The Instigator
googlemabob
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
xxx200
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The Death Penalty should be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 8 votes the winner is...
googlemabob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,638 times Debate No: 18796
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

googlemabob

Pro

I thank whoever accepts this challenge in advance; it's my first time debating on this website!

The Pro in this debate will need to prove that Capital Punishment is overall detrimental to the United States' well-being.

The Con will need to prove that the Death Penalty is beneficial to the United States' well-being.

To clarify, by well-being I mean 'the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous' (1).

Round 1 will be for acceptance, Round 2 for opening arguments, Round 3 for rebuttal of oppenent's points/new arguments, and Round 4 for Rebuttal and Conclusion.

Thanks again, I'm really excited!

1: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
xxx200

Con

i accept the debate. i am con side.

death penalty is not detrimental to the well being of us.
Debate Round No. 1
googlemabob

Pro

I thank you for accepting the challenge, and wish you the best of luck in this debate! I also thank the readers who will take the time to read and comment on it.

I shall be arguing the following two points:

a) The death penalty is financially much more costly than a sentence of life without parole (as paradoxical as that sounds), and
b) Maintaining capital punishment reduces our credibility with the global community.

First, maintaining the death penalty is costing States quite a bit of money. A 2008 study report performed on the cost of the death penalty in California found that the estimated annual cost to that state of the death penalty was $137 million per year, and that the cost per year with the inclusion of a necessary fair trial system would increase to $232.7 million per year. This same study found that the cost estimate for a system that imposed a maximum of life in prison instead would be $11.5 million per year.[1] This means that, abolishing the death penalty in California alone would save $221.2 million per year. To put it into perspective, that's $221.2 million more put into education, labor, and social services.

Second, we are facing an enormous push from the global community to abolish the death penalty. According to Amnesty International's website, an average of 3 countries per year have abolished the death penalty since 1990, and overall use has decreased dramatically.[2] One of the major countries that Amnesty pushes to end the death penalty is the United States. Every day the United States resists removing the death penalty, we drop our standing in the international community even further, and in the decade-long wake of the incredibly unpopular 'War on Terror', we can not afford to lose any more reputation among the international community.

Therefore, we need to abolish the death penalty, to stop wasteful spending that could be put to better use, and to increase our image with the rest of the developed world.

1:http://www.deathpenalty.org...
2:http://www.amnestyusa.org...
xxx200

Con

yes, both of your point are true.

but we should think before taking in steps.

there are some people who deserves death. it will be too dangerous to keep them alive. who they are ? muslim terrorists, first and foremost, serial killers, mass murderers, enemy of the state, traitors etc. these people are too dangerous to live. especially muslim terrorists. we all know how violent and dangerous they are.keeping them alive will convey a negetive message to the society also.

and also keeping them alive will cost the govt. a huge money on recurring basis.that is also not desirable.

Debate Round No. 2
googlemabob

Pro

"[T]here are some people who [deserve] death. [I]t will be too dangerous to keep them alive."

Which is why maximum security prisons were invented. A person, secured behind triple barbed-wire fences, with armed guards at every few hundred feet has no chance of escape, and no longer poses much of a threat to society.

"[K]eeping them alive will cost the [government] a huge money on recurring basis."

As I originally pointed out, abolishing the death penalty would actually save millions of dollars every year.

My first two points still stand: we would save ourselves millions of dollars, and would increase our standing in the global community if we abolished the death penalty.
xxx200

Con

why should the govt. keep terrorist, serial killers alive and spend millions of doller for their maintainance? what probably is the reason ? killing these people actually save a huge money which will be used if the govt. keep them alive in maximum security prison.

this maintainance expenditure is recurring in nature. why a rational govt. should keep all henious criminals alive and spend millions of doller for their maintainance in jail rather than spending that money in public welfare?

death penalty is justified for this special category of criminals.
Debate Round No. 3
googlemabob

Pro

As I stated in both of my previous arguments, we will save money by not killing them. There really is no argument here, because we spend 95% less on these prisoners by abolishing the death penalty.

And it still stands that we face pressure from the international community, a point my opponent never even brings up.

In short, vote pro.
xxx200

Con

well lets conclude:

from this debate we come to the following facts:

1] death penalty causes additional expenditure.

2] people like serial killers, mass murderers, terrorists do deserve to die.

following is a list of capital crime currently existed in usa

1] murder + robbery

2] murder + kidnapping

3] murder + assult

4] murder + repeat murder(serial killing)

5] murder of a public officer

6] murder + crime against minor

7] aircraft hijacking

8] train wrecking,

9] treason

10] drug trafficking

11] sexual assault

12] rape of a minor

13] terrorism

source:http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com...

now so many capital crime. thats why there is huge expenditure. among these crimes, according to me only some crime deserve death penalty. they are:

1]terrorism

2]treason

3]serial killing

if the govt. declares these 3 crimes as capital crime and rest are non capital crime, then it will save huge money and keep society clear and safe.

so the conclusion is keep death penalty for these 3 crimes mentioned above and eliminate death penalty from rest of the crimes.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by googlemabob 5 years ago
googlemabob
It's definitely because of Troy Davis. He was a man who obviously did not have enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, and yet the pig-headed Judges presiding over his appeals case decided he should die anyway. Our Justice system really disgusts me.
Posted by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
Troy Davis, possibly?
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Why do so many people want to debate this recently?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Crypto247 5 years ago
Crypto247
googlemabobxxx200Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a tough one. Not one I could simply just give out. They both had their good points, but the con at the end really didn't disprove the pro's point. So pro wins imo.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
googlemabobxxx200Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Yep.
Vote Placed by TheRomanticist 5 years ago
TheRomanticist
googlemabobxxx200Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con only claimed that the death penalty was justified without any real rationalization or supporting facts. They deserve it is not a feasible argument on its own. The reduction of capitally punished crimes was one I have rarely heard, so it wasn't all bad, but point still goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
googlemabobxxx200Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CON failed to convince me on his stand on this, and he failed to accurately rebut PRO's R2 argument. Ergo, he loses (again).
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
googlemabobxxx200Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I am always for the death penalty but the con only argued about how dangerous people must be put down instead of arguing the legality of the system or ANYTHING else. arguments go to Pro.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
googlemabobxxx200Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really didn't refute any of the arguments of Pro.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
googlemabobxxx200Tied
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: Counter vote bomb Crypto
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
googlemabobxxx200Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped the international standing argument, and contradicted himself on the other, saying we would save money by abolishing most of the death penalty, and save more money by not abolishing it completely.