The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
Fluer
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The death penalty Deters crime and saves lives

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,605 times Debate No: 19906
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (5)

 

16kadams

Pro

This debate does not have the acceptance rule:

C1: Deters crime

Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD, late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, in an Oct. 17, 1983 New York Times Op-Ed article titled "For the Death Penalty," wrote the following:
"Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder, if anything can. People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death. Death is final. But where there is life there is hope... Wherefore, life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death. (Only an infinitesimal percentage of murderers are suicidal.) Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder."

Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., LLM, late Justice of the US Supreme Court, in a June 29, 1972 Furman v. Georgia dissenting opinion, stated:
"On the basis of the literature and studies currently available, I find myself in agreement with the conclusions drawn by the Royal Commission [Report on Capital Punishment, 1949-1953] following its exhaustive study of this issue:

'The general conclusion which we reach, after careful review of all the evidence we have been able to obtain as to the deterrent effect of capital punishment, may be stated as follows. Prima facie, the penalty of death is likely to have a stronger effect as a deterrent to normal human beings than any other form of punishment, and there is some evidence (though no convincing statistical evidence) that this is in fact so.'"

Opponents argue that there is no deterrent effect by using the death penalty. According to Baily, who did a study from l967 to l968, the death penalty was a deterrent

in 27 states. When there was a moratorium on Capital Punishment in the United States, the study showed murder rates increased by 100%. The study also reviewed 14 nations who abolished the death penalty. It (the study) claimed murder increased by 7% from five years before the abolition period to the five years after the abolition [1]

So after the DP was abolished, crime rose. (DP=death penalty, LWOP=life without parole)

So based on these studies it does deter crime.

C2: Saves lives

The question is whether or not execution of an innocent person is strong enough to abolish the death penalty. Remember, the death penalty saves lives. Repeat murders are eliminated and foreseeable murders are deterred. [1]

So it saves lives because it stops murders, by deterring crime. Now I talked about innocent execution, so I must now digress.

C3: No proof that any innocents have been executed

Opponents claim lots of innocent man are wrongly executed. There has never been any proof of an innocent man being executed!! A study by Bedau-Radlet claimed there were 22 cases where the defendant have been wrongly executed. However, this study is very controversial. Studies like Markman and Cassell find that the methodology was flawed in l2 cases. There was no substantial evidence of guilt, and no evidence of innocence. Moreover, our judicial system takes extra precautions to be sure the innocent and their rights are protected. Most likely an innocent person would not be executed [1]

So I am not saying that never has their been a innocent killed on death row, but those cases are rare, and most likely that wont happen because of our modern technology. So It probably has happened in the past century, but nowadays that risk is low.

That is my case for now. I will expand later. I await your response.
Fluer

Con

I will clarify for the debate that it is only those convicted of murder that will be given the sentence of death penalty by lethal injection by a judge.

Your first point that this punishment deters crime more than going to jail will be rebutted within my main argument.
Your next two points I shall discuss as one because they are so strongly linked. No one can repeatedly murder someone if they are in jail either and I will look into the psychology behind these types of murders in a moment to deal with your ideas about deterrence. In Britain the death penalty was abolished for the simple reason that too many people were wrongly sent to hang. One of these innocent people was Timonthy Evans.

"John Reginald Halliday Christie was a 54 year old serial murderer and sexual psychopath who murdered at least 6 women. He also gave evidence at the trial of Timothy Evans, who was executed (later posthumously pardoned) for crimes almost certainly committed by Christie (who had served in the Army during World War One and been a Special Police Constable during the Second World War)." [1]
Christie was later sentenced to death.

Another case in Wales, the last person to be given capital punishment in Cardiff, Mahmood Mattan. This case is suffocating in racial prejudice of the 1950's. This young black man forced to live in a seperate house from his wife was given the death sentence for the murder of Lily Volpart. It took 46 years for the charges finally to be quashed due to the racial stigma and the way the appeals were handled by the law. [2]

So you have no case simply by saying there is no evidence of an innocent person being executed and I will come on to discuss why even in recent times this risk of a wrong conviction is still a risk in my substantive.
Also I would like you to clarify something. You headline the point as " No proof that any innocents have been executed" and then you go on to say "So I am not saying that never has their been a innocent killed on death row". You can't have it both ways.

