The Instigator
policydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
DeKHaole
Con (against)
Winning
31 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  
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: 12/17/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 12,439 times Debate No: 609
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (15)

 

policydebategod

Pro

The Death Penalty
- is murder, which is morally wrong. It is not the government's place to murder people without war.
- Nobody is afriad of the death penalty so it is ineffective. People are afriad of prison. You never hear, "I would but I don't want to get the death penalty." You do hear, "I would. I don't want to go to jail."
- It kills people instead of allowing them to pay for their crimes.
- The appeal process is too great for a death penalty person. They can get acquitted any time wrongfully.
- Capital punishment is cruel and unusual, violating the constitution. Next, we will get rid of freedom of speech, religion, etc. It is destroying American values.
- The death penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive legal counsel, as well as racial, ethnic and religious minorities.
- The death penalty is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently.
- Wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences, and tragically, were killed by the state. People are released from jail constantly for crimes they did not commit. Imagine if you were suddenly murdered for a crime you did not commit.
- A rehabilitated criminal can make a morally valuable contribution to society.
- Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.
- The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system and make speedy trials impossible as well.
- We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.
- It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Should we rape people who rape people? Speed toward who speed? Kidnap people who kidnap? It teaches no lesson. This is exactly what law is trying to get away from by allowing the government to punish instead of allowing people to get personal revenge.
- Why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Should we rape people who rape people? No lesson is learned.
- Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. And we could have more help in our military and economic ventures.
- Most jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. Letting murderers roam free.
- The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process.
DeKHaole

Con

I'll preface this with two things: One, this is my first debate, so I apologize in advance if I have some stylistic things that need to be worked out. Two, I'm in the middle of my finals, so I apologize again if my responses take longer than you would like.
Now to refuting your arguments.

