The Instigator
GuiAlex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nathaniel_Kampeas
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

THB Death Penalty Should Be Apllied to All Major Crimes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,100 times Debate No: 102444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

GuiAlex

Pro

This House Believes Death Penalty Should Be Applied To All Major Crimes.
THB motions don't require the people debating to show how this would be applied.
Robs to consider DO NOT INCLUDE food IF the person committed the crime as last resort to survive.
Major Crimes are All Crimes from stealing to murdering.
The debate is 4 rounded and this is the way it should be debated
Round 1- Definitions, Models. Main Arguments, Contestations
Round 2 - Extension, Refutation
Round 3- Rebuttal, Refutation - New arguments may only come in form of Refutation or Rebuttal
Round 4- Whip your arguments, show the debate main clashes and tell why you think you won the debate

_____________________START______________________

The death penalty would be as a lethal injection that is painless to the damned.
We are not debating this for any country in special, consider the whole world.
People affected would be the criminals only.

We live in a world where homicides as something more than usual, where rapists get away without charges and the victims are blamed and shamed, where terrorism makes everyone live with fear, where you work years and years to buy your dream car and some weeks then you get robbed by someone who's pointing a gun to your head. (Please don't say one can get an insurance because that doesn't change the fact that the danger is real)
The world where you just want to live a peaceful life with your family and your children get kidnapped, raped and killed and after what? 25, 40 years - depends much on the country - the responsible for it will be free again.

First, and so you can all follow my arguments easily, I will talk about why this is important, why we should approve this motion right now and then I will give arguments and answer some of the usual arguments from people that are against death penalty.

This is important because right now, doesn't matter if you are in your house or if you are walking on the street, you could get killed. We live in a constant danger. We need to be aware of that.
We should approve this right now because IF the murderers, rapists, terrorists, robbers, kidnappers(...) get caught by the authorities will be charged with some years in prison and then will be set free.
Some people, me included, think that for murderers and rapists there should be torture available, that can also be discussed but death penalty would still be applied in the end.
It's important to approve this because, by only approving, we would be telling the criminals or possible criminals, if you do this, you die. The rates would get to a point so low that would break records. Also, if someone actually commits a crime, they die and it's one less criminal in the world and serves as an example.

Now, some points the Opposition may bring and I want to let clear before they even get the chance to exploit it:

-What about people that can't afford food?
You don't have to rob! I'll be giving the prices existing in my country - Portugal - but I'm sure there is a proportionality so, let's consider this values. Bread costs 0.10" each. If you're really hungry you won't have any problems in asking for a free bread and it will surely be given to you. Or you can always ask on the streets for some money and people will give you around 0.20 to 5" if you're lucky. Also, there are food banks that exist exactly to help people in need for food. Still, if the person steals first necessity food, (s)he won't be considered a criminal as it was in the last resort to survive and, as Government, we would put the person in cause into a program for people in need so they won't have to steal again.

-Every life is a gift and shall not be taken!
What about the lives the murderer took? What about the lives he may take if you send him to jail and release him 25 years later, or even the lives he may take in prison?
What about the lives the rapists destroyed? Those people won't ever be the same they were!

-Why don't you just give them life without parole?
Will we allow those people to live in prisons? We are going to make every citizen pay to keep the life of those who took innocent lives? Also, by keeping people in prisons, we are allowing them to kill each other violently because the guards aren't always capable of keeping order. The costs of killing someone are far low when compared with keeping a prison working and feed criminals and we will be able to use the prisons for better things instead of keeping criminals.

For all of this reasons and as Government, I ask you to vote for this motion!
Nathaniel_Kampeas

Con

I grant that the death penalty would be a stronger incentive to not commit major crimes. But why shouldn't that be extended to minor crimes as well? The reason for that may be why the death penalty should be used seldom, or not at all.

Moral Framework

Morality is by definition that which is in the best interest of all individuals involved in interactions. In the interactions of a person, or group of people, with another person, or group of people, or any combination thereof, both sides must compromise to carry out an interaction in which each side of the interaction is benefited to the maximum extent possible. This is because, if one party gets the better of the other party, and they don't compromise on the resolution which results in both parties having their best interests met, then the party that was unfairly dealt with might reasonably refrain from further interactions, or harm the opposing party. Using this framework, we shall proceed to investigate whether assigning the death penalty to all major crimes is morally acceptable.

Main Argument

Rather than the enforcing the death penalty such that it punishes all major crimes, that which is in the best interest of all individuals involved--criminals as well as inoccent citizens--is to make prisons reeducation centers for the criminals, as well as disincentivizing institutions. The criminals should be forced to provide a defense of the position that crime is wrong, perhaps with a section of their effort dedicated to their particular crime(s). This way, the criminal is forced to understand that he should not commit the crime again. With this system in place, the best interests of all individuals are fulfilled.
Debate Round No. 1
GuiAlex

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate.

Extending this to minor crimes as well isn't necessary. It would be necessary a really cold thinking to be Pro in that debate, that is another debate, you see? Why would you kill someone for dropping an empty cookie bag on the street? Yes, the person wouldn't do it again but...is it necessary? No. For that, we could, for example, give the criminals x hours of community work as cleaning the streets and not being paid for so and a fine. Even though it wasn't the debate I hope I answered you-

So you think that giving a second chance to a murderer is of the best interest of all the parts involved? What about the victim? What about the victims family? What about everybody that's going to pay taxes for those criminals to get that re-education?
That is indeed a good painting and you're showing great hope on people but let me tell you, criminals already knew it was wrong to commit the crime but they decided to commit anyway. You can't be 100% sure the criminals won't relapse and even though the rate decreases, it's still wrong to put an ex-convicted back in society if there is any chance of him/her relapse.

