The Instigator
MysticEgg
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
EsmeeFallen
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

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...
MysticEgg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 935 times Debate No: 36825
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

MysticEgg

Pro

Welcome everyone to this debate that I have started. The death penalty is a topic of hot controversy both within and outside of the USA. This debate will hopefully shed some light onto the subject for people who are either misinformed, confused, or just want a friendly debate.
The rules are as follows:
First round is acceptance only.
Fifth round is closing statements only; no new arguments or refutes.
No religious arguments.
The BoP is shared.

This is an open challenge to anyone that accepts it! I believe that's all, so if you have any questions, please post comment. Thank you to my opponent, the viewers, and the voters, Allez!
EsmeeFallen

Con

The Death Penalty should NOT be made illegal in the USA because think of the criminals actions to the victims family, and what will happen if the criminal walked freely from prison in around 10 or so years. He/She would end up hurting someone else, the victim deserve justice, the victim's family demands it. The criminal who taken a life of a person, should not be allow to live and cause havoc and tax payers money. Like the saying goes' A life for a Life'.
Debate Round No. 1
MysticEgg

Pro

My opponent has accepted the rules my joining the debate and then broken them (specifically the "first round is acceptance only") in his first sentence. This was a breach of conduct, as I'm sure the voters are aware. However, I would urge the voters to take into consideration that my opponent has only joined today (19/8/2013, or if you're American, 8/19/2013), and so he should be let off the hook for this.
However, as per the rules, I will ignore these arguments that my opponent proposes in round one, but he may reinstate them for me to address in round two if he so wishes. Now, onto my opening arguments!

Contention 1: Value of human life.
Human life is invaluable, and to take a life from one is a serious crime. I am sure my opponent will agree on this! However, pro-death penalty will ensure that there is an asterisk attached to this.
Pro-death penalty version: Human life is invaluable, and to take a life from one is a serious crime*.
*unless that life is taken from a person by the government.

I would ask my opponent to explain why he has this asterisk attached? A counter-argument could be:
One forfeits one's right to live by killing another human being.
That might work, except:
a) Where is that a written; what authority tells us this? And
b) Doesn't that justify people executing the executioner(s)? If not, why not?
This appears to be hypocritical on many levels and I do not see as logical.

Contention 2: Innocent executions.
Allow me, if you will, to look at two scenarios.
One: An innocent man is found guilty by the courts, despite pleas of innocence. (For whatever reason, it could be very bias; it could be framed, etc...) His punishment is death. He's executed. Years later, evidence is shown that he was, in fact, innocent. An innocent man is convicted and the families of both the accused and the victim have their false justice revealed to them.

Two: Same scenario, except this man is sentenced to life in prison. Then, when he is later proved innocent, he can go free. An innocent man didn't die.

In short, the US government takes a very hypocritical stance of: "do as I say, not as I do".

Examples of scenario one include Johnny Garrett, Carlos DeLuna, Thomas and Meeks Griffin, among others[1]. These injustices are rare, granted, but should a justice system include absolute punishments with less than 100% success rates? Of course we shouldn't - it's not fair. Justice that's not fair is not justice in the American system.

Contention 3: The death penalty could encourage murderers to murder again.
This, at face value, seems like a ridiculous suggestion. But it's really not; allow me to show you why.
In the American justice system, the penalties are very restrictive. Judges have to say:
This crime=this punishment. It's called mandatory sentencing. So if you've killed someone, to some extent you know what you've got ahead of you if you're found out. So - what they've got to lose? Effectively nothing, so they might as well kill witnesses, other grudges, etc... "A wild beat cornered is not safe to touch."

Contention 4: The cost is far too high.
It has been shown in various studies that the death penalty is far higher a cost than life without parole[2], wasting taxpayer dollars on extra expenses. "California [alone] could save one billion dollars over five years by replacing capital punishment with the death penalty."[2] What could these dollars go towards? Schools, police stations to help reduce crime in the first place, roads, rubbish, etc... This is phenomenal! It shouldn't be wasted on tedious, immoral, hypocritical, and unfair justice systems.

