The Instigator
WaximusMaximus
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
Skanarchy
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

The Death Penalty Should Be Continued.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,710 times Debate No: 1167
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (15)

 

WaximusMaximus

Pro

My argument for the death penalty is very simple. I do not hold that it deters crime. I do not hold that "it's what they deserve" (which is very difficult to prove). Simply my position on this issue stems from the fact capital punishment is dealing with a person who is capable of premeditated, cold-blooded rape or murder. In the event of an escape or parole for this individual we are turning a proven killer lose on the public. This should be prevented at all costs, and as extreme as putting someone to death is it is the only foolproof solution to the problem.

(I noticed your rather lackluster debate on the subject and was wondering if you want to give it another shot.)
Skanarchy

Con

The death penalty is bad because

1. It is cruel. Killing people is cruel and therefor should be considered cruel and unusual punishment which is unconstitutional.

2. A government should not be allowed to take away any person's life for two reasons.

A. The government should never have the ability to decide whether a person lives or dies. I'm not saying that a person who kills 15 people and rapes your mother doesn't deserve to die, Im just saying it is not the right of the government to do it.
B. Governments are not perfect, our law enforcement and courts are not perfect and if there is a small chance of innocents, a person should not be killed.

3. It is not that effive in the reduction of crime. Follow my logic, if a person is going to kill a number of people he is not going to stop simply because the government might kill him. Those who kill are pushed further away from humanity, therefore, these people do not fear death. "From 1976 to 1996, the number of executions per year in the United States has increased from 0 to just under 60. The homicide rate per 100,000 population has remained constant at just under 10." Also in areas where there is a death penalty their are 7.1 out of 100 000 people murdered, while in areas without it their is an average of 3.6 people out of 100 000 people murdered.

4. In a civilized society, we should not kill people. It is barbaric and we are better than the people who murder people.

Since you read this before and you pre-emptively took our everything else. I still my first point true, the second one, the fact that it increases crime from a statistical stand point, and my fourth point.

You argue that killing someone is the only way to stop them from getting back on the street, but life in prison seems to work just fine. True our justice system is not perfect, but it seems to me its probably easier to get someone imprisioned for life, than sentenced to death. If we use death simply to control someone, its a slipery slope before we use death to control someone else for other reasons, and so on down.
Debate Round No. 1
WaximusMaximus

Pro

Thanks for taking up this debate. Sorry if you think I "took out" all of your other arguments beforehand but I don't hold any other argument, like the famous "they're getting what they deserve", to be valid. In my opinion my point of view is the only way the death penalty can be justified. But to deal with your points:

1. Putting someone to death is cruel, however a capital crime cruel by nature. The cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitution does not apply here because the punishment is not cruel or unusual in comparison to the act. If you kill someone then, by extension, the punishment of death is not cruel or unusual it is simply of the same caliber of your crime. Second, consider this: How cruel is it to imprison someone for life. We don't even cage up our pets for life and to imprison an individual. There is no longer any point to self-improvement. Your life will be spent behind bars.

2A. The government never decides points of fact in a jury trial, only the jury does that. A jury is a group of common citizens chosen to determine the innocence or guilt of a defendant. An appeal can only reverse or uphold a case on points of law. Fact is the sole domain of a jury, not the government, and not a court.

2B. The point you raise about innocence are excellent. I only argue to the point that capital punishment should be kept on the books for the most flagrant and brutal crimes. Serial murders, serial rapists, and so forth. I also support the concept that forensics evidence such as DNA must be present in a case in order for the death penalty to be used. As I said in my opening statement people of this nature are PROVEN KILLERS and are too dangerous to be kept alive.

3. I don't believe in the statistical argument. As far as your conclusion that the death penalty encourages crime I would advance the idea that the death penalty may still be in force in area with a higher murder rate because people have the need to feel protected. The widespread myth that the death penalty deters crimes only continues such attitudes.

4. I fundamentally disagree with you. My position is covered in my opening statement.

5. I certainly agree with you that it is a slippery slope to be on. However if the death penalty only remains an option with strict statutory law regulating in what situations it is used we have our bases covered. Capital punishment should be used as sparingly as possible, but if we do have legitimate dangers to the public who would spend their lives in prison and have been convicted by a jury of their peers who have considered in part forensic evidence we have left our society safe from the terror of this particular offender.
Skanarchy

Con

Skanarchy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
WaximusMaximus

Pro

I will allow my opponent the opportunity to respond on this subject. Thank you for this debate and I hope that we both had to reconsider our positions on this very important moral question.
Skanarchy

Con

Skanarchy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by WaximusMaximus 9 years ago
WaximusMaximus
Killing someone is the only way we can be entirely curtain they won't ever harm anyone again. Unfortunately, some people, in my opinion, are just this dangerous to society.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Stoogy how can you be in the Libertarian Party but for Social Programs?
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Why don't you read his opening argument and you will find out?
Posted by Stoogy 9 years ago
Stoogy
if pro supports the death penalty to keep these dangerous people away from the general public then why not imprison them for life vesus kill them?
Posted by Skanarchy 9 years ago
Skanarchy
Im sorry I posted so late, its just the holidays and I've been busy.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
WaximusMaximusSkanarchyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
WaximusMaximusSkanarchyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
WaximusMaximusSkanarchyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
WaximusMaximusSkanarchyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mr.ROdr1duez 9 years ago
Mr.ROdr1duez
WaximusMaximusSkanarchyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
WaximusMaximusSkanarchyTied
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 
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
WaximusMaximusSkanarchyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
WaximusMaximusSkanarchyTied
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 
Vote Placed by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
WaximusMaximusSkanarchyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
WaximusMaximusSkanarchyTied
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