The Death Penalty
- Murder is defined as "Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law." As such the act of killing some one with the death penalty is not murder by definition because the government does not recognize it as such. Additionally, the death penalty has been practiced throughout history, and is even advocated in the Bible repeatedly in acts such as stoning children who act against their parents, or any other number of sinners. You said that it is not the government's place to murder people without war, so then is it nor morally reprehensible if there is a war? Then we must look at what war is? It is simply when a country believes it has been wronged by another entity, as such, if a country believes some entity, be it another state, a terrorist faction, or a person, is of sufficient threat to its citizens it has the right then to fight back and kill. Is that not essentially what the death penalty is?
- You said"Nobody is afriad of the death penalty so it is ineffective. People are afriad of prison. You never hear, "I would but I don't want to get the death penalty." You do hear, "I would. I don't want to go to jail."" Is it not redundant to say that it is the status quo for humans to not wish to die. As such you don't hear people say "I don't want to get the death penalty" because everyone knows that no one wants to die. In effect, I would just have to generally disagree with you on this point, crimes by and large are not committed on the scale that would merit the possibility of capital punishment because while people are not so afraid of going to jail, they are afraid of the potentiality of being put to death.
- "It kills people instead of allowing them to pay for their crimes." Is killing them not forcing them to pay for their crimes?
- "The appeal process is too great for a death penalty person. They can get acquitted any time wrongfully." This is true for many criminals. A prisoner in jail has nothing better to do than research case law, and look for reasons that they should be allowed another appeal and eventually get themselves acquitted. They can not do this if they are dead.
- "Capital punishment is cruel and unusual... It is destroying American values" Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual, every effort has been taken to see to it that the prisoner in question does not feel any pain in their passing, which is much more a service than they probably gave to their victims. In fact, going back in time, a quick painless death came about with the invention of the guillotine, which arguably is much better than the lethal injection with regards to quick, painless death.
- "The death penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive legal counsel, as well as racial, ethnic and religious minorities." While this statement may appear to have some substance, it can not be taken at face value. Unfortunate as it may be, the percentages of people within the U.S. prison system are in the majority for "the poor,...racial, ethnic, and religious minorities." However, whether or not the prison system as a whole is bias, is a topic for another debate.
- "The death penalty is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently." I'd like you to expand on this if you can, because with a statement this vague I don't know how to defend my position against it. If you are speaking about the cases in which it is used, then yes, it may very well vary. However this is because the states are allowed to determine whether or not capital punishment is acceptable, and if it is, under what scenarios. This is an example of the states deciding what coincides with the belief systems and the needs of its residents. This is a good thing because it allows the citizens to dictate the world they live in.
- "Wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences, and tragically, were killed by the state. People are released from jail constantly for crimes they did not commit. Imagine if you were suddenly murdered for a crime you did not commit." While this does happen, such cases are in the minority, and as you stated earlier, the person in question has many opportunities for appeal, as such you would not be "suddenly murdered for a crime you didn't commit," there is nothing sudden about the death penalty.
- "A rehabilitated criminal can make a morally valuable contribution to society." This is by and large not true, very few convicted felons are able to re-adapt to society, few can get jobs worth having, and as such most return to lives of crime.
- "Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life." While this is true, it is not the actual act of capital punishment, but rather the court fees for all of the additional litigation, which as i said before may be present in a non-capital court case.
- "The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system and make speedy trials impossible as well." I think I've touched on this enough. However, the trials are held at the same pace as any trial, and as such the right to a speedy trial is no more infringed upon an alleged murderer than a person convicted of speeding.
- "We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance." Wasn't "an eye for an eye" one of the first rules set down in Hammurabi's code which was one of the stepping stones for civilization to begin to advance because we had law? Although yes we do need to advance, beyond an eye for an eye, this does not detract from the potential benefit of ridding the world of a mass murderer, or rapist or what have you.
- "It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Should we rape people who rape people? ... Should we rape people who rape people? No lesson is learned." This simply does not make sense, it is fallacious logic. It is not a Gov does this to Person X because Person X did this to Citizen Y. Rather it is more government gets rid of Person X because they did this ti Citizen Y and it is believed that they have the potential to do said act again and it is more beneficial for the community to be rid of Person X. The way our laws are set up in no way reflect the scenarios you described. Death is just another level of separation between the public masses and the criminal; albeit a permanent one.
- "Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. And we could have more help in our military and economic ventures." Honestly I think our stance on the death penalty is a low priority to other countries. What I think they are more concerned about is the "murdering" of Iraqis by American troops in the scenario you said earlier would make killing acceptable. If that is so, why are they so angry about our invasions and war?
- "Most jury members ... murderers roam free." Again partially true, jury members are reluctant to convict if it means the person will receive the death penalty, but then again we don't want them to feel comfortable sending some one to their death, the death penalty makes them treat the case that much more seriously. Also there are usually lesser charges brought against the defendant that the jurors could still find him/her guilty on, without the death penalty.
- "The prisoner's family ... appeals process." Yes, and isn't it horrible how much they must grieve... a strange parallel between them and the victim's family. Only it was not the victim who brought the prisoners family into a situation that would cause them pain.
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Pro