My first point is going to be the psychology of those who commit murder and why this means that the fear of a death sentence becomes irrelevant and my second point will be about cases where murder charges have been overturned.

So my first point. There are three types of murder that I see as being central to this debate:
-"heat of the moment"
-plotted
-victims of mentally ill criminals

By looking at the "heat of the moment crimes first I will show how deterrence does not work in these cases. If you are blinded by emotion so much that you are able to kill someone where you normally would not then you are not in a fit state of mind at that point to have a moral argument with yourself as to whether this is the "right" thing to do so you certainly are not going to be thinking about the consequences of their actions. The only time they start to think about the consequences is after they have killed the person and in a panic people sometimes end up committing more crimes in order to hide the crime of murder because they don't want to go to jail. If the punishment is death are they not then going to try harder to avoid being caught and end up committing more crimes? I realise that this is perhaps a little exageratted but I will expand on it in later rounds. Now onto murders that are plotted. If you plot a murder you think you are able to outsmart the police and get away with the crime so you are not going to consider the punishment because you don't think you are going to be caught therefore not going to be deterred. When you get to the stage you are carrying out a plotted act of murder you are most likely going to kill this person no matter what since it has become a "necessity" in your mind. There are always going to be victims that fall foul of those who are mentally ill because we cannot predict who will be mentally ill before they are born. By this I mean that even if you were to catch and kill all those who are mentally ill to the extent that they will take one or more lives this will not solve the problem because there will be more unfortunate children born who have a mental disorder or more people will fall foul of a mental disorder due to circumstance therefore deterrence does not work and it does not prevent future murders. What we are dealing with is a human state of mind so even if you kill all the convicted killers there are still going to be people out there who want to kill and who will. Unless you can come up with an ingenious solution to combat human nature these crimes can never be prevented.

My second point is that even with our modern technology we see cases where people are wrongly convicted. This can be down to many things such as the subjective nature of a jury and unreliability of witnesses. There have been many recent and well documented cases where people have been executed. An example of this is the Alan Gell case.

"113. Alan Gell North Carolina Conviction: 1998, Acquitted: 2004
Alan Gell was arrested for a 1995 robbery and murder of a retired truck driver named Allen Ray Jenkins. The two key witnesses presented by prosecutors were Gell's ex-girlfriend and her best friend, who were both teenagers. Both girls, who were at Jenkins' house and pled guilty to involvement in the murder, testified that they saw Gell shoot Jenkins on April 3, 1995. However, prosecutors withheld valuable evidence that might have cleared Gell in the initial trial, including an audio tape of one of the girls saying she had to "make up a story" about the murder. (News and Observer, December 10, 2002) In 2002, a State Superior Court Judge found that the prosecutors withheld evidence "favorable" to Gell, and vacated Gell's conviction. (North Carolina v. Gell, No. 95 CRS 1884, Order (Superior Court of Bertie County, December 16, 2002) (Vacating conviction and granting new trial.) Gell was re-tried in February 2004. The defense team was able to present evidence that Gell was out of state or in jail at the time of Jenkins' murder, which was placed closer to April 14th. This refuted the April 3rd claim by the original prosecutors. Also challenging the state's timetable was a series of statements by as many as 17 witnesses who told investigators that they had seen Jenkins alive between April 7th and April 10th. The most important new evidence was the taped conversation mentioned above, in which the state's key witness referred to making up a story about the murder. Gell was originally convicted in 1998 and spent the next four years on death row until a new trial was ordered. On February 18, 2004, a jury found Gell not guilty on all counts, and he left the court with his family. (PHOTO: Alan Gell (Center), leaves the Courthouse in Bertie Countie, North Carolina, with his sister Frankie and mother Jeanette following his exoneration for the 1995 murder of Allen Ray Jenkins. Photo courtesy Scott Lewis, News & Observer.) (News and Observer, February 18, 2004)
Read "Time of Death: A Murder Mystery" by Joseph Neff in The News and Observer
Read "Gells Files Suit Over Prosecution" by Joseph Neff in The News and Observer" [3]

And since I am now running out of room I will leave it at that.
So to sum up because we are dealing with human nature in theses cases deterrence will not work and you can never fully prevent future murders the death penalty is not going to work. And even if it did work it would still not be the best course of action because of the possibility of innocent people being killed.