These contentions, my opponent, voters, ladies, and gentlemen, concludes my opening arguments.
Thank you.

Source(s):

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.deathpenalty.org...
EsmeeFallen

Con

Forgive me for being so eager and jumping into debating so soon, and with each will give in my input in your argument .

Contention 1: Value of human life.
Human life is invaluable, and to take a life from one is a serious crime. I am sure my opponent will agree on this! However, pro-death penalty will ensure that there is an asterisk attached to this.
Pro-death penalty version: Human life is invaluable, and to take a life from one is a serious crime*.
*unless that life is taken from a person by the government.

A: I agree with you to a value of a human life. I take it seriously, but look at the facts that in some reasons the death penalty is the only way to solve a solution. No, Im saying that if a little boy stolen something and then place a penalty on his head. In some very extreme cases I'm pro to the Death Penaty, and banning the Penalty will not put fear into the criminals who is out there murdering 5-9 people. Do you know they receive many comforts just being jail anyway?

http://www.weeklystandard.com...

I would ask my opponent to explain why he has this asterisk attached? A counter-argument could be:
One forfeits one's right to live by killing another human being.
That might work, except:
a) Where is that a written; what authority tells us this? And
b) Doesn't that justify people executing the executioner(s)? If not, why not?
This appears to be hypocritical on many levels and I do not see as logical.

A: One forfeits one's right to live by killing another human or humanS beings. If you mean where is it written in the bible? I don't believe so, but we not following the bible. It's more on moral standing, when you murdered one or many people expect punishment not sitting in your cell for about 45 years watching tv, playing on the internet, eating free meals, read, and free education wasting many tax-payers money. On your argument (B) Actually, yes it does justify the executioners. I know how stupid it sounds and illogical into saying. Each time they executed a criminal they have to battle their own demon.

Contention 2: Innocent executions.
Allow me, if you will, to look at two scenarios.
One: An innocent man is found guilty by the courts, despite pleas of innocence. (For whatever reason, it could be very bias; it could be framed, etc...) His punishment is death. He's executed. Years later, evidence is shown that he was, in fact, innocent. An innocent man is convicted and the families of both the accused and the victim have their false justice revealed to them.

Two: Same scenario, except this man is sentenced to life in prison. Then, when he is later proved innocent, he can go free. An innocent man didn't die.

In short, the US government takes a very hypocritical stance of: "do as I say, not as I do".

Examples of scenario one include Johnny Garrett, Carlos DeLuna, Thomas and Meeks Griffin, among others[1]. These injustices are rare, granted, but should a justice system include absolute punishments with less than 100% success rates? Of course we shouldn't - it's not fair. Justice that's not fair is not justice in the American system.

A: On your first scenarios, I have to comment on. If the courts found him guilty and sentenced him to death he or she had time to re appeal as I'm sure the judge will not sentence him to death right away. You're allow 3 chances to appeal, at least waits for a year that gives some time to require new evidence at his defense, if the judge cannot see logic do not blame the death penalty that he is gone, blame the judge, the jury and his defense, who had done a lousy job in defending him.

On your second scenario: I figured that is ideal but I give you a point there, because my argument on your second one was already used in the above. I see your point, but I'm not at all convinced.

But regardless, what you said " "do as I say, not as I do" is really something, do not compare murders and rapist to the government. We do not murder people out of sport, we do not rape people either then laugh later on and say, "do as I say, not as I do". The murders and criminals agreed to this possible punishment when they forcefully taken a human life or force themselves on countless people. The US government is not murderers.

On a note take a look on Adolf Hitler. He killed many Jews and Americans. So if the Death Penalty is banned, we just going to let him stay life in jail with all of his comforts? The Jews families is rolling in their graves, and the American people will cry in uproar at such injustice! He killed around millions of people and yet he walks freely?