The Death Penalty
- Murder is defined as "Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law." As such the act of killing some one with the death penalty is not murder by definition because the government does not recognize it as such. Additionally, the death penalty has been practiced throughout history, and is even advocated in the Bible repeatedly in acts such as stoning children who act against their parents, or any other number of sinners.
+ I got this definition: The killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. If only killing while against the law is murder, then the Nazis, Janjaweed (in Sudan), the Native American killings are justified.
- You said that it is not the government's place to murder people without war, so then is it nor morally reprehensible if there is a war?
+ war = a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation
- As such you don't hear people say "I don't want to get the death penalty" because everyone knows that no one wants to die. crimes by and large are not committed on the scale that would merit the possibility of capital punishment because while people are not so afraid of going to jail, they are afraid of the potentiality of being put to death.
+ You can assume that people dont want to go to prison as well so your point is illogical. Also, the death penalty crimes are very haneous and people dont commit them very often for that fact. Most people are not serial murderers. That is why the crimes are not committed as often not because the death penalty is feared.
- "It kills people instead of allowing them to pay for their crimes." Is killing them not forcing them to pay for their crimes?
+ Killing them does not make them suffer instead they just dont feel anything. Most people would rather die than spend their entire lives in prison. that is why prison suicide is so high for lifetime convicts.
- "The appeal process is too great for a death penalty person. They can get acquitted any time wrongfully." This is true for many criminals. A prisoner in jail has nothing better to do than research case law, and look for reasons that they should be allowed another appeal and eventually get themselves acquitted. They can not do this if they are dead.
+ Death penalty appeals are ALWAYS granted. The appeals process is a lot longer for death penalty convicts and the people who get acquitted aparantly did not commit the crime!!!
- Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual, every which is much more a service than they probably gave to their victims.
If not rendered unconscious, the inmate will feel excruciating pain; if paralyzed by the pancuronium bromide, the inmate will be unable to show this pain.
+ Some executions have lasted between 20 minutes to over an hour and prisoners have been seen gasping for air, grimacing and convulsing during executions.
Autopsies have shown severe, foot long chemical burns to the skin and needles have been found in soft tissue. (amnestyusa.com) Murdering murderers is unusual as well.
- whether or not the prison system as a whole is bias, is a topic for another debate.
+ Debate the point. Are you going to allow this genocide of the minorities to continue?
- This does happen, such cases are in the minority, and as you stated earlier, the person in question has many opportunities for appeal, as such you would not be "suddenly murdered for a crime you didn't commit," there is nothing sudden about the death penalty.
+ How can you admit that murdering innocent people is fine? You could be one of these innocent people who unsuddenly gets murdered.
- This is by and large not true, very few convicted felons are able to re-adapt to society, few can get jobs worth having, and as such most return to lives of crime.
+ Should you just rob good citizens of their entire lives after they've changed and paid their debt to society?
- While this is true, it is not the actual act of capital punishment, but rather the court fees for all of the additional litigation, which as i said before may be present in a non-capital court case.
+ However, it is present in ALL capital court cases!!! This is a waste of you and I's money for an evil, ineffective action.
- the trials are held at the same pace as any trial, and as such the right to a speedy trial is no more infringed upon an alleged murderer than a person convicted of speeding.
+ Prove this. It is an opinion and I disagree.
- Although yes we do need to advance, beyond an eye for an eye, this does not detract from the potential benefit of ridding the world of a mass murderer, or rapist or what have you.
+ A permanent societal change is far more important than a mass murderer.
- Rather it is more government gets rid of Person X because they did this ti Citizen Y and it is believed that they have the potential to do said act again and it is more beneficial for the community to be rid of Person X. The way our laws are set up in no way reflect the scenarios you described. Death is just another level of separation between the public masses and the criminal; albeit a permanent one.
+ Prisons are more effective. and getting rid of is a euphemism for murdering a murderer: an eye for an eye.
- "Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. And we could have more help in our military and economic ventures." Honestly I think our stance on the death penalty is a low priority to other countries. What I think they are more concerned about is the "murdering" of Iraqis by American troops in the scenario you said earlier would make killing acceptable. If that is so, why are they so angry about our invasions and war?
+ Maybe if we actually fixed our problems instead of saying but look at our bigger problems every country in the world would not hate us
- Again partially true, jury members are reluctant to convict if it means the person will receive the death penalty, but then again we don't want them to feel comfortable sending some one to their death, the death penalty makes them treat the case that much more seriously. Also there are usually lesser charges brought against the defendant that the jurors could still find him/her guilty on, without the death penalty.
+ Most jurors will not be responsible for somebody's murder and you just said that we should let the mass murder go for a smaller, convictable crime. Life inprison for the guy who killed 20 babies or 5 months for burglary? Also, there are not always lesser crimes to be convicted for.
- Yes, and isn't it horrible how much they must grieve... a strange parallel between them and the victim's family. Only it was not the victim who brought the prisoners family into a...?
DeKHaole

