The Instigator
breanadawnx3
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
vmpire321
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

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 6 votes the winner is...
vmpire321
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,350 times Debate No: 20465
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

breanadawnx3

Pro

By abolishing the Death Penality, these criminal would have to suffer in prison. By being given the death penalty, the criminal does not suffer, only their family does. Although ending these criminals life would be better for the safety of innocent humans, the criminals basically have the easy way out. The only suffering that the Death Penalty causes is simply the pinch of the needle, due to the "Lethal Injection", and the wait while being on deathrow is all the criminal has to deal with, suffering wise. By abolishing the Death Penalty, the criminal does not get to "pay time for the crime" he/she took part in. I feel that these criminals should be subjected to life in prison with no parolle, therefore they suffer in there and have no chance of getting out to live freely as if they were innocent. In addition, if these criminals lived the rest of their lives in prison, it would ensure that they could commit no more crimes against innocent people. Also, perhaps a "criminal" was wrongly convicted and is sentenced to the Death Penalty, now because of the legal system and a misfortunate case- this poor, innocent person is being executed and their family has to suffer while the actual criminal lives his/her life freely. This Death Penalty can also be thought to be against "Pro-Life" views and beliefs since it is ending a person's life, very similar to an abortion (1). Religiously speaking, the Death Penalty goes against one of the Ten Commandments, since the Sixth Commandment states "Thou Shall Not Kill". Although this "killing" is ultimately politicly correct since the person committed a crime, it is not religiously correct according to the Sixth Commandment (2). Not only does the Death Penalty go against the Sixth Commandment, but it goes against God by the Law deciding when this person is to die. In the past 36 years, since the Death Penalty was brought back in 1976, over one-thousand people were executed, and over three-thousand convicts in thirty-six different countries are awaiting their execution (3). The Death Penalty does not help the suffering family of the victim's family, especially the long, anticipated wait of deathrow (4). In addition, the cost for all these executions are far more costly than keeping them in jail (4). Although the thought of death and the Death Penalty may be scary to some, crime rates have not decreased due to this horrible "punishment" (5). In my opinion, the death penalty is an absurb and unreasonable punishment for the horrifying crimes these criminals perform. Therefore the Death Penalty should be abolished. I am completely against the Death Penalty and Pro-Suffering for these criminals by living the rest of their lives in jail.

1- http://usliberals.about.com...
2- http://www.christianhomesite.com...
3- http://articles.cnn.com...
4- https://death.rdsecure.org...
5- http://www.antideathpenalty.org...
vmpire321

Con

Hopefully this will be a fun debate.

==Arguments==

C1: Deterrence
The Death Penalty serves as a determent to criminals.

There is a relationship between the death penalty and murder. The deterrent effect of the death penalty helps to save lives, ultimately resulting in the overall prevention of the loss of human life [1]. Multiple studies that have occured over time have demonstrated that the death penalty saves lives [1].

Several professors of Emory University found in a 2003 nationwide study that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders [6].

A 2006 study found that each execution results in five fewer homicides [7].

Shorter waits on death row is connectted with increased deterrence. For every 2.75-year reduction of the time a death row inmate has to wait, at least one murder is deterred.

The Emory group used nationwide data from 1960 to 2000,and discovered that 91% of the states had higher homicide rates after they suspended the death penalty [11]. On the other hand, 70% of the states had homicides decrease after the Death Penalty was put back in place [11].

Furthermore, a study, from the Wall Street Journal found that the death penalty saves 74 lives by stopping possible murderers in the next year [12].

C2: Bargaining Chip
The Death Penalty provides leverage and allows prosecutors to use it as a "bargaining chip" to obtain guilty pleas and plea bargains [2] [3]. The criminal justice system is sped up by the DP, which helps to prevent backlogging.
Research has shown that 90% of cases in the US are resolved by plea bargains, with the guilty party admitting to all or part of the offenses charged in exchange for reduced/lenient charges [4]. This shows

One example is the case of 12-year-old Zina Linnick's disappearance. Even a remote threat of using the death penalty could give enough of an incentive for a person to confess [3].

Another example would be serial killers Robert Yates and Gary Ridgway. The confessed due to the threat of the death penalty [3].

Without a doubt, the death penalty allows prosecutors to get information quicker. This can even possibly save lives - such as revealing the location of an abducted person about to die.