Contention 3: The death penalty could encourage murderers to murder again.
This, at face value, seems like a ridiculous suggestion. But it's really not; allow me to show you why.
In the American justice system, the penalties are very restrictive. Judges have to say:
This crime=this punishment. It's called mandatory sentencing. So if you've killed someone, to some extent you know what you've got ahead of you if you're found out. So - what they've got to lose? Effectively nothing, so they might as well kill witnesses, other grudges, etc... "A wild beat cornered is not safe to touch."

A: There are some psychos everywhere, and I have to disagree only in half at this. Most people are afraid of death, which reduced the crime of murdering people greatly. They know what they get themselves into, yes, but it WILL MAKE them think twice before acting .They also know that they could stay in jail for around 25-45 years, and I doubt some without mental problems would want to take a risk. It's a 50/50 shot, but if you lived in Texas you know your outcome. Death. If that person willing to murder witnesses, people and other grudges then more likely sentence him to death instead of being locked up to comforts and then laughing in all of our faces when he can do everything he wanted outside for free inside with the American People's money. He won. Humanity lost. The victims family, in distress.

Contention 4: The cost is far too high.
It has been shown in various
studies
that the death penalty is far higher a cost than life without parole[2], wasting taxpayer dollars on extra expenses. "California [alone] could save one billion dollars over five years by replacing capital punishment with the death penalty."[2] What could these dollars go towards?
Schools
, police stations to help reduce crime in the first place, roads, rubbish, etc... This is phenomenal! It shouldn't be wasted on tedious, immoral, hypocritical, and unfair justice systems.

A: Here I have to disagree with you. It costs a lot more to host prisoners for life than the Death Penalty, we have some real high known serial killers escaped jail and wouldn't be caught in around the next 10 years! (examples are on the current American Top-Wanted List) when the courts decided not to use then penalty. Those criminals could escape jail (it's not impossible) and go after the witnesses, and the victim's family. The Death Penalty brings the victim's family peace knowing that, that person will not be on the streets hurting another. Say what you will about the Death Penalty, but IT IS JUSTIFIED in the extreme cases.
Debate Round No. 2
MysticEgg

Pro

I thank my opponent for her refutes; allow me to respond.

Contention 1(a): Value of human life.
My opponent states that she is Pro death penalty in extreme cases (e.g. 5-9 people) because it strikes fear into the hearts of criminals. I think it's clear to see that's not the case. If it were, there would be lower crime rates in the states Pro death penalty. Alas, what do we see? We see that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates in every single state![1] So, why I can't say that it encourages killing from this alone; I can conclude that
the death penalty does not discourage murder.[1] As for jails comforts - whether you think that they receive too much is irrelevant; my opponent uses a red herring fallacy.

Contention 1(b): The asterisk.
I did not mean whether it is written in the Bible, as that would break the "no religious arguments" rule. No, I meant in general. My opponent suggests that it's a moral thing. However, in that case; I would ask my opponent to show where it is written in, say, the law. The US government generally outlaws things that they consider to be immoral - prostitution, murder, thievery etc... So where's the moral law confirming our opinions on sacrifice of right to live? There isn't one, so we have no right to kill people on those grounds. (If there is one, I would ask my opponent to provide a source for this).
My opponent consents that it is hypocritical and that executing someone does justify getting executed yourself. However, she leads us onto a semi-red herring fallacy about "inner demons"; suggesting that we shouldn't execute them because of these "inner demons". This rounds like
a) A religious argument. (Demons outside of religion(s))?
b) This suggests that murderers do not actually have any "inner demons"; but I'd contest this. You often see convicts wrestling with thoughts and "demons".

Contention 2: Innocent executions.
My opponent mis-phrases my argument to come across as something along the lines of:
"He's convicted, and the next day, he's executed".
I did not suggest this, and I apologise if it came across as such.
In this example, I meant that, despite whatever, he's executed.
As for the logic, it could well be that, at the time, the evidence suggested that he was guilty (say, if he was framed), but evidence came *years later* to demonstrate otherwise. True, at the time, he was found guilty, but he was still executed. An innocent man executed by the government. My argument remains in tact.