Con

Both of the cases you stated are hyperbolic in the extreme. Nazis were committing genocide, killing dozens of people who had not actually committed a crime. The Janjaweed statement is in essence false – the Janjaweed is NOT the government in Sudan, the Sudanese government is simply ineffective at stopping them, and they are playing politics with the UN, trying to come out ahead economically just to allow the UN to come in and stop that Genocide.
*" war = a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation…" Your definition does not provide an answer. Is "Murder" morally reprehensible if it is committed during war?
crimes by and large are not committed on the scale that would merit the possibility of capital punishment because while people are not so afraid of going to jail, they are afraid of the potentiality of being put to death.
+ You can assume that … the death penalty is feared.
You originally said, "Nobody is afriad of the death penalty so it is ineffective. People are afriad of prison. You never hear, "I would but I don't want to get the death penalty." You do hear, "I would. I don't want to go to jail."" My point was refuting you assertion that "No one is afraid of the death penalty" which was derived from the rather vague "because you never hear anyone say" that they are afraid of it. In fact, many people are not afraid of going to prison; especially those who have been in before, and as such know how to function in a prison society. The point is, people are more willing to commit smaller crimes/felonies because they are not as afraid of going to jail as they are of the death penalty.
+ Killing them …make them suffer …"
*Are you advocating that people should SUFFER for their crimes. To suffer sounds an awful lot like that cruel and unusual punishment you were talking about earlier. Prisoners should be held accountable for their crimes, but suffering should not be inflicted upon any person by their government.

+ Death penalty appeals are ALWAYS … did not commit the crime!!!
*This statement of yours is patently untrue. An appeal may ONLY be granted if there is just cause for an appeal, there must be new evidence, or evidence that something was not carried out as it was supposed to be. The second statement you made is also patently untrue. There are many cases in which an alleged criminal may walk free despite undeniable evidence, on a simple technicality, like whether or not the gun a crime was committed with was in plain sight when the person was arrested, or any number of instances where one slight slip up on the part of the police can allow a criminal to go free.

+If not rendered unconscious, the inmate will feel excruciating pain… is unusual as well.
*This does bring up an interesting concept. Perhaps the delivery of the death penalty should be re conceived. The reason why "needles have been found in soft tissue" is because doctors are not allowed to perform the procedures because of their Hippocratic oath to do no harm. However, if an updated form of the guillotine were brought back into practice (perhaps now with hydraulic cutters) the procedure would be exceedingly quick and painless.
* whether or not the prison system as a whole is bias, is a topic for another debate.
+ Debate the point. Are you going to allow this genocide of the minorities to continue?
*I refuse to debate the point here. It will do nothing but waste space in my response. If you want to debate me on this point, challenge me to a debate specifically about the bias of the prison system. Additionally, I deplore being accused of "allowing genocide to continue" as this is a Straw Man Argument (a fallacy) an Argument from Outrage (another fallacy) a dysphemism , and a Loaded Question (a third fallacy). A blatant use of rhetoric without any actual argument present, a statement only meant to bias any witnessing this debate.
+ How can you admit that murdering innocent people is fine? You could be one of these innocent people who unsuddenly gets murdered.
*Another fallacy, Scare Tactics, and dysphemism (being put to death is not murder.) Also, what I said was "This does happen, such cases are in the minority, and as you stated earlier, the person in question has many opportunities for appeal, as such you would not be "suddenly murdered for a crime you didn't commit," there is nothing sudden about the death penalty." At no point did I say that "murdering innocent people is fine" (another straw man argument/loaded question/perfection fallacy.) It is a perfection fallacy because, while the system is not perfect ( as no system mankind has created is ) it is a sad truth that from time to time innocent people may be put to death, however, as I said before, these cases are in the EXTREME minority, as such the death penalty as a whole should not be scrapped because it is not perfect, and by and large it does its job.