C3: Accuracy
DNA testing and other modern forms of forensic science have allowed us to eleminate all doubt or suspicsion towards a person's guilt or innoncence. DNA testing helps to effectively prosecuting the guilty and protects the innocent [8].

Furthermore, a jury of twelve have to unanimously decide that they have no doubt that the defendent is guilty in order to sentence a person to death. [9]

Furthermore, the death penalty has nearly a 99.6% rate of accuracy.

C4: Popularity
Gallup polls have shown that the majority of Americans support the Death Penalty. Our goverment is based on a republic, and a republic at its heart, is ruled by the majority.
Gallup polls reveal that:
1) There is a consistant trend of the majority supporting the death penalty being used in cases where the guilty party is convicted of murder. In 2011, 61% supported the DP while only 35% was agaisnt it.
2) Even over time, the majority of Americans believe that the Death Penalty is used not enough.
3) The majority of people believe that the death penalty is currently being applied fairly.
4) Furthermore, there is a tendency that most people believe that the Death Penalty is morally acceptable. 65% of people believe it is right, while only 28% believe it is wrong.
5) OVer time, people have constantly shown that they believe when choosing between the death penalty and imprisonment for life (without parole), the death penalty should be used.
The Gallup Poll(s) can be found at my 10th source.


==Rebuttals==


C1: Life in Prison

My opponent tries to suggest the idea that criminals do not suffer when they die. However, you must consider that usually, we are talking about murderers. They took the life of another person, why do they get to live? it is commonly preached that iving life, no matter how bad, is far more preferable than death.

And furthermore, my opponent concedes the fact that you cannot confirm that the inmate will stay in jail for life. Goverment officials or judges can offer clemency, parole, or find a reason for a new trial [13]. Unlike what PRO claims, by putting murderers in prison for life without parole, does not mean that they will not get out.

Furthermore, we put the lives of of other people who commited less severe crimes at risk, due to the fact that there are far more dangerous murderers in jail.
Say in 2012, there are X number of murderers scheduled to be executed. However, they are sent to prison.
This means there will be X more murderers in prisons.
Then in 2013, there are Y number of murderers who should be executed, but they are sent to prison.
X + Y in prison.
And so on. Furthermore, the numbers will continue to grow until the first generation (X) start to die. We see that there is going to be an accumulation of murderers - which make prisons far more dangerous then they are now.


C2: Killing is Immoral?

As for my opponents argument on how "We might kill innocents", please see my accuracy contention.

Furthermore, if Killing is "immoral", then war obviously cannot be tolerated. However, war can be justified, when you are going to war in order to preserve and defend your country. My deterrence argument shows that when we kill people who have commited horribly immoral acts, we actually save the lives of others, who are completely innocent. In my eyes, these executions are perfectly justified.

All of my opponents other arguments I have answerered within my own contentions.

I await your response.

Sources:
[1]http://www.heritage.org......
[2]http://sentencing.typepad.com......
[3]http://www.thenewstribune.com......
[4]http://www.thecrimereport.org......
[5] Joanna M. Shepherd, "Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment," Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 33 (June 2004), pp. 283-321.
[6] Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd, "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data," American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2003), pp. 344-376.
[7]http://www.washingtonpost.com......
[8]http://www.forensicmag.com......
[9]http://crime.about.com......
[10]http://www.gallup.com......
[11]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[12]http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu...(ChronicleofHigherEd).pdf
[13] David Schaefer, PhD, Professor of Political Science at Holy Cross College, in his Dec. 2001 article for The American Enterprise titled "The Death Penalty and Its Alternatives"
[14]http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...

Debate Round No. 1
breanadawnx3

Pro

Although you present a very well-thought-out argument, during my reply, try to place yourself in the position of a few other key people.

1- Imagine you are the mother/father (depending on your gender) of a murdered child. The guy who ended your child's life is sitting right in front of you at the Supreme Court- watching his trial. The jury has to decide whether to give him life in jail with no parole or the death penalty ending everything. Although the death penalty may sound very tempting. How great would it feel to know that he is sitting in jail suffering for what he did to your child? Then you have to take in account the suffering he would encounter in jail with other convicts possibly torturing him and fighting him. I know Con presented the argument of "you cannot confirm that the inmate will stay in jail for life" but if he/she was given life in jail with no parole, how would he/she possibly get out of jail?

