The Instigator
VenomousNinja
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
54 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: 2/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,598 times Debate No: 2471
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (16)

 

VenomousNinja

Pro

Should a man be killed for his actions? I, for one, think so.
If you believe in the bible, as many of us do, you will know it specifically states "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'" Mathhew 5:38. This basically means "if you kill someone, you yourself should be killed".
Now, going back to the bible, it also says "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away." Mathhew 5:30.
This basically means "If you have harmed another, repent by be harmed yourself."
With these statements from what many consider "the good book", many would be in favor of the death penalty, now wouldn't they? Well, the bible isn't the only reason for the death penalty. It just backs it up.
The second reason, and most important, is fear.
If murders knew that they were going to get killed after killing intentionally, the wouldn't kill. Many murders could have been stopped. For example, BTK, incase you don't know of him, was a mass murder from Kansas.
BTK was captured a few years ago, and he killed many people over a period of years (he stopped for about seven years before starting once more). When sentanced, he recieved three life sentances.
That may seem like much, but it allows him chance for escape, and chance to kill again. If the death penalty was put upon him, this would have been an example for other potential murders, and murder rates would have dropped for at least one year, until another murderer sprang up, killed, got caught, and was killed.
Those are my reasons for the death penalty.
Kleptin

Con

"Should a man be killed for his actions? I, for one, think so.
If you believe in the bible, as many of us do, you will know it specifically states "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'" Mathhew 5:38. This basically means "if you kill someone, you yourself should be killed"."

This is a terrible argument and is extraordinarily misleading. You chopped off the quote to completely and totally misinterpret it. The full quote is as follows:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[a] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

The bible is completely and totally against your argument. Jesus of Nazareth preached that if someone has done you wrong, you should NEVER take revenge because revenge is taken only by God. Vengeance is one of the seven deadly sins, remember?

"Now, going back to the bible, it also says "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away." Mathhew 5:30.
This basically means "If you have harmed another, repent by be harmed yourself.""

This is also a very incorrect quote. You once again chop it off at the part where it is most important. I think your knowledge of scripture is either lacking, or you are being deliberately misleading.

"27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

This passage was in Jesus of Nazareth's account of adultery. It has nothing to do with redeeming yourself of sin. It is saying that things that give you pleasure, if they taint your soul, should be given up no matter how pleasurable it is.

"With these statements from what many consider "the good book", many would be in favor of the death penalty, now wouldn't they? Well, the bible isn't the only reason for the death penalty. It just backs it up."

I seriously doubt it. Christians wouldn't believe it because they know you misinterpreted. I'm an atheist and even *I* recognize the errors in your argument. Your use of the bible is void and greatly hurts your argument instead of helping it even a little bit.

"The second reason, and most important, is fear.
If murders knew that they were going to get killed after killing intentionally, the wouldn't kill."

It has already been shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent for murder. There are many states and even countries that have LOW murder rates without the death penalty, and many states where murder rates are high even WITH the death penalty. So the argument of the death penalty deterring murder is completely useless.

"Many murders could have been stopped. For example, BTK, incase you don't know of him, was a mass murder from Kansas.
BTK was captured a few years ago, and he killed many people over a period of years (he stopped for about seven years before starting once more). When sentanced, he recieved three life sentances.
That may seem like much, but it allows him chance for escape, and chance to kill again. If the death penalty was put upon him, this would have been an example for other potential murders, and murder rates would have dropped for at least one year, until another murderer sprang up, killed, got caught, and was killed."

This example has almost nothing to do with the argument whatsoever. All you did was bring up an example of a serial killer who was caught.

You argue that he has the potential to escape, but he didn't

You argue that he can kill again, but he hasn't.

In that case, I can argue that he'll give everyone in the world a pony and a cauldron of gold, but until I have some sort of claim for that statement, my argument is void, as is yours.

Even if you find an example of a murderer who was not given the death penalty, then escaped, then killed again, it would not help your argument much because there are relatively few cases.