Let's take the example of a murderer called James.
James, a Russian male living in the US and his wife Kate were taking a walk with their son when four black men came from an alley with guns and told them to give them their phones and wallets. James didn't want his son or wife to get hurt so he gave them his belongings but then two of them started taking his wife away with intentions of raping her and he decided to act in her defense, holding back the tears. He fought with one of them but quickly got shot, as his son. Kate got gang raped but lived, with her soul destroyed. She lost her family, her dignity. Her will of living was to get justice. The police caught two of them, they cooperated, they all went to trial(...) and after 16 years they all got out sooner because of good behavior. They went back to crime because this time "they wouldn't get caught" <- Criminal Minds working.

Sorry for the long story but I wanted to show you the kind of justice we have now and, even with the system you suggested, there are still chances of this happening and I don't want ANYONE to go through anything like this and by killing them after proved guilty the first time, we take out that chance!

I believe I'm winning this debate because you're failing to refute my arguments and most of them are still standing strong. You brought morality and utilitarianism into the debate and I totally agree but it is on my side because of bringing justice to the families and not getting so much from the taxpayers as well as protecting all the citizens that could be victims of this people. Also, I'd like to underline, because it is really important: by only approving this, we would reduce criminality because people won't want to die. This is far better than the status quo and far better than your counter model and so the Government is winning this debate. Thank you!
Nathaniel_Kampeas

Con

I think that criminals have an intuition that what they are doing is wrong--not necessarily an understanding that what they are doing is wrong. If they are educated to understand the analytical philosophy behind why it is wrong, then they probably will come out of prison enlightened.

As for the victim and their family, their best interest that is not at the expense of another's best interest, is to have the criminal reeducated, so everyone can end up happy, including the criminal.

As for the taxpayers, they are going to have the same amount of money go to the government anyway, so it is not like they themselves are paying for the criminal's reeducation.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
GuiAlex

Pro

Take the example of a school shooter or a pedophile. They KNOW and UNDERSTAND what they are doing wrong! The school shooter knows it is wrong to take lives, who doesn't? Only if we were a psychopath and guess what? Being a psychopath is a medical condition that can't be healed, they just don't have feelings. About the pedophile, he knows that raping someone is wrong, especially a child that barely knows what is going on. Is it so hard to understand that forcing someone to have sex against their will is wrong? Your argument that they don't understand it it's now proven wrong.

About they being educated to understand the philosophy behind why it is wrong, okay, it COULD (not granted) work in some cases ( I gave the example of psychopaths, they will never be "healed" and now I'll add this - still as refutation to your argument of re-education - they are really good at pretending, they would pretend to have understood that his/her crime is wrong so they could pass any test we used to check their recovery) so your argument isn't even good.

I've asked 12 friends what they would rather happen to a criminal if they killed their family and presented them a) jail as we already have b) re-education in jail c) death penalty. I consider this data relevant because debates are about people and we are thinking of what would be people best interests and here it is: a) 3 votes b) 1 vote c) 8 + me, this gives death penalty a 67% preference so people would rather the criminal to die without a second chance. Also, why does the criminal's, in this case, the murderer's happiness even considered? He took a life!

The opposition brought that the taxpayers would have the same amount of money going to the Government but that is not truth since the cost of prisons and the cost of prisoners is far higher than the cost of the lethal injection and you will raise the prisons to cost even more if you want to re-educate the criminals.

Ending round 3, all the Opp arguments have been proved wrong or insufficient and the Government shall win but I will explain better why in the next round. Thank you!
Nathaniel_Kampeas

Con

Take this scenario. There are three people stranded on a deserted island. Bob, Joe, and Jack. They ration out the resources they find between themselves. One day, the resources they find are scanty, and Joe is at least temporarily incapacitated because he was bitten on the leg by a beast on the island. So, at night, hungry Bob, figuring that Joe is not able to defend himself, sneaks to Joe's tent to take Joe's ration of food for himself. While Bob is scrambling together the ration, Joe wakes up and yells for help. Jack comes to the rescue and knocks Bob out.

Now, Jack and Joe have three options within reason as to what to do with Bob. They know now that they cannot trust Bob to not take advantage of them if they are incapacitated. So they can kill Bob, they can ostracize Bob, or they can hold Bob as a prisoner and seek to reeducate him. If they kill Bob, they will lose a resource-gatherer and someone who can potentially help them, and take a life when there are other options. If they ostracize Bob, they will lose a resource-gatherer and someone who can potentially help them; they will have less resources as Bob would fend for himself, and they will live under threat of Bob.

Now, if they reeducate Bob, not only will they have more assuredness that Bob will not try to take advantage of or hurt them, but they will then have Bob on their side to gather resources and help them. What is more, they would do the more compassionate and ethical thing. Therefore, even though it would take up their time and resources, reeducating Bob is the best option that there is.

This scenario is analogous to the question we are discussing. I have successfully demonstrated why prisons that have reeducation programs are the best way to deal with major crimes.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BetteMidler// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments are sloppy.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Saying that Pro"s arguments are sloppy is not a specific assessment.
************************************************************************
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
How'd they skip Round 3?
Posted by Ockham 1 year ago
Ockham
I would recommend that both of you do a bit of research on this and find some sources. If either of you had posted, for example, one article from a journal, they would have gotten two points for sources automatically.
No votes have been placed for this debate.