2- Now imagine you are the mother/father of the suspect who murdered somebody. The guy who you helped to create/gave birth to is sitting right in front of you at the Supreme Court at his/her trial because he ended someone's life. The jury has to decide whether to give him/her life in jail with no parole or the death penalty ending everything. You're sitting there awaiting the verdict from the jury whether it's the death penalty or life in prison. How would you feel knowing that twelve random people decided that your child is going to die? Just imagine having to see them ONE LAST TIME, rather than seeing them behind a glass window for the rest of their lives. I couldn't imagine having to sit there calmly as I hear these twelve random people tell my child that he/she is going to be executed. I can't lie- I would not be okay with the fact that my child killed somebody but it would be even worse to have to deal with them being executed.

3- Lastly imagine yourself as an innocent wrongly accused citizen who sits on the witness bench at your "trial" at Supreme Court because you LOOK LIKE the person who killed someone. As you sit there, a lawyer and a couple opposing witnesses argue against you. While they argue, a court room full of people sit there and judge you, while a judge looks at you like your mentally challenged and twelve people decide your fate. Your innocent life is basically hanging in the hands of your lawyer and those twelve strangers. If your lawyer does not present a well-thought argument to help save you- oops you're dead. Imagine being given a shot to end your life, or being put in an electric-shock-chair. You're sitting there terrified as the real convict roams the streets freely. Unfair right? Yes you present the argument about DNA and things of that nature but without DNA presented, pretty much nothing is 100 percent now is it?

Just for a moment step away from "research" and "statistics" and look at the situation logically and realistically. I felt there was no need for any "research" or "cited sources" for my argument this round because I believe it supports itself. I await your reply.
vmpire321

Con

Apparently, my opponent has chose to ignore all arguments and preceded to provide a couple of examples.

Basically, he concedes (almost) everything.

And as of now, I'm pretty sure that I should get the 'sources' point.


However, I shall now go and examine each of those issues.

But first off, I'd like to point out that the Supreme Court is not made up of 'strangers', but rather we all know them. (PRO, from what I can tell, seems to be confused)

Example 1:

"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth".
Death is probably one of the biggest issues in life that we must all get over. Knowing that my child's murderer is still getting to live life, while my child - who never get to say goodbye to anyone - is dead.

And prison isn't as bad as you are explaining it to the voters. You must consider the fact that most of the Death Row inmates are murderers, who have committed heinous crimes. On what basis would you think that they would be the inmates that are 'tortured'. If anything, they will become the torturers. I doubt that they would experience that much suffering - perhaps they might even receive respect.

And finally, my argument is that you cannot predict the future. Future officials or judges can offer clemency, parole, or find some reason for a new trial [1] - it has already happened. People who were supposed to stay in jail for life end up getting out - and once again becoming a hazard to society.

Furthermore, putting dangerous murderers increases the risks of death of other inmates, who may have committed petty crimes.

Example 2:
Well first of all, my loyalty lies overwhelming with society and the good of mankind. If my child does become a dangerous criminal, then I'll probably will not object much against the death penalty. Why?
1) Atheist? Death would mean a state where nothing is possible. At that time, nothing matters - I wouldn't care. No one would care.
2) Theist? There is an afterlife. Perhaps we'll meet again.

And secondly, those on the death row do not get executed immediately. The average wait on the death row is around 20 years [2]. This is more than enough time for my child to say goodbye, unlike the people who he murdered, who more than likely never got to say goodbye to anyone.

Example 3:
See my contention on the accuracy of the death penalty. I'd like to point out that I provided empirical data and studies that show that the death penalty is very accurate. And when you consider the small amount of people who were executed innocent and the number of people saved for each execution (Up to 74 people). It is obvious which is more moral. 74 lives compared to one life?


Sources:
[1] David Schaefer, PhD, Professor of Political Science at Holy Cross College, in his Dec. 2001 article for The American Enterprise titled "The Death Penalty and Its Alternatives"
[2]http://www.usatoday.com...

Debate Round No. 2
breanadawnx3

Pro

Just for the record, I did NOT ignore Con's "arguments", I just wished he had different reasonings than the SAME one he claims in this same debate regardless of the person he is against.

Con says-> "the Supreme Court is not made up of 'strangers', but rather we all know them."
I say-> Con is speaking for everyone and that is something that should NOT be done, because Con does not know EVERYONE in America, let alone if they know the members of the supreme court.

Since Con felt I "ignored" his first arguments, I will go back and address each and EVERY one.