"Those are my reasons for the death penalty."

I responded to all of those, so I am going to give you my reasons for why the death penalty is nearly useless.

First of all, I reiterate the fact that there is NO statistical correlation between a jurisdiction having the death penalty and lower murder rates. Some may match, but all over the world, the results are mixed.

Second, there are many more cases of people being framed or wrongly accused. With the advent of DNA evidence, dozens of "murderers" sentenced to life were released. Many could not because they were given the death penalty. We can't free a dead man from death, so in case our judicial system screws up (and it does) we should be able to offer repercussions to an innocent man we punished wrongly.

Third, a life sentence is just as good as death. They are given no chance of parole and are kept away from society, just as if though they were dead. But it's much, MUCH more affordable. The appeals process for the death penalty takes up a lot of money from the state for all sorts of legal fees. Massive amounts of money. In fact, it is common fact that the appeals process goes on for years and on average, costs more than keeping the murderer alive in prison for the rest of his/her life.
Debate Round No. 1
VenomousNinja

Pro

http://abcnews.go.com...

Singapore is the happiest country in Asia.

Singapore has strict and harsh rules, including the death penalty. If you do wrong, you get whipped, if you do really wrong, you get killed. Using fear, Singapore has created a happy and safe enviroment.

The US, is, however, not so happy. We have loose and bending rules. If the death penalty was instituted in each and every case of murder where the murder has either confessed or has been proven guilty with little to no room for escaping that judgement, fear would set into murderes and would lessen the crime rate.

The problem is simple: The death penalty is not used often, and does not strike fear into the hearts of criminals as much as it should.
Kleptin

Con

My opponent concedes all his other points in favor of one that I have already, in a clear fashion, said was invalid.

Though I have clearly stated that there is NO STATISTICAL CORRELATION between the death penalty and crime rates, he refuses to give up the point even though it renders his argument void.

However, I will play by his game.

My opponent's argument is that Singapore, the happiest country in Asia, has strict rules regarding everything and thus, it proves his point.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Denmark is not the happiest country in Asia. Nor is it the happiest country in Europe. Denmark is recognized as the happiest country IN THE WORLD, and they have abolished the death penalty for over a decade.

That having been said, I reiterate:

There is no statistical correlation between the death penalty and crime rates.
Debate Round No. 2
VenomousNinja

Pro

Denmark is also a close-knit community with little money and a family-like quality to it. Singapore is, however, stricter and has stronger and scarier rules than Denmark.

The reason there is no statistical correlation between the death penalty and crime rates is simply because we do not use it enough to make such a correlation.
Kleptin

Con

Once again, my opponent concedes all the points he made in the last round and has but one left.

"Denmark is also a close-knit community with little money and a family-like quality to it. Singapore is, however, stricter and has stronger and scarier rules than Denmark."

Exactly my point. Looking at individual countries means absolutely nothing, and no valid statistical correlation can be drawn. Thank you for agreeing with my argument.

"The reason there is no statistical correlation between the death penalty and crime rates is simply because we do not use it enough to make such a correlation."

Basically, you are saying "Let's keep killing people until I win this debate".

We're talking about taking a person's LIFE. Not implementing new rules and making them harsh to test the waters.

***

I have debunked two of my opponent's bible quote arguments. I have debunked my opponent's argument about the death penalty being a deterrent for murder. I have debunked my opponent's argument about BTK. I have also debunked my opponent's example of Singapore with the counterexample of Denmark.

My opponent however, has not responded to any of MY arguments.

1. Wrongly accused people should be set free, this cannot be done with death sentences.
2. The life sentence is as great a punishment as the death sentence.
3. The life sentence is cheaper for tax payers than the death sentence

These were made very early on, my opponent had 2 chances to respond to these, and he chose not to.

I believe I have made my argument clear.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by VenomousNinja 8 years ago
VenomousNinja
I say we all stop voting...

My pride's starting to hurt...