[1] http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk...
[2] http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk...
[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

"In Britain the death penalty was abolished for the simple reason that too many people were wrongly sent to hang. One of these innocent people was Timonthy Evans."

This is a refutation for both.
1. How long ago was this?
2. New and current DNA samples make the innocent kill rate close to 0. Historically you are correct, but in the current day if you are found guilty you are most certialy guilty. Also even if 90-100 people where guilty, 10 guilty, you are saving many lives. Like in the studies below each execution saves 3-18 lives because those people would have done it again if they got parole, killed a prison quard, or even another inmate. So lets do math. And one of the studies says 10, and thats a good median number:

90*10= 900
10=10

so killing 10 innocents well saves no one so just add up the number, if ten innocents died 10 die, and each execution saves 10 lives on average, so multiply by 10. So is 10 or 900 bigger? 900, so more lives are saved then lost. And the ratio with new DNA testing is 1:100 at most

Refutations for the rest of your case:

above. In america the innocents have no guilty evidence, but no not-guilty evidence. So in englad sure a few are innocents and get killed, in america not one has been TRULY found without controversy. I bet there is one or 2, but in America my case is fairly correct. And yes sometimes there are mess ups, but if you save 900 and only lose 10 thats a good deal.


"By looking at the "heat of the moment crimes first I will show how deterrence does not work in these cases. "


Most same people aren't affected by this, I have been really mad before and have not yet killed anyone. I have not yet killed anyone at in in rage, my dad gets mad all the time and has never killed. My mom had a car wrek and now her temper is low so she's mad a lot, and she never kills in wrage.

"murders that are plotted "

You know the DP can deter these right? Because if the police catch you you will face trial and possibly a human's greatest fear, death. So it's the threat that is scary, just being caught is the problem. And the police can still catch you, and we have treaties with canada and mexico saying if you catch a suspect bring him here. So even "plotted" cases can be detered.

"victims of mentally ill criminals"

can still be detered. Even if someone you knew was crazy you could still be normal, just because you have been beaten doesn't mean your mind changes, its simple nurology, it may not help your personality, but it wont turn you full out crazed.

C1: Deters crime

Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders. [1]

Professors H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings of the University of Colorado at Denver have published two studies confirming the deterrent effect of capital punishment. The first study used state-level data from 1977 to 1997 to analyze the influence of executions, commutations, and removals from death row on the incidence of murder. For each additional execution, on average, about five murders were deterred. [1]

Two studies by Paul R. Zimmerman, a Federal Communications Commission economist, also support the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Using state-level data from 1978 to 1997, Zimmerman found that each additional execution, on average, results in 14 fewer murders. [1]


So lives are saved according to this.




The gray line is murders, the blueish one are executions. Notice murder goes down when executions start up.


C2:saves lives

arguments above, and my refutations prove that more lives are saved than innocents lost. Also ... well yes lives are saved due to its deterece affect as shown above.











http://www.heritage.org...;[1]