C1: Deterrence
Con says-> "The Death Penalty serves as a determent to criminals."
I say-> the Death Penalty can be a wrong message to send to children. The famous quote is; "Two wrongs don't make a right". Although Con does acknowledge the fact that the Death Penalty will stop this ONE criminal from committing more murders, he fails to look at other aspects. Just because this ONE murderer is put on Death Row and faces the Death Penalty, does not stop all murderers. Also, it does NOT justify what the criminal did.

C2: Bargaining Chip
Con Says-> "Without a doubt, the death penalty allows prosecutors to get information quicker."
I say-> This is not the case for ALL of these murderers. Although Con cites that in SOME examples, these criminals choose to speak out. Just because this happens in SOME cases- this does not happen for ALL cases.

C3: Accuracy
Con say-> "the death penalty has nearly a 99.6% rate of accuracy."
I say-> That percentage is still NOT enough for me. Although the chance is small, mistakes happen and that .4 is still not guaranteed. "Since 1973, 138 people have been released from death rows throught the country due to evidence of their wrongful conviction. In this same time period, more than 1,200 people have been executed" (1).

C4: Popularity
Con says-> "In 2011, 61% supported the DP while only 35% was agaisnt it."
I say-> On that SAME website, I found that "Sixty-one percent of Americans approve of using the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, down from 64% last year. This is the lowest level of support since 1972" (2). Apparently Con forgot to put that part in. It is apparent that the support is obviously decreased if the support rate is at the lowest it has been at since 1972. Maybe more people are realizing this is wrong. Also on that website, it says "Twenty-five percent say the death penalty is used too often, the highest such percentage yet that Gallup has measured" (2).

C1:
Con says-> "We see that there is going to be an accumulation of murderers - which make prisons far more dangerous then they are now."
I say-> Jails are made for CRIMINALS, for people that we need off the streets. They should have to live in horrible conditions. Maybe they'll learn a lesson. For most of them, they have never even committed a murder before. Only 8.4% have been previously convicted of homicide (3).

1- http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org...
2- http://www.gallup.com...
3- http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...
vmpire321

Con

Hmm. Apparently, PRO has chosen to neglect (and perhaps concede) the majority of her examples.

About the Supreme Court...all of the Justices are carefully chosen. You can expect possibly the most fair trial in the US from the Supreme Court.

==Rebuttals==

I shall procede to rebut and defend my points.

C1: Deterrence
No sources? Oh well...

You have to keep in mind that I never said that the Death Penalty stops all murderers, but rather it helps to save lives by deterring some murderers. I think we all can agree that trading one useless life for 74 innocent lives is an amazing trade.

The fact that we are saving lives makes it so that the Death Penalty is not "a wrong".
A right and a wrong cancel out.


C2: Bargaining Chip
Once again, I never said that the bargaining chip could be used for all situations. Who'd believe a death penalty threat when they are looking for the person who stole some candy? However, it severe situations, the guilty party can be put under enough pressure to confess or reveal information. Some informations outweighs no information.

Quite frankly, I don't think the standards for punishment include "fitting ALL cases" like my opponent is trying to say.

C3: Accuracy

My opponent still continues to request almost impossible standards for punishment. Since nearly all punishments that are being given out have been given to some innocent person, is it justified to abolish the entire criminal justice system? Of course not, due to the fact that the benefits outweigh the costs.

There is probably around 4-5 people who have been executed innocent [1]. About 1,195 people have been executed guilty. My evidence from before stated that 74 lives are saved for every execution [2]. That is about 88,430 that have been saved [3]. Is my opponent trying to trade the lives of possibly 5 people for nearly 90,000?

C4: Popularity
One can expect, from past data, the support for the death penalty will remain as the majority. Sure, support might be at the lowest point, but it is still the majority.

My opponent concedes
-Majority support it
-Majority think that the Death Penalty needs to be used more often
-Majority think that the daeth penalty is being applied fairyly
-Majority think that the Death Penalty is morally acceptable
-Majority choose the death penalty over life in prison.

==Refutations==

C1: Life in Prison
Everyone fears death. Death keeps criminals off the streets. My opponent has yet to provide an argument to as why we should prefer life in prison over the death penalty.

And furthermore, you are sacrificing countless lives who have barely done anything. Putting murderers in jail = Killing Criminals.

And finally, you still have ignored one of my points. Who is going to say that these murderers will have a harsh time living in jail? If anything, murderers will gain respect and fear from other inmates.