Kleptin, you're a good debater, and I would enjoy having a debate with you in the future.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Kleptin, I am envious. I myself, at my best, haven't managed to blow an opponent out of the water that well.

Bravo.
Posted by Anonymous 8 years ago
Anonymous
Also, I haven't seen anyone mention that statistics have shown the death penalty to do nothing in the way of crime prevention. It costs alot of money and gets drawn out for years because the judges and the lawyers profit from it while OUR tax dollars pay for it. If we all could agree that someone really deserved death it should go like this:

"So Mr. Bundy, you really killed and ate all those people?"]

"Yes"

(Draws gun from police belt) Bang*

Problem solved.
Posted by Anonymous 8 years ago
Anonymous
People need to stop quoting the Bibile unless they have read more than 2 verses of it. People also need to stop debating things they dont really believe in or know anything about.
Posted by nik123_kim 8 years ago
nik123_kim
You are wrong logos in the first place not all criminals are criminals in nature..... Maybe they commit mistakes because of their unexpected situation.....
Posted by attrition 8 years ago
attrition
Kleptin won this bate before it began. Every one of Pro's arguments were refuted.

I would also like to add:

A person commits murder for ONLY three reasons:

1. Compulsion: Serial killers/rapists. Real sickos that kill for pleasure and can't or won't stop. Often they cover their crimes up because they don't want to get caught, they know it is wrong, or at least they know they will either go to prison or get the death penalty. Either way, the fear of death won't stop this.

2. Passion: A husband catching his wife getting tagged team by his two best friends. Snaps. Do you think that this person is worried about the death penalty? They worry after the fact, but it still does not prevent the murder.

3. Greed: Simple money or power. They never think they will get caught. Fear will not stop them.

The justice system is flawed, people lie and makes mistakes. A human system will never be absolutely perfect.The death penalty is the state's vengeance upon an individual. It is immoral. Life in prison is to prevent further death. The higher the death penalty rate is the higher the state's murder rate is.
Posted by Logos 8 years ago
Logos
In theory, there would be less crime if more criminals were killed. And it is true a number of criminals deserve to die for what they do. The trouble comes from giving the government the authority to kill its citizens. History shows that governments always misuse or mishandle whatever power they are given; are you willing to give such an entity the authority to kill you?
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
"Saying that there is no statistical correlation between the death penalty and crime rates should not be acceptable in any debate. It is a tactic used when you know full good and well there are hundreds of murders that occur every day and the murderer never gets captured again. Murder is unpredictable, it is impossible to know if the Death Penalty benifits of is a detriment to crime rates."

I'm confused. Why is this an invalid point? And is that the only critique you have of my argument, which consists of several other points?
Posted by nik123_kim 8 years ago
nik123_kim
if you kill the accused it is just like you jump for the conclusion that man does'nt need time to change
Posted by FiredUpRepublican 8 years ago
FiredUpRepublican
Ughhhhhhhhhhhhh this debate was childish and went sour so fast. The Death Penalty has always been one of my favorite topics. I refuse to vote for either side. Using the Bible to prove the need for the Death Penalty when you KNOW God is the judge, not us? BTK Killer was captured? Look at your sources, he pretty much turned himself in.

Saying that there is no statistical correlation between the death penalty and crime rates should not be acceptable in any debate. It is a tactic used when you know full good and well there are hundreds of murders that occur every day and the murderer never gets captured again. Murder is unpredictable, it is impossible to know if the Death Penalty benifits of is a detriment to crime rates.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
VenomousNinjaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
VenomousNinjaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
VenomousNinjaKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
VenomousNinjaKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
VenomousNinjaKleptinTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by SamuelAdams 8 years ago
SamuelAdams
VenomousNinjaKleptinTied
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 Anonymous 8 years ago
Anonymous
VenomousNinjaKleptinTied
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 SJay 8 years ago
SJay
VenomousNinjaKleptinTied
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 attrition 8 years ago
attrition
VenomousNinjaKleptinTied
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 Logos 8 years ago
Logos
VenomousNinjaKleptinTied
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