The Instigator
aiah17
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
alwaysmetara
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Death Penalty is wrong

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 1 vote the winner is...
aiah17
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 964 times Debate No: 38197
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

aiah17

Pro

There will be 5 rounds: First for acceptance, second for argument, third to counter-argue, and the fourth to address potential voters.

The death penalty is not the solution. Love is.
alwaysmetara

Con

Thank you for posting this debate. I look forward to debating with you.
I will be taking the position of Con, which is that the death penalty is sometimes necessary and is the best choice.
Debate Round No. 1
aiah17

Pro

Thank You for accepting my debate. I believe that the death penalty is wrong, because two wrongs do not make a right. Also, in nearly every religion, the death penalty is criticized. It is as bad as murder to sentence someone with death, even if they did really horrible things. Also, there is a slim chance that the person being sentenced to death is innocent,such as the Salem Witch Trials. Once again, thank you for debating me.
alwaysmetara

Con

My points are as follows:

1. Crime and Punishment- Crimes must be punished, or else the criminal will repeat the crime. For most crimes, smaller punishments are enough in order to deter the criminal from committing a crime again. Pro has stated that two wrongs do not make a right, yet punishment is not a wrong when in the hands of fair justice. The death penalty is just a extreme form of punishment, only meted out when strictly necessary.

2. Protecting Innocents- The death penalty is necessary only in rare cases, where other punishment is not enough. Some criminals' crimes are so severe that it is very dangerous to keep them alive. For example, a murderer who has killed dozens of innocent citizens might be sentenced to death. Obviously, this murderer must be punished in order to make sure that other people aren't harmed again. This murderer who has a blatant disregard for human life does not deserve to live. The death penalty is not used for revenge or any dark purpose, it is only to ensure that the criminal cannot harm innocent people again.

3. Fairness of the Law- The law in present times is very fair. Proof and evidence is needed in order to sentence someone to death. Pro has mentioned the Salem Witch Trials, which is not applicable in present day. People are innocent until proven guilty, and the death penalty is only used when it is certain that the criminal has committed the crime. After all, the death penalty is only the solution for extreme cases.

Based on these points, I am arguing that the death penalty should be kept as an option for extreme cases. It should be sparingly used, but still open as an option for when necessary.
Debate Round No. 2
aiah17

Pro

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"
alwaysmetara

Con

The death penalty isn't the same as murder. Murder is killing someone, usually innocent, for personal gain. However, the death penalty is used to make sure that very dangerous criminals are not allowed to kill innocents in society again.
Also, the method used in the death penalty is very carefully tested to make sure it is painless and quick. Currently, the method most used is lethal injection, which is relatively humane. A commonly used drug is sodium thiopental, which is used as an anesthetic when given in lower doses. At a lethal dose, the prisoner would not feel anything (1).
Again, the death penalty is only used in spare cases, and so should be left as an option of last resort.

(1): http://listverse.com...
Debate Round No. 3
aiah17

Pro

Imagine this scenario: A man is accused of murdering 12 people The evidence is a strand of hair with his DNA on it. He is convicted and given the death penalty. Ten years later, forensic scientists determine that the hair was not from him, but from another person, using a more advanced form of DNA testing. The man would not be able to be released, and the judge and forensic scientists wold have to live with the guild of killing an innocent man. That could happen, and it had happened in the past.
alwaysmetara

Con

alwaysmetara forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
aiah17alwaysmetaraTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was more complex, but I can't see how it would sway a critic. Despite this, I could not recognize Pro's statements as arguments as much as opinions. When Pro says that the death penalty might make mistakes, I think that is convincing. I would have scored for that if it had been supported better. I gave conduct for the FF>