Sources:
[1] https://www.google.com...
[2] bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Press/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty(ChronicleofHigherEd).pdf
[3] https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
breanadawnx3

Pro

C1: Deterrence
Killing someone is wrong- politiclly, legally, morally, and religiously. By the law, if someone kills another- we put them in jail. By Religion, if someone kills another- they're going to hell. Killing is WRONG. So giving someone the death penalty is WRONG. Therefore, TWO WRONGS do NOT make a right.

C2: Bargaining Chip
Con tries to argue that the Death Penalty can be used as a bargaining chip and it can ultimately get convicts to admit their guilt, on a website I found; "Therefore, the data used to analyze plea bargaining rates is often old and unrepresentative" (1). Also, that "The most comprehensive studies have found no connection between the death penalty and the frequency of pleas" (1). Therefore, the Death Penalty has NO recently recorded effect on pleaing guilt.

C3- Accuracy
"The era of DNA testing has not ushered in a fool-proof criminal justice system. It is not true that the problems of wrongful convictions are in the past and will not happen anymore because technology can now precisely determine guilt. Nor is it true that the death penalty can proceed unchecked under the assumption that all the inmates on death row have had ample opportunity for DNA testing. DNA exonerations represent only 12% of the total list of 116 cases. In 88% of the cases, attorneys and courts had to rely on other forms of evidence" (2). This quote simply states that the Supreme Court does not use DNA that much for conviction. If DNA is barely used, the chance of executing an innocent, is still there and high. Also, "Good DNA material is available in only one in five felony cases: often there is not enough DNA for a sample, or it is old or contaminated" (2).

C4: Popularity
Yes, according to the statistics I provided, majority does support the Death Penalty. But it is also dramatically decreasing and is currently at a all time low. The fact that it decreased that much, obviously proves something that Con is missing.

C1: Life in Prison.
"The death penalty costs more, delivers less, and puts innocent lives at risk. Life without parole provides swift, severe, and certain punishment. It provides justice to survivors of murder victims and allows more resources to be invested into solving other murders and preventing violence. Sentencing people to die in prison is the sensible alternative for public safety and murder victims' families" (3).

1- http://www.deathpenalty.org...
2- http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
3- http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
vmpire321

Con

C1: Deterrence
"Killing someone" and "murdering someone" is different. My opponent fails to see the fact that executing guilty criminals is justified when you save up to 74 innocent lives.

In fact, if anything, choosing not to use the death penalty is immoral. Why? Due to the fact that you are sacrificing the lives of up to 74 innocent humans.

You have the choice of choosing between 1 guilty murderer or 74 innocent civilians. It is imperative that the death penalty is used.

Either way, the death penalty is 'politically, legally, morally, and religiously," justified.

C2: Bargaining Chip

I find it funny how my opponent tries to use a source that claims to know that all data about plea bargaining rates are 'old'.

Hmm. It is weird how my sources in the first round are not working. But here are the sources I used to justify the fact that the death penalty is used as a bargaining chip.

http://www.thenewstribune.com...

This source was published quite recently - in 2007 - by a rather trustworthy source.
http://www.thecrimereport.org...;

This source was published in March 25, 2011, and claimed that the death penalty served as a valuable tool for prosecutors.

C3: Accuracy
This is interesting. My opponent uses "Procon.org" as a source. Hence, I shall use this agaisnt her, and quote credible sources that counter her arguments.

Source 1: Orrin G. Hatch, JD, US Senator (R-UT), in his June 13, 2000 speech "Statement of Senator Orrin Hatch Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on 'Post-Conviction DNA Testing: When Is Justice Served?'," stated:
"Advanced DNA testing improves the just and fair implementation of the death penalty. While reasonable people can differ about capital punishment, it is indisputable that advanced DNA testing lends support and credibility to the accuracy and integrity of capital verdicts."

Source 2: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in its June 26, 2002 article "DNA Testing and the Death Penalty," posted on www.aclu.org, wrote:
"The increasing use of DNA testing to help confirm the innocence or guilt in capital cases is one among many reforms that will help ensure that innocent people are not sentenced to death."

Source 3: Walter F. Rowe, AM, PhD, Professor in the Department of Forensic Sciences at George Washington University, in the National Institute of Justice's June 1996 research report "Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial," wrote:
"The introduction of DNA profiling has revolutionized forensic science and the criminal justice system. DNA technology has given police and the courts a means of identifying the perpetrators of rapes and murders with a very high degree of confidence."

Other than that, my opponent apparently concedes to all other arguments within this contention.