*This is by and large not true, very few convicted felons are able to re-adapt to society, few can get jobs worth having, and as such most return to lives of crime.
* One, a convicted felon is apparently not a "good citizen" as they were convicted of a FELONY which is a rather heinous crime. Additionally, "studies have usually found three-year rates of rearrest for released prisoners ranging from 50 to 70 percent" (http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us...) so most people who commit felonies, go to prison and are released, generally go out and commit more crimes. These people are NOT good citizens.
*The only reason for a decreased amount of appeals in other court cases is that many cases are plea bargained, as such, they have no room to appeal because they plead guilty for a reduced sentence. Obviously no one is going to have "plead guilty" to a crime in order to receive the death penalty.
* the trials are held at the same pace as any trial, and as such the right to a speedy trial is no more infringed upon an alleged murderer than a person convicted of speeding.
+ Prove this. It is an opinion and I disagree.
* Gladly "Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial," taking right from the Bill of Rights. As all death penalty cases are CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS they are held to the same standard of "speediness."
* You ignored the whole thing about Hammurabi's code… "eye for an eye" was the first step towards civilization. And it is no longer an eye for an eye. If we still went by that standard, if a murderer raped, tortured, and then murdered his victims, we would then rape, torture and murder him. We do not do so. We humanely end his existence.* "Prisons are more effective" is an opinion, I disagree. Prove your statement. And "murdering a murderer" is a dysphemism.
* Point one: All countries do not hate the United States. In fact, most are still exceedingly welcoming, and even China, our big "communist threat" is helping us out financially and putting forth massive amounts of money to have students from America come to China, learn to speak Chinese, and teach Chinese people English.
Point two: Yes we should solve our problems rather than saying "look at our bigger problems," but the reason we need to look at the bigger problems is because those are the important ones. If a boat has huge holes in it, and the paint is coming off, and you're in the boat in the middle of a lake, are you going to try to plug the holes, or repaint boat?
* Your first statement is false, as the death penalty exists, and is in use, apparently there are plenty of jurors who are willing to be responsible for some one's EXECUTION I did not say that we SHOULD let the mass murderer go for a smaller crime (stop putting words in my mouth) I said there are usually lesser crimes they may be found guilty of if the evidence does not support verdict of guilty on a capital offence.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod

