The Death Penalty
Debate Rounds (5)
The death penalty has been used since ancient history. Since then, the justice system has improved but it can not be perfect. Many a time the death penalty has resulted in false execution. Another problem is that juries are less willing to convict if they know the suspect will die, leading to the release of the actual criminal. It also costs more and is morally wrong.
My opponent stated the following: "It costs more and is morally wrong."
Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Whether or not something is morally wrong is an opinion presented by the person saying it.
For my argument, I will use the assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
Osama's first recorded attack killed two innocent people.
Osama also funded the Luxor massacre which killed 62 more innocent people.
In 1998, Osama sent more people out to assist in the killing of 5000-6000 more people.
Osama was also responsible for the attacks occurring on September 11, 2001. Which lead to four stolen commercial passenger aircraft and 2996 innocent people killed. 71 of those people were officers, 343 of them were firefighters, and 55 of them were military personnel. On top of the death, many families were left devastated due to the loss of a loved one. From another view point, almost 2 trillion dollars went into the damage of September 11, 2001.
Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2011. He was shot and, after identifying it was really him, buried out in sea. He was killed in the most honorable way possible. Seal Team Six(The Navy Seals team that went in to kill Osama) did not publicly kill him. They didn't even behead him to post a threat to other terrorists. They simply killed him because he was a danger to other humans. So there is nothing morally wrong about what Seal Team Six did to Osama bin Laden.
Now I am going to just talk about the death penalty in a more objective way with no examples or backup.
The way someone earns the death penalty differs based on the state you live in. I live in Tennessee so I will just use Tennessee's law for the death penalty.
Tennessee: First-degree murder (Tenn. Code Ann. " 39-13-202) with 1 of 16 aggravating circumstances (Tenn. Code Ann. " 39-13-204).
Someone that kills someone else deserves to die. No questions asked. Not just because what they did is wrong, but because they're now a threat to others. You can't release a murderer no matter how much time they spend in jail. So if we have no death penalty. we would be forced to give them a life-time jail time. That means you have to provide a place for this person to sleep, eat, use the bathroom, and also provide any medical needs for the prisoner. On top of this, the person is going to have to be heavily guarded. Which means you need a well trained staff(training costs even more money) that is constantly guarding the prisoner. The staff isn't going to work for free so you have to pay them.
One more not before I finish the first round. Most felonies don't have much a life. They probably don't even have a job. Which means no house, no food, no car, no family. They live a life of nothing. So if you give them a life sentence in jail you're basically saying, "Sureee you killed that innocent family, but I'm gonna go ahead and give you a place to sleep and eat for the rest of your life." By not killing them, you're giving them a better life than the one they had before. What punishment is that?
Conclusion: Wether or not the death penalty is morally wrong is a matter of an opinion. If the justice system decides not to kill a man than thats a life they have to now take care and keep from other innocent people. Feeding a felony everyday is in no way a punishment. So the death penalty is the only way to save innocent people from murders & mass murders. And its also the only way to properly punish the murderers.
2.The death penalty also is cruel and unusual, for if it isn't then what is worse than it? The finality and the violation of the right to live, no matter what circumstance causes this punishment to be cruel and unusual.
3. About your cost argument, although the often death row inmates have to wait and be taken cared of for a long time, often up to thirty years, and even without that, although execution in itself is cheaper than a life sentence, there are other costs associated with it. If a suspect know that he may die he certainly will not plead not guilty thus creating big trials that include the cost of lawyers and prosecutors for both sides, and if a man is sentenced to death, he will appeal the ruling and ask for pardons from the governor and the president. Basically he will drag out the case for so long that the cost of the trial will be enormous. If he was not going to die he might plead guilty or he will be willing to not appeal. Along with other costs, the process of getting a suspect to die is actually more than life in prison.
4. Your assumption that felonies do not have a life is biased and false. First of you do work in prison. Secondly, income has the opposite effect of the normal assumption that the poorer people are the more the commit crime.
5. Life in prison can be so boring it could be worse than death therefore having rehabilitative effects . The death penalty is just all the sudden you are dead. The death penalty does not punish people because it is psychically painless and it is not emotionally painful because you die and you don't reflect on anything. Life in prison is tough and you have your whole life to think about what you have done.
In your fourth point you say I was bias. You are correct, I didn't actually provide any proof for what I said about the felonies and I apologize for that. I will make sure to have sources and facts for everything I say. I will also make sure I don't make false assumptions before doing my research.
I will now make a rebuttal to your rebuttal.
In your first point, you say that:
1)Osama bin Laden was a justified killing.
2)He did not receive a death penalty, rather an ordered killing.
All throughout this debate, you have been talking about morals and whether or not its right to kill someone for killing someone. Yet you're saying Osama bin Laden"s assassination was justified? Why is one man"s killing justified over another"s?
