituted since 1978, a period of 34 years. We can’t compare costs when the costs are associated with considerably different timeframes.


Thus, my opponent’s source that 2,600 life-term juveniles cost $6.4 billion is not useful for comparison.


If we want to compare the costs of housing death row prisoners and the costs of housing life-without-parole prisoners, we need only look at the previous rounds. In my previous round, I cited a study showing that housing an inmate on death row costs $100,000 more per year than housing that exact same prisoner in the general population of a maximum security prison.[4] This considerable extra cost does not even include the other judicial and procedural costs associated with the death penalty.


I have shown that the death penalty is incredibly costly. It wastes taxpayer dollars by requiring specialized facilities to house death row inmates and wasteful judicial processes, appeals, and petitions. These costs can be easily eliminated by simply removing the death penalty. These taxpayer savings could then be utilized in areas that would be more beneficial to society – such as police enforcement and prisoner rehabilitation.


3. Erroneous conviction of innocent people is morally unacceptable


The death penalty imposes an enormous moral cost on society. Not only does the death penalty presume that society has a right to take human life, but it presumes that society finds it acceptable to take innocent human life in the pursuit of exacting its retribution. The criminal justice system is fallible, and as many as 20,000 current U.S. prisoners are predicted to be innocent.[5] Very few of these prisoners will be exonerated because the criminal justice system is not designed to help free innocent people. Some of these prisoners, and some in the past, are innocent individuals who will lose their lives because of erroneous convictions.


My opponent says life-without-parole is the same as execution because in both cases “they get their lives taken away from them.” I will not contribute a new argument in this final round, but I will respond that it is clear that these two punishments are not equivalent.


In one case, a person has been killed and can clearly no longer experience life. In the other case, a person is alive and able to experience life, but confined within a particular space. These are very different punishments.


While it is horrible to think that an innocent person could be sentenced to life-without-parole, it is even worse to think that they might be executed. In one case, that innocent person would still be able to experience life. In the other, all opportunity for any experience has been snuffed out.


The criminal justice system is an imperfect system created and run by imperfect people. Tens of thousands of individuals have been wrongfully convicted due to eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, unvalidated forensic science, government misconduct, and bad lawyering.[6] When the risk of error is so high – even more so amongst the poor – it is morally unacceptable to have a punishment that is so extreme.


CONCLUSION


As my opponent properly states, the death penalty comes down to two issues: (1) financial costs, and (2) moral costs. Both of these costs could be eliminated by using life-without-parole instead of the death penalty.


The financial costs of the death penalty are enormous. These billions of dollars could instead be used to improve education, police enforcement, healthcare, prisoner rehabilitation, or any other number of valuable societal goals.


The moral costs of the death penalty are also unacceptable. The death penalty is retributive. Death row inmates are already imprisoned and no threat to society at large. They cannot escape. Executing them serves only to exact societal revenge. When so many innocent people are constantly being convicted of crimes they did not commit, it is morally unacceptable to have a draconian form of criminal punishment that will invariable kill innocent people, stealing away their lives and their experiences.


Together, these two immense costs weigh heavily against the death penalty. The death penalty provides society with no clear benefits, and only serves to burden it. Removing the death penalty and applying life-without-parole will lift that burden and free society to use its financial and moral resources toward more valuable pursuits.


Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by baseballkid 4 years ago
baseballkid
I lost i get it stop voting sheesh.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Ok so I vote on over all lives saved. Cost is a wash that I ignore because the resolution specifically says SOCIETY SHOULD that does not relate to the status quo, it relates to what should be done. Pro tried to say "life in prison is expensive so death would be better" but con said that under the status qou death is more expensive, and cons stats were not well refuted at all (I'll go into more detail if either of you like) but the problem is that neither side really explained what the resolution meant--does it relate to US society, is the status qu topical, ect. This point could've been a clear victory for pro if he proved that the resolution does NOT refer to the sqou...but he didnt. So cost argument = waste of everyone's time.

I dont feel any impact at all from cons 4th point, and she doesnt assign it one, I only really think its relevant if the death penalty is proven to be immoral. Otherwise why should I care if wealthy people escape punishment?

Con: Dont waste space saying the death penalty does not deter when he never said it did. You could've spent that space advocating your other points instead

However innocence is a good argument. Con outweighs here for sure because con shows that its EXTREMELY probable that an innocent will die, and extremely improbable that an inmate will escape. I have my own refutations to this, but Pro didnt bring any of substance up so con clearly wins the lives argument. Thus I negate

Sources to con. I barely ever give soruces but hers are far superior to Pros. Conduct to Pro because con put sources in the comments. If both debaters say it was ok than I'll put it as a tie, but until then I see it as a way to escape the character limit
Posted by baseballkid 4 years ago
baseballkid
My opponent never responds to the fact that in costs citizens over 55 cost 3 times as much and never responds to the fact that people who are in the grave cost no money.
Posted by CallmeKoba 4 years ago
CallmeKoba
Con sounds much more professional about this debate.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Pro could easily be winning but is failing
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
baseballkidGreenTeasTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's summarization of the debate as being over financial and moral costs was succinct. On financial costs, Con clearly wins. Con's statistical evidence from California as well as the description of the reasons for higher costs incurred (separate facilities and staff, appeals costs) sufficiently proved this point. Pro's rebuttal on the other hand didn't prove much because, as Con pointed out, it was completely non-analogous; comparing different numbers of people, different periods of time, etc. On the moral costs, Con ran the basic argument that the dp was retributive, mistakes were worse than with normal sentencing, etc. Pro's only rebuttal though was that inmates could escape and go out to kill again. On this, Con's statistics relating to the actual rate of escape for prison inmates served to fully refute the point.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
baseballkidGreenTeasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the clear victor from start to end. This gains him the argument points. He also happens to have more sources, although the sources were not exactly reliable, it was of the same quality as Pro. This gains him the source point.
Vote Placed by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
baseballkidGreenTeasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Given the fact that Pro invoked an ancient type/device of execution (guillotine), I believe he has words ?deterrence and justification? in mind. The argument that Pro had put forward, however, does not clearly show that the death penalty may prevent the inmates, either released or escaped, from committing further crimes. Pro attempted to defend his positions on two separate grounds while Con successfully introduced the biggest hurdle in the death penalty trail - error of conviction. As for the cost, on the basis of arguments presented from both sides, it is not obvious to me which factor, cost or justice, should be given a more consideration. In conclusion, I would vote for Con for ?Made more convincing arguments? and ?Used the most reliable sources.?
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
baseballkidGreenTeasTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: comments
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
baseballkidGreenTeasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought this debate was an obvious Con win. The Con defeats the Pro on moral grounds by noting that it is possible to execute innocent people. Pro says that both lives will be taken away, but Con notes that while this is true, at least they will be alive. Con could have made her case stronger by noting that these people can then be released from prison. Con also clearly won the economic argument as she demonstrated that the death penalty costs the states more than life without parole does because of the appeals process. Arguments go to Con. Sources go to Con because Pro tried manipulating his sources (i.e. 66% of people break out of jail) in unethical ways.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
baseballkidGreenTeasTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: "I would like to state that I would be for the death penalty by way of guillotine in the death penalty laws that the United States have as of right now." I am not certain what this statement means. Statements like this marred the arguments presented by Pro. "This is a problem that happens with every single punishment of the law." I was perplexed - no one is debating punishing the law, only criminals. The only scoring category that Con did not obviously dominate in was conduct. If I am accused of vote bombing in this matter, I will demand a trial.