Pro

policydebategod forfeited this round.
DeKHaole

Con

As my opponent did not take advantage of the third round, I will keep my response here short. I believe I have made my argument relatively clear, and have done so without resorting to the use of mass fallacies. The death penalty is not something that should be taken lightly; and it never is. This is why there are so many opportunities for appeal, however, despite the fact that the appeals do exist, if the person is still found guilty, after numerous juries have sentenced him or her to death it is obvious that he or she should be given the sentence that any number of his or her peers have condemned him to. This is not cruel or unusual. The death penalty exists as a way of almost painlessly ending the life of a heinous criminal. Statistically people who have committed such felonies are not going to be able to readjust to society after their incarceration. With regards to my opponents opening statements.
The death penalty is not murder, murder is acting outside the law and intentionally causing the wrongful death of another.
People are afraid of dying, in fact, it is number two on the list of what most people are afraid of.
Killing the offender is a form of making criminals pay for their crime. In some cases a more humane way than what they would face in prison. Child rapists for instance may be raped an beaten in our prison systems; something one may call torture.
The death penalty is used only against those who have committed heinous crimes. Whether or not the person is of low class, or minority, is irrelavent to this debate. Such a topic should be brought up in another debate as problems in the justice system, not in this part of the justice system where the decisions have already been made, and guilt assigned.
To say that the death penalty is used "arbitrarily and inconsistently" is a lie. It is used only in specific circumstances, and if there is any inconsistency in when it is used that is for two reasons. 1: plea bargaining, which allows the justice system to maintain its promise of a speedy trial. 2: the different standards that are held by the states for the requirements of the death penalty. However, such differences are desirable because they mean that each state is allowed self-governance guaranteed to it by the constitution.
While some innocent people have been wrongly sentenced to death, these instances are in the minority, and it is a minority that is growing increasingly small with the advent of DNA analysis and forensic evidence. No program is perfect, and as such it should simply be watched, modified, and perfected, not done away with. This is a Perfection fallacy.
Financial costs can be mainly chalked up to court costs, which as I have demonstrated before, can take place in many major criminal trials.
As outlined before, speedy trials are still in place for both regular criminals, and those who are facing capital punishment. Their rights are not hampered. And as capital cases are in the minority it is ludicrous to assume they are the main cause of a lagging judicial system.
My Hammurabi's code statement was never refuted.
The way the government ends life is different from the way a murderer ends life. The government's way is humane, quick, and essentially painless - a murderer's way is painful both psychologically, and physically and is done without any compassion or fairness
Ask any European or person from around the world what they think the number one (or hell go up to 10) thing America is doing wrong is, and the Death Penalty will not be on that list. Our foreign policy, and the way we treat other countries is what they are worried about.
While the prisoner's family may suffer, that family has no one to blame but the prisoner. The suffering of the victims family is what should be concentrated on, for neither they, nor the victim did anything to bring that suffering upon themselves. My opponent is trying to use a Pity fallacy here, where little pity should be found.

