The Instigator
crazyninja77
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
NomadJD
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The Death Penalty

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: 1/24/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,741 times Debate No: 14491
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

crazyninja77

Pro

If there wasn't a death penalty, then how would we punish murders?
NomadJD

Con

Death isn't really a punishment. The only scary thing about it is not knowing what is going to happen. This is a punishment purely based on ignorance. Would it not be more effective to send a criminal to jail for the rest of his life where he will be raped, and beaten up, and kept alive to endure it the next day and eventually after years of this, they will die alone in their little, lifeless cell. Considering that a punishment is dealt to make a person regret their actions, I would say keeping them alive would maximize the effectiveness exponentially. Killing them would end the actual punishment really fast.
Debate Round No. 1
crazyninja77

Pro

I hate to say this buddy, but you just contradicted yourself. First you said that the death penalty wasn't a punishment right?? Then you said that this type of punishment is based off of ignorance. I"m a little confused here. And besides if you sentence them to a life in prison, it is basically like giving them the death penalty anyways, considering the fact that they are going to die in prison. If we kept all of the murders alive as was your suggestion, the prisons would soon become overflowing, and we would have to spend your precious tax dollars to build new prisons.
NomadJD

Con

+ "I hate to say this buddy, but you just contradicted yourself. First you said that the death penalty wasn't a punishment right?? Then you said that this type of punishment is based off of ignorance." I wouldn't say this is a contradiction. It is a punishment based off of ignorance, which isn't really much of a punishment at all. You are just making them face what they will have to face eventually anyways.
+ "And besides if you sentence them to a life in prison, it is basically like giving them the death penalty anyways, considering the fact that they are going to die in prison." Not at all. If you sentence them to death they spend, at most, a year or so in prison awaiting their decision (and hoping and praying for anything else, rather than thinking about their actions) and then dying. If you sentence them to life, you make them spend decades in prison having nothing to think about but what brought them to their situation. Not to mention the atrocities that occur in prison. I, and many others (including those who have been to prison), would rather die than go to prison.
+ "If we kept all of the murders alive as was your suggestion, the prisons would soon become overflowing, and we would have to spend your precious tax dollars to build new prisons." If you take all of the people who have been on death row or been executed, and divide it by the amount of people incarcerated in the United States, you would determine that it would represent .1% of incarceration in the United States. Hardly a devastation to our tax dollars.

+Sources+
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org...
Debate Round No. 2
crazyninja77

Pro

I ask my opponent to consider the obvious facts that are placed before him. Many prisons in the United States are overcrowded. For example, California's 33 prisons have a total capacity of 100,000, but they hold 170,000 inmates. Many prisons in California and around the country are forced to turn old gymnasiums and classrooms into huge bunkhouses for inmates. They do this by placing hundreds of bunk beds next to one another, in these gyms, without any type of barriers to keep inmates separated. In California, the inadequate security engendered by this situation, coupled with insufficient staffing levels, have led to increased violence and a prison health system that causes one death a week. This situation has led the courts to order California to release of 27% of the current prison population, citing the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The three-judge court considering requests by the Plata v. Schwarzenegger and Coleman v. Schwarzenegger courts found California's prisons have become criminogenic as a result of overcrowding. In 2006, $68,747,203,000 was spent on corrections. "The average annual operating cost per state inmate in 2001 was $22,650, or $62.05 per day; among facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, it was $22,632 per inmate, or $62.01 per day."
Housing the approximately 500,000 people in jail awaiting trial who cannot afford bail costs $9 billion a year. Most jail inmates are petty, nonviolent offenders. Twenty years ago most nonviolent defendants were released on their own recognizance (trusted to show up at trial). Now most are given bail, and most pay a bail bondsman to afford it.62% of local jail inmates are awaiting trial.
To ease jail overcrowding over 10 counties every year consider building new jails. As an example Lubbock County, Texas has decided to build a $110 million megajail to ease jail overcrowding. Jail costs an average of $60 a day nationally. In Broward County, Florida supervised pretrial release costs about $7 a day per person while jail costs $115 a day. The jail system costs a quarter of every county tax dollar in Broward County, and is the single largest expense to the county taxpayer.
Bondsmen have lobbied to cut back local pretrial programs from Texas to California, pushed for legislation in four states limiting pretrial's resources, and lobbied Congress so that they won't have to pay the bond if the defendant commits a new crime.
Behind them, the bondsmen have powerful special interest group and millions of dollars. Pretrial release agencies have a smattering of public employees and the remnants of their once-thriving programs.
States spend an estimated 7 percent of their budget on corrections.
The cost of medical care for inmates is growing by 10 percent annually. And your plan is to fill them up some more??? It doesn't make any sense. Prisons cost taxpayers more than $32 billion a year. Every year that an inmate spends in prison costs $22,000. An individual sentenced to five years for a $300 theft costs the public more than $100,000. The cost of a life term averages $1.5 million.
States are spending more money on prisons than education. Over the course of the last 20 years, the amount of money spent on prisons was increased by 570% while that spent on elementary and secondary education was increased by only 33%.
Lethal Injection Consists Of:

