The Death Penalty
Debate Rounds (3)
For the sake of clarity, I offer some definitions.
Death penalty – Capital Punishment; putting one to death for crimes that one has committed.
Justified - to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable 
Justice - the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law 
First I will address your points, then continue to my own.
You argued is that "justice must be served".
However, who's standard of justice are you speaking of? Not the standard of the 29% of Americans who are against the death penalty.  That may seem like a relatively small number, but when you do the math, that is an estimated 90,519,935 Americans that do not support capital punishment.
Now I have two main points as to why the death penalty should be repealed.
First "The cost of killing killers is killing us." (Ed Barnes) This article goes on to say that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole. Furthermore, an Urban Institute study of Maryland's experience with the death penalty found that since 1978, the cost to taxpayers for the five executions the state carried out was $37.2 million dollars — each. This comes out to 186 million dollars. The Death Penalty Information Center  states that "It is much cheaper to put these people in prison and leave them there until they die."
Better yet, when these people are put in prison, they should be put to work. They once were a detriment to society; they should do some good before they leave this world. Prison is essentially a free ride; one gets clean clothes, hot food, and a bed to sleep in at the expense of the general population. Sending prisoners to work may offset the costs of keeping them imprisoned, and the money spent by the public defending them.
My second point is hundreds of years old. 236 years old to be exact. Our great country has what is called the Declaration of Independence, which not only turned us into America, but guaranteed "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness" . Life is the most basic of human rights. To take the life of even a murderer puts one on that same level, and makes one a murderer themselves.
I would also like to point out that Mahatma Gandhi once said that "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless." You mentioned in your argument that someone who kills another person will go to hell regardless of how they are punished, but – by that logic - enacting the death penalty on a criminal would make the person who administered it a sinner and send them to hell too. In the book of Genesis, GOD proclaimed that anyone who raised a hand against Cain (who killed Abel) would be punished many more times than Cain was. You must answer this: How is killing killers to show people that killing people is wrong beneficial to anyone?
In conclusion, because the death penalty is not necessarily a deterrent to criminals, and because capital punishment is expensive, and because taking the lives of murderers makes America's justice system hypocritical, I urge you to please vote CON!
caubrie123 forfeited this round.
Extend my arguments.
caubrie123 forfeited this round.
With no source material, and arguments based solely on emotional opinions, please vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the last two rounds. Con also presented source arguments while Pro presented personal opinions.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.