I apologize for making this longer than I had originally intended. I hope anyone who is watching this debate has enjoyed it. As this has been my first debate on this website I welcome and encourage discussion, suggestions, and any input you feel like giving. While I was displeased with the fact that my opponent felt that he had to use fallacies, and accuse me of saying or feeling certain ways, I wish him all the best and hope that this discussion may have caused him, or anyone reading it to rethink their positions. Additionally, please do not simply vote the way your beliefs go, be it for or against my own position, but rather simply vote for the argument you feel was the strongest. The death penalty is a touchy subject, and quite frankly I wish there was no need for it. However, so long as there are murderers, violent child-rapists and the like, the death penalty shall continue to have a place in society. Once again, thank everyone who has taken time from their schedules to read and vote on this debate, and I look forward to future discussions with some of you. And though it feels terribly out of place in such a debate to say this: Happy Holidays to All!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Maccabee 1 year ago
Maccabee
Why the death penalty is government sanction killing but the prison is not government sanctioned killing. With the death penalty you don't have to worry about the murderer escaping. Plus it's much cheaper. Compare how much does it takes to feed, care for, and shelter him for the rest of his life to putting him against a wall and shot by the firing squad.
Posted by finley5 1 year ago
finley5
No it should not be abolished. There are some instances were it is the best answer. Someone who commits a horrific murder doesn't need to be kept alive. Not to use the eye for an eye philosophy but because they can't or won't be rehabilitated. What is the sense of keeping them in jail for many years. The taxpayers don't need to support a monster and their health and well being. Also their education and recreation. Some of the previous methods of execution were harsh but now it seems there is a somewhat humane method; moreso than some murderers deserve. It often provides closure for a family that lived through a horrific tragedy . I do think it is something that should be considered on a serious case by case basis
Posted by DeKHaole 9 years ago
DeKHaole
I was serious about the whole wanting of input and such. For those who have voted, and those who are going to vote, I would appreciate the info. Also, I thought those votes came rather quickly, please make sure you read the entire debate before voting. Thanks.
Posted by StrawberriixHeartz 9 years ago
StrawberriixHeartz
Well, either way justice will be served sooner or later. If they were truly innocent they will find a way, if they were guilty, then their conscience(everyone has one=D) will find the justice. By the way, loop holes in the system means that you agree that the justice system is flawed, can death penalty be one of those "flaws". The evidence displayed from cases are collected by the police and brought to the court, DNA evidence/samples are used too. There isn't really that much room for mistakes and the convictions of innocent people. If so, please state an example or case. By the way, I haven't really debated before so I'm just trying to get some practice^^.
Posted by DeKHaole 9 years ago
DeKHaole
PolicyDebate...I've been looking into your other debates, and I would like to make a request. You often accuse people of using fallacies, and you have in fact accused me a using a euphemism. While I will concede that I unwittingly expressed a point with a euphemism, you have used quite a few fallacies yourself. Hyperbole, Straw Man, and Scare Tactics just to name a few. So, my request of you is that if you are going to pounce on me for making a euphemism I would like it very much if you would keep your own fallacies out of your argument. If you would like a definition for each of the fallacies I have named in my argument I can happily provide them, all from my Reason in Communication course book.
Posted by DeKHaole 9 years ago
DeKHaole
Quite to the contrary. They have plenty of time to contemplate the mistake they made leading up to the point at which they are executed. And while you are correct that prisoners are in jail to "protect other innocent citizens from dangerous criminals" and "to think over their mistakes" they also have unlimited time on their hands. One of the things that prisoners are allowed access to is a library full of law books. This provides with with the ability to "assist in their own defense" as they are provided for by the law. However, what this also means is that they have an unlimited amount of time to sit around studying law books and look for a loop hole that they can slip through, appeal based on that loop hole and outsmart the system.
Posted by StrawberriixHeartz 9 years ago
StrawberriixHeartz
Debating is all about looking at something in two point of views; the affirmative (con) and the negative (pro); I'm not debating therefore I'm not obliged to side on either sides. Besides, state your value criterion and core value before this states or else I don't know WHAT to side with. I'm confused with what you said about criminals in jails looking for a reason to appeal. Criminals are in jail to protect other innocent citizens from dangerous criminals. They are also in jail to think over their mistakes; death penalty does not help in anyway because it just kills them, there is no time for reflecting on their mistakes.
Posted by DeKHaole 9 years ago
DeKHaole
Um, wow Strawberriix, where exactly are you on this topic, you seemed to be siding with me, but then changed and went to the opposition with your last point. With regard to the cost of the death penalty, the actual cost of killing the person is not what costs so much, but rather the seemingly endless litigation that takes place leading up to the death. Perhaps different rules need to be put in place. However, as I said in my own statement, living prisoners who are not subject to the death penalty have nothing better to do than research case law in order to look for a reason to appeal. As such, although the door to their complaints is not AS open as it is for those who may be sentenced to death, they both can cost appreciable amounts of money.
Posted by StrawberriixHeartz 9 years ago
StrawberriixHeartz
-Death penalty is not murder, it is a way of enforcing the laws and for punishing those who do not follow it. It is the government's job to provide a safe and just society for the people within it.
-How is no one afraid of it??? If no one was afraid of it, why don't we use it for jaywalkers, what would they be afraid of? This does not connect to your first point. People usually aren't afraid/aware of death penalties because people usually do time instead of death penalty; the punishment depends on the level of the crime that was committed.
-Doesn't it also save money and resources? Death penalty is very expensive, we can use the money we use on death penalties on things such as school fundings.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 3 months ago
Mharman
policydebategodDeKHaoleTied
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 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
policydebategodDeKHaoleTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
policydebategodDeKHaoleTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF in final round= auto loss in my book.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
policydebategodDeKHaoleTied
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:01 
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
policydebategodDeKHaoleTied
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:01 
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
policydebategodDeKHaoleTied
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 hark 9 years ago
hark
policydebategodDeKHaoleTied
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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
policydebategodDeKHaoleTied
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 NSG 9 years ago
NSG
policydebategodDeKHaoleTied
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 gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
policydebategodDeKHaoleTied
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