Sodium Thiopental (lethal dose - sedates person)
Pancuronium Bromide (muscle relaxant-collapses diaphragm and lungs)
Potassium Chloride (stops heart beat)
The offender is usually pronounced dead approximately 7 minutes after the lethal injection begins.
Cost per execution for drugs used : $83.55 (much cheaper than a life sentence in prison)

Average Time on Death Row prior to Execution:

10.60 years Lethal injection makes so much more sense then letting them live. They killed someone, they do not deserve to live, and to be kept alive. You know as well as I do that it would be much easier on the criminal to get a life sentence, then to know that he was going to die soon. Murders don't deserve prison "luxuries."
NomadJD

Con

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Get your information right if you are going to state that the death penalty costs $83.55. Capital punishment requires much more vigorous trials than life in prison. It costs the state 2 mil to kill someone and costs 500 thousand to prosecute and send someone to prison for life.
And you can't say that sending someone to prison for life is more intimidating than the death penalty for two reasons. 1. Statistically, there is a 6 times murder rate in the US than Britain and a 5 times murder rate in Australia, and both of them don't have a death penalty. 2. Psychologically, think in the mind of a killer. If you lost the moral compass to kill people, then you have a lot a sense of personal being. This killing usually leads to a hatred of the self (in most cases) and sometimes a simple loss of self. The act of losing your life means very little, but the act of staying in confinement for the rest of yourself and hating who you are is much worse.

+Sources+
http://www.deathpenalty.org...
http://www.associatedcontent.com...
Debate Round No. 3
crazyninja77

Pro

My opponent cries that my information is not correct, however in order to prove the validation I am going to list at least two different sources that prove that the cost of a lethal injection is about $86. Source # 1 http://wiki.answers.com...
Source # 2 http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us...
Source # 3 http://www.life123.com...
Source # 4 http://www.ask.com...
Wow, I have four different sources that prove that I am right, how can you ignore such blatant facts?? And what about the overcrowding? You never even tried to defend yourself on that one. Which would you rather do; die really quickly, and never see your family again, or get the freedom to be able to live, and enjoy things like a shower, meals, and a bed to sleep in?? The death penalty is much better, because it doesn't allow the murder the luxury of staying alive. It only make sense, that if someone takes some-else's life, that their life should be required of them as well. Get into the mind of the victims family. What if someone killed a member in your family?? Would you want them dead, or alive? I guarantee that you would be consumed in an emotional tidal wave of extreme anger, and extreme sadness. Would you want them to live, and get the freedom of life that they stripped away from your loved one? Or would you want them dead like they deserve to be. Justice must be served, and you know as well as I do that a life in prison would cost more, and be much more enjoyable than a death sentence. Death or life? Its really not that hard of a choice. If the prisoners had their say in it, I assure you that every single one of them would pick living over a death sentence any day of the week.
NomadJD

