The Instigator
Edgyruse
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Masterdebatr91
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Death penalty should be abolished in all states of America.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,143 times Debate No: 33592
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Edgyruse

Pro

I believe that the death penalty should be abolished in every state of America.
1. The death penalty is morally wrong and it contradicts the entire point of putting someone in prison in the first place. ( To learn from their mistakes and become better people.

2. In States where the Death Penalty is in place, murder rates are actually higher than those where there is no Death Penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

3. In some cases it is cheaper to sentence a person to life imprisonment, than to sentence them with death. (Court Costs)

4. More tax is needed to maintain the Death Penalty.

5. There is a chance that the lethal injection will be administered in the wrong order, or there will be something that goes wrong with during the process. This can cause the prisoner to feel the pain that comes with the lethal injection.

6. In a lot of cases that are sent to the supreme court, it depends more on the attorney that you have been appointed ( Most offenders do not have one so they are appointed one by the system ) than the actual crime you have committed.

I look forward to this debate.
Masterdebatr91

Con

In this debate, I will be Con. It is my burden to prove that the death penalty should not be abolished in all states in America. I have one contention and then some simple facts that explain why the death penalty should not be abolished.

I encourage everyone to vote for the person that presents the best arguments. Not based on your own opinion. Thank you!

Contention #1:
Punishment fits the crime

One of the main principles of punishment and the judicial system is that the penalty fits the crime. If someone violently murders another individual or numerous people, then it makes sense for the punishment to be death. It might not bring back the victim but it does stop the accused from killing again. A life sentence would be nice if we knew for sure it would stay that way and a lot of times it doesn't. If that victim can't be brought back what right does the judicial system have to lift a life sentence and let someone out who committed murder. With the death penalty we know that person can NEVER attempt to kill again and can't get off easy years later down the road. This seems to be a great deal more fair than how the life in prison can be.

Here is just a small list of reasons why I believe the death penalty should not banished from all states in the United States.

1.) When a criminal violently kills another individual or many people, he does not value that humans life, therefore does not deserve to live himself.

2.) The added cost to society of keeping a person in prison for 20 years at a cost of more than $50,000 per year. The unnecessary and tragic death, financial and human loss, and heartache caused by each murder is a huge loss to society, and the $1 million public cost to provide that criminal with room, board and security for the rest of his life compounds the damage to society. So what we have to see is it will cost more to lock up a convicted felon than to comite him/her to the death sentence.

3.) Today, the accuracy of modern forensics and DNA testing makes it very unlikely for an innocent person to be put on death row. Furthering this point, it is argued that the number of innocent people that may be killed is equalised by the number of actual criminals that are set free.

4.) Putting people in prison, as opposed to executing them gives them a chance of parole (or the small chance of escape), meaning they can commit more crimes. Capital punishment means there is no chance of the criminal committing another crime.

5.) When many prisoners are now being released early because our prisons are overcrowded, society is benefited by terminating inmates like Charles Manson, who has purposefully taken multiple lives, cannot be rehabilitated and has no right to public support.

6.) It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.

Where I got my info!
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
http://www.heraldextra.com...
http://www.krqe.com...

I look forward to my opponents next response.
Debate Round No. 1
Edgyruse

Pro

I welcome my challenger and thank him for his response and opinions.

First I would like to address a few of his points.

1.) You said in your first point that people who do not value human life do not deserve to live ( Not exact words ) Surely everyone should be given the opportunity to reflect on what ever crime they have committed, no matter how bad the crime they committed was. Sentencing someone to the death penalty is crushing any hope of that ever happening. I believe that the entire point of putting someone in prison is to 1.) House them to stop them from committing crime and 2.) To allow them to see the wrongs they have committed, reflect and rebuild.

2.) You made some points about price but in most cases the death penalty will always be the most expensive option. The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California"s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually. That is not including the cost of a trial or the length appeal process's.

3.) You talked about how modern science combats the likelihood of a innocent person being executed. However it still happens, any chance of an innocent person being killed surely contradicts any point of the death penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... ( Some known cases that these men were MOST LIKELY innocent) There have also been around 127 people who have been released from death row since 1976, who had compelling evidence that they were innocent behind them.

4.) 8.5 Percent of prisoners who were let out on parole committed crimes again while out. ( America ) This is a very small majority. Most prisoners do not re offend after being let out. If their crime was serious enough they will be given life without parole. The people who commit the worst crimes are most likely to commit again.