C4: Popularity

Funny how it only decreased by a few percentage poitns.....

And it is quite hilarious that my opponent is trying to predict future trends on a one-year trend only. Sadly, I don't see the logic in this - for decade a majority has continued to support the death penalty.

My opponent must provide a reason why decades of past data should be ignored, for the fact that in the last year, support has gone down a little bit.

My opponent also ignores all of my other popularity points.

====

C1: Life in Prison

Source 1: David Schaefer, PhD, Professor of Political Science at Holy Cross College, in his Dec. 2001 article for The American Enterprise titled "The Death Penalty and Its Alternatives," wrote:
"Anti-death-penalty groups know, of course, that there is no guarantee that a sentence of life without parole will actually be followed. Potential killers likely know it too."

Once again, future decisions may change the fact about wheter or not a inmate stays in jail for life actually.

And my opponent only asserts. There is no specific reason on why "The death penalty 'delivers less'"? Or that spending life in prison is more 'swift', 'severe', or 'certain' than death.

And how is Life in prison a good option for 'public safety'? Once again, *everyone* is put at risk, due to the fact that inmates can get out.


My opponent also concedes the fact that inmates that are convicted of lesser crimes are put at risk when there are more murderers in jail.
Debate Round No. 4
breanadawnx3

Pro

According to Con, " "Killing someone" and "murdering someone" is different. " But murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" (1). The keyword in that definition is KILLING. Kill means "to deprive of life : cause the death of" (2). Therefore, both mean to END the life of something and/or someone.

According to Con, "choosing not to use the death penalty is immoral", but I think Con is forgetting the moral behind the Death Penalty- hence the word DEATH. Death means "choosing not to use the death penalty is immoral" (3). Like i stated in Round 1, "Religiously speaking, the Death Penalty goes against one of the Ten Commandments, since the Sixth Commandment states 'Thou Shall Not Kil'."

C2: Bargaining Chip
When Con was reading the article of his second source, he obviously missed the part that says: "However, according to the Innocence Project, 22 of the first 265 DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they didn't commit" (4). Therefore, this means that even INNOCENT people commit to these crimes. So how are we saving an innocent life?

C3: Accuracy
"...Shouldn't DNA testing ensure that only the guilty are being convicted and sentenced to death? This is not the case because most murders do not involve the exchange of bodily materials containing DNA evidence...Wrongful convictions will continue to occur as long as our criminal justice system utilizes human actors" (5).

"The performance of pre-trial DNA testing is not always a reliable source of forensic information. If evidence is contaminated at the scene of the crime, if the police are not skilled in the collection of such evidence, if the police lab that performs the testing is unqualified to render reliable results, or if the state's expert is incompetent or dishonest, then evidence presented under the veil of scientific certainty becomes the very source of misinformation leading to mistake" (5).

C4: Popularity
Con Says-> "Funny how it only decreased by a few percentage poitns."
I say-> First, its POINTS not POITNS. Second, although it only decreased a few- the point of my argument against the popularity is simple- the support decreased. There must be a reason for the decrease and obviously "it is quite hilarious that my opponent" is ignoring this.

====

C1: Life in Prison
Con Says-> Once again, future decisions may change the fact about wheter or not a inmate stays in jail for life actually.
I say-> It's WHETHER not WHETER. But "it is quite hilarious that my opponent is trying to predict future" about WHETHER an inmate will stay in jail for life. With the way technology advances, I don't doubt the legal system and the security in prisons.

My opinion did NOT change due to Con's argument. To me- the Death Penalty is ultimately WRONG for a numerous amount of reasons, which I stated in the First Round.

1- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
4- http://www.thecrimereport.org...;
5- http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
vmpire321

Con

Sorry...I was very busy. I suppose extend all points...
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
breanadawnx3vmpire321Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had an overall better argument the Pro.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
breanadawnx3vmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: If anyone wants my rfd just message me
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
breanadawnx3vmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB
Vote Placed by oheesak 4 years ago
oheesak
breanadawnx3vmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro repeats many of her previous points and drops many of Con's points. Con provides more data whereas Pro appeals to morals and belief.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
breanadawnx3vmpire321Tied
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: RFD within Comments
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 4 years ago
wmpeebles
breanadawnx3vmpire321Tied
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: While I am in favor of the death penalty becoming abolished, Pro had very weak arguments, weak rebuttals. Con did fairly well even though I disagree with most of his arguments, but loses a conduct point for not finishing the last round.