You"re correct, he didn't receive a death penalty. You"re also correct that we"re arguing about death penalty, not other forms of legal killing. As stated in your first point. However, IF they hadn't assassinated Osama bin Laden, they would've given him a life sentence. So Osama bin Laden"s assassination is relevant to this debate in the sense that without a death penalty, there"s a never ending supplying of criminals that we must supply a place for a life sentence.
You keep saying the death penalty is cruel and unusual. If you think about it, so is the life-sentence. I will further explain further down in this round.
First let me make some things clear. "You contradicted yourself multiple times. "
In your second point you said, "The death penalty also is cruel and unusual, for if it isn't then what is worse than it?"
Then in your fifth point you said, "Life in prison can be so boring it could be worse than death therefore having rehabilitative effects ."
You answered the question you asked in your second point and you didn't even answer it in your favor. Which leads me to your second contradiction.
In your fifth point, you say, "Life in prison can be so boring it could be worse than death therefore having rehabilitative effects . The death penalty is just all the sudden you are dead. The death penalty does not punish people because it is psychically painless and it is not emotionally painful because you die and you don't reflect on anything. Life in prison is tough and you have your whole life to think about what you have done."
You claim that one of the reasons why the death penalty should be abolished is because it is:
1)Cruel and unusual.
2)Not a good enough punishment.
Yet, in your third point, you contradict what you say in your fifth point.
Your third point: "If a suspect know that he may die he certainly will not plead not guilty thus creating big trials that include the cost of lawyers and prosecutors for both sides, and if a man is sentenced to death, he will appeal the ruling and ask for pardons from the governor and the president. Basically he will drag out the case for so long that the cost of the trial will be enormous. If he was not going to die he might plead guilty or he will be willing to not appeal."
In your third point you say that if a suspect knows that s/he may die, s/he will fight harder because s/he doesn't want to die. Yet in your fifth point you say that the death penalty is actually an easy get away. IF the death penalty was actually an "easy get-away", then why would suspects fight harder not to get it?
1. The death penalty is not so cruel and unusual, as you have been saying. There are five methods of executing someone when given the death penalty. Although they may seem painful, they are actually the most painless methods of killing someone.
1.When the condemned is fastened into the electric chair, one of the conductors is strapped securely around the head with the bare metal flush against the shaved and wet scalp. "This permits the electricity to be conducted directly into the brain, shutting it off more quickly than the brain can register pain.
2.Hanging causes death by snapping the neck of the condemned around the second vertebrae"instantly shutting off the brain"s ability to communicate with the rest of the body, and causing the heart to stop within seconds.
3.The firing squad involves five men shooting the heart of the condemned with high-powered rifles. "The heart is completely destroyed and unconsciousness follows within seconds.
4.The gas chamber is now no longer forced on the condemned, because it frequently appeared to cause more pain than was expected or acceptable. "The gas is usually hydrogen cyanide, which inhibits mitochondrial respiration in every cell of the entire body, theoretically shutting off the brain like a light switch. But it requires that the condemned breathe deeply.
5. Eight states have used a single-drug method for executions--a lethal dose of an anesthetic (Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington). Six other states have announced plans to use a one-drug protocol, but have not carried out such an execution (Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Tennessee).
2. Life in prison is inhumane. You"re putting someone in a cage, depriving them of any chance of freedom, and also leaving them to be vulnerable of rape and even murder.
In 2011-12, 4.0% of prison inmates and 3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization.
Even if someone is sentenced to a solitary life sentence, there"s still a psychological cruelty to it. Even without the rape.
Herman Bell is a prisoner and he talks about the psychological side of a life-sentence. You can read his whole article in the link below but heres a small portion of it.
"Loneliness is a prominent fixture in a long-termer"s life. S/he wakes with it and beds with it. It can lead to mental depression that is marked by sadness, inactivity, difficulty in thinking and concentration, to a significant increase or decrease in appetite and time spent sleeping, to feelings of dejection and hopelessness, and sometimes to suicidal tendencies. In such a state the will is fragile: Your hair might come out in clumps. You might pick at your skin, at your nose, or at both. Your lack of hygiene may cause noses to flair, people to talk about you, and even to avoid you. Another prominent feature of prison life is tension, which is so rife that it is worn like an extra layer of skin. Anger is yet another feature: an unpaid debt, a slight " real or imagined " a look, an unguarded word and it flares-up like a volcanic eruption. A person could well take a life or lose his or her own, or wear some hideous, disfiguring scar because of it."
He goes on to talk about other things, but what is more humane and less cruel? Death penalty or a life-sentence? Realistically, they're both cruel, unusual, and inhumane. But we live in a world where being humane isn't an option. So it comes down to what is better for the innocent people in the U.S. Even if someone is given a life-sentence, turns their life around, and gets released. Is it really safe for them to be out on the streets again? Also, by killing another person and breaking the law, should they lose the right be treated humanely?
ansuma forfeited this round.
ansuma forfeited this round.
ansuma forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.