I believe that the death penalty is inhuman, it takes away a human being in vengeance of another. It is unnecessary, costly and evil. Prison should not be to evoke death on people who have made great mistakes in life. Instead it should be for treating how they SHOULD have treated their victims, with respect. They should be taught and rehabilitated. It is only through this way that real justice can be achieved.

I look forward and welcome my opponents next reply and thank him for his own reply and opinions.

My sources: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
http://www.deathpenalty.org...
http://www.religioustolerance.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Masterdebatr91

Con

I would like to take a moment to thank my opponents for his great arguments. I would appreciate it, if you would watch this small video clip that basically explains how the death penalty brings justice to the families of the victims that were killed. I don't know about you, but I would not like men like this living in society after what they have done. This is where the death penalty brings justice to society!

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...

His first arguments:

Surely everyone should be given the opportunity to reflect on what ever crime they have committed, no matter how bad the crime they committed was. Sentencing someone to the death penalty is crushing any hope of that ever happening.

My response to this:

A majority of the criminals that are put on the death penalty, have either had several offenses or committed murder in the first degree. This being the case, the criminal has had multiple chances to "change or reflect" and does not value the life of the individual or individuals that he/she has murdered. Then why should we value the criminals life. I realize that this does sound extremely inhumane, but we must look at the bigger picture. If society is safer with that individual gone, we must do the greater good for the most amount of people.

His second argument:

The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate.

My response to this:

I am having a difficult time understanding this point. As I brought up earlier in this debate, the cost to society of keeping a person in prison for 20 years at a cost of more than $50,000 per year. Now, I have added this up in my head... (I am not very good at math.) Lets say a criminal is in the prison system for 50 years. 50,000*50= around 2 and a half million dollars per inmate. How can the death penalty be more expensive than supplying food, water, a cell and any medical attention for a life sentence for a prisoner? This just does not add up to me.... maybe you could go into a little more detail about this argument.

His third argument:

Here have also been around 127 people who have been released from death row since 1976, who had compelling evidence that they were innocent behind them.

My response to this:

There is the chance that an innocent person may be executed. This too is a valid concern, and I certainly don't wish for the death of someone innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. But it seems that the instance of this happening is low. According to many online sources, there are currently about 10 cases, perhaps more, of executions for which the accused may have been innocent (although this has not been proved). Since there have been 1,266 executions since the U.S. Supreme Court imposed moratorium was lifted in 1976, this means that perhaps around 0.01% of executions during this time period have been wrongful. That to me is an acceptable risk for an institution that should remain. Traffic accidents cause tens of thousands of fatalities, many patients die on the operating table or in the hospital, and police continue to carry firearms even though every year innocent people are shot and killed by them (acceptable risks). Yet I don't see many death penalty opponents called for a moratorium on driving, surgery, hospitals, or the use of firearms by police. More on point, in one 17 month period in 1995, criminals released "under supervision" committed 13,500 murders and 200,000 other violent crimes. Were the victims of these crimes not "innocent?" How many "innocent" lives might have been saved if only a portion of these criminals were executed? Less than ten?

My opponents last argument:

8.5 Percent of prisoners who were let out on parole committed crimes again while out. ( America ) This is a very small majority. Most prisoners do not re offend after being let out. If their crime was serious enough they will be given life without parole. The people who commit the worst crimes are most likely to commit again

My response to this:

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
Even if your statistics are correct, is having any criminals repeat their crime worth it. If they are murdering again, they have not learned there lesson and are only harming society.

Where I found my info!
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Edgyruse

Pro

Edgyruse forfeited this round.
Masterdebatr91

Con

I will just quickly point out some key reasons why we need the death penalty and give some voters.


1. The punishment should fit the crime. Especially if the crime that is committed is murder.

2. If someone violently murders another individual or numerous people, then it makes sense for the punishment to be death.


3.Capital punishment means there is no chance of the criminal committing another crime.


4. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process.



5. A majority of the criminals that are put on the death penalty, have either had several offenses or committed murder in the first degree. This being the case, the criminal has had multiple chances to "change or reflect" and does not value the life of the individual or individuals that he/she has murdered.


6."If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."


I believe I have successfully attacked my opponents case while upholding capital punishment. This was a fun and interesting debate and hopefully Edgyruse and I can have more debates like this some other time.


With all this being said... I urge a con vote.
Thanks :)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.