On my second scenario, my opponent merely says: "...but I'm not all convinced" and the above argument as a counter. As the above argument doesn't work, the remaining argument is merely opinion. Opinion does not equal argument. No need for a refute.

Note 1: The US' stance of "do as I say, not as I do."
I'm not comparing murderers and rapists to the US government - not at all. I am merely taking a stance of fact.
Do as I say = don't kill people
But not as I do = because I kill people (just legally).
That's all the note was about, and it's very hypocritical.

Contention 3: Encouraging murder.
"but it WILL MAKE them think twice before acting" I have two points on this:
a) Source one suggests otherwise[1] and
b) even if they do think twice, they still commit the murder, more so than in other, less hypocritical, states.[1]

My opponent also appears to suggest that being found, caught, convicted, and locked up for life is a victory for the murderer. I fail to see how this is. I would say that we won, s/he lost. Taking the view of "s/he's not dead, therefore, we lose" is a very gladiatorial stance "it's gonna be you or me left alive in this arena". ((You= murderer, me= humanity, and arena=life)).

Contention 4: Cost.
My opponent states that my point of cost is wrong or invalid, but cites no source nor statistic that would back up this claim. I must dismiss your assertion without evidence. ("What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence") I will cite my source again as source two to help my claim - and reiterate this to my opponent. The cost is higher to kill people than lock them up for life.[2] My opponent leads us onto yet another red herring fallacy about "peace to the family". While this could be a valid claim, I will not address it when it is presented as a fallacy. May I suggest to my opponent to make a contention about it, so that I may address it?

Opponent's note 1: Hitler.
I fail to see how this is relevant at all, since Hitler was German (Austrian born German, to be specific), and he wouldn't be punished under the American justice system. Whether the American people disagree with the German justice system is different all together, and not at all relevant to this debate.

On a side note for my opponent:
Can I convince you that the death penalty is wrong, ever? I am not debating to exert my position only; I am here to convince other people of my opinion through debate. Are you beginning to sway? Do you accept any of my points as (even if only minor) reasons against the death penalty? I really hope I can convince you, the voters, and the viewers, of this controversial topic!

I thank my opponent, the viewers, and the voters. I await my opponent's response(s)!

Sources:

[1]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[2]http://www.deathpenalty.org...
EsmeeFallen

Con

EsmeeFallen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MysticEgg

Pro

I extend arguments and refutes.
EsmeeFallen

Con

EsmeeFallen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MysticEgg

Pro

I extend arguments and refutes.
EsmeeFallen

Con

EsmeeFallen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
It's OK.
Posted by EsmeeFallen 3 years ago
EsmeeFallen
Yea sorry for the long debate thing, I was going to cut some of questions that the PRO made from my post (don't want to seem like I'm copying off of him) but my computer went all crazy x.x So I'm sorry, this is my first debate x.x
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Whoa, whoa!
That. Makes. No. Sense.
I meant:
"California [alone] could save one billion dollars over five years by replacing capital punishment with life without parole."

That was stupid. I apologise, again. -_- Sorry. That's what you get when you're tired, I guess.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
My apologies, my friend. I assumed you were male. My mistake, sorry!
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
We'll see, sparks, we'll see.
Posted by sparks 3 years ago
sparks
I sure hope Con is lulling Pro into a false sense of security or this could be over quick.
Posted by leandro.sanchez 3 years ago
leandro.sanchez
For those that demand dead.
Eye for eye the word will end blind
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Good point. I've edited it now so it's clearer. I take the stand of:
Yes, the Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.
Posted by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
Questions aren't resolutions. It is unclear what you are "Pro" for. Are you pro death penalty or pro making it illegal?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
MysticEggEsmeeFallenTied
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: ff