Con

NomadJD forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
crazyninja77

Pro

crazyninja77 forfeited this round.
NomadJD

Con

NomadJD forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 5 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Arguments against the death penalty
1. It is against natural rights: all ideological issues against the death penalty spur from this statement here. If you look at the individuals who envisioned natural rights (John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean Russou) you will find that they defined them as this. The rights that a government is unquestionably and inexcusably REQUIRED to protect for those individuals that are INCLUDED in that SOCIETY. Also found in their explanation is that any individual who violates the law of this ideal government is then excluded from that government's protection of rights to the extent that they violated those rights. Thus thieves aren't protected from loss of property, rapists from loss of dignity, liars from loss of reputation, murderers from loss of life etc.... Seeing that they aren't a part of the society anymore, the government may take a murderers life justly in order to preserve the lives of those who are a part of that society.
2. There are acceptable and more effective alternatives to the death penalty: this is false. Such alternatives are all forms of rehabilitation or permanent incarceration. Rehabilitation's purpose is to bring criminals back into good standing with society, a society (that as I have already proven) they no longer belong in. Furthermore, the first goal of a justice system is to prevent crime from ever taking place. To do so, we must provide incentive for citizens to not commit these crimes. People are not intimidated with life in prison (eating three square meals a day, endless cable television, and free healthcare), they do not refrain from murder due to the possibility of rehabilitation. Thus the best form of punishment to fulfill the greatest goal of any government (to prevent murder or other heinous crimes) is without question the death penalty.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 5 years ago
resolutionsmasher
What is the death penalty?
It is a form of punishment used by a legal system that ends the life of the convicted offender. This punishment is reserved for criminals convicted of the most heinous of crimes, such as murder, rape, or treason.

What is the goal of the death penalty?
The death penalty has several possible goals if not all of these in one.
1. To ensure justice. Most societies believe that crimes ought to be punished in a form or fashion equal in severity to the crime committed. Thus a murder must be punished by death. (notice that the severity of the punishment and not the nature is equal, I do not endorse raping rapists as punishment)
2. To remove possible future threats to society. Seeing as the ideal government will protect its citizens, any murderer must be removed from even the slightest possibility of committing such crimes again. This constitutes the death penalty in the minds of some governments. (I don not particularly endorse this motive, I am simply presenting the facts)
3. (This is the most vital and pivotal reason for the death penalty, and I will build my case on it) To prevent other citizens from committing these heinous crimes. When people see that the result of the crime that they could commit is death, it inspires them to not commit murder. This is an unquestionable statement. Thus the death penalty prevents a large amount of heinous crime from being committed. When set next to other possible punishments for these crimes, it is the only one that does this effectively and is thus the best possible option. (we will go over this later)
Posted by NomadJD 5 years ago
NomadJD
Well, I have stuff to do other than debate, but I do enjoy this debate. And I will get to your flag burning debate when things start slowing down.
Posted by crazyninja77 5 years ago
crazyninja77
Hey while you're at it, when you get a chance defend yourself on my flag burning debate.
Posted by crazyninja77 5 years ago
crazyninja77
Um yeah i did man, you sure must be slow our something. It is taking you forever to try to survive round 4.
Posted by NomadJD 5 years ago
NomadJD
Hey, you didn't post any sources for Round 3.
Posted by NomadJD 5 years ago
NomadJD
I am actually juggling a lot of work and debates right now. If you caught me on the weekends, I would be faster at responding.
Posted by crazyninja77 5 years ago
crazyninja77
He sure does take a while to respond. He probably is going to get some more "credible" websites.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
crazyninja77NomadJDTied
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:13 
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
crazyninja77NomadJDTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's sources are weak and Con successfully presents an alternative penalty. Both sides skipped rounds and had many grammatical mistakes.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
crazyninja77NomadJDTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's sources are by nature not reviewed and prone to little reliability, Con loses on conduct due to forfeit.