department of justice
Fluer

Con

Lets get something straight first I believe that one innocent life lost is one too may.
Both of my cases which you brought up in rebuttal had issues within the trial that are still relevant today like the police and law being uncooperative with Mahmoood Mattan's wife being ignored as they tried to avoid the scandal that comes with killing the wrong person and the subjective nature of a jury. And you still have not clarified your point like I asked.
What you seem to be saying is that while Britain may make mistakes American will not so I will go on to look at some more of America's mistakes on top of the Alan Gell case in my last argument in my substantive.
Your rebuttal for the "rest of my case" I find quite insulting because you have refused to address them properly. Your first statement about how people get angry and don't kill would be fine had I not made it clear to you that I am discussing the occasions where murder is committed and the lack of thought about consequences in this case therefore making your rebuttal irrelevant. Your next point of rebuttal is also made irrelevant as you have failed to directly engage with the point that I was making which I will clarify for you again. If the murder is plotted then the killer thinks they have done enough to outsmart the police and not get caught i.e. they are not worried about the consequences for when they do get caught because they don't think it is going to happen. I am going to make my third cases very clear. I am talking about how mentally ill criminals cannot be deterred from murdering someone if that is what their illness leads them to do making your rebuttal once again irrelevant. Please take the time to read the points that I am making and if I do not make myself clear ask for clarification it is better for the debate.
Rebuttal for your arguments.
On your first point I would love to know how this information was collected. Was an interview done on all of those on death row asking how many more people would you have killed of you were not about to be killed yourself? No? It seems to me that information of this sort is controversial and not strong enough to base a point on.
You say that it acts as a deterrence but 88% of experts would disagree with you as shown below.

"According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 88% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Lacock, 2009)
Consistent with previous years, the 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate. The South accounts for over 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, tied with the West for the lowest murder rate." [1]

So even in states where the execution rate is high where according to your statement the deterrence should be at it's greatest we see the most murders. I will discuss this more in my substantive.

Your next point seems to suggest something strange. The state (according to you) has the right to have the power to be judge, jury and executioner even if ten innocent people are killed in an attempt to save more innocent (or not so innocent) people that could possibly have been killed based on statistics that I find are a bit too controversial. On that point I would like to ask you a question. Why do these potential victims have more of a right to life than people that have been wrongly convicted and killed by the state that is meant to keep them from harm?

On to my substantive where I will add to my case by looking at examples of miscarriages of justice and I will look at the death penalty in Texas.

Lets look at a very recent case that took place in America (so no bad British policing).

"Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley, known as the West Memphis 3, spent 18 years in prison for the murders of three 8-year-old boys in 1993. Baldwin and Misskelley were sentenced to life imprisonment and Echols was sentenced to death. The controversy of the case, ranging from police and jury misconduct to coerced confessions and fabricated evidence, raised doubt in their guilt. The case attracted the support of several celebrities and even the parents of two of the victims have come to believe in their innocence. In 2007, DNA excluded them from the crime, but the state refused to exonerate them. In 2011, a new judge ordered an evidentiary hearing to be held on December 5th 2011. In 2011, the prosecutors and the defense talked and an agreement was reached for the WM3 to enter Alford pleas in exchange for time served, an offer they reluctantly accepted, because they would have been acquitted in a new trial and the state would have faced a lawsuit. They vowed to fight the convictions and find the real killer to clear their names. Prosecutors and police maintain they are guilty." [2]

Appears to be that the same problems I pointed out in my previous cases are still apparent in America today.
This may be because no matter what country you are in people are still human and there are enough links between British law and American law to make comparisons effective.

Texas has the highest capital punishment rate in America but from 1960 until 2010 the number of murders increased from 824 to 1,249 with a peak of 2,652 in 1991.[3] The death penalty was inplace throughout and it doesn't appear to have had much difference because as a deterrent it doesn't work. Over the past decade or so there has been a fall in the number of violent crimes committed but I believe that this has more to do with reduced stigma against minorities better education systems and improvements in the way police deal with situates like gangs. The death penalty has been there constantly and the number of murders and violent crimes has fluctuated quite dramatically in some years which leads me to assume that it other factors are coming into play and they have far more influence over the matter.

To sum up there are more factors at play in relation to murder and violent crimes than the death penalty and some of these hold more influence and because miscarriages of just still happen it is not good enough simply to say well ten innocents might die but we are supposedly saving all these other people. Life should be granted more respect than that.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

"Lets get something straight first I believe that one innocent life lost is one too may."

Sure I understand your feelings, but you need to be realistic. I have done basic math prong that more people are saved. If one execution saves 3-18 lives, and the very very low chance of killing 1 innocent then its a good ratio. I think the ratio is like 1:50. I heard that when NM tried to bolish the DP (they did it *tear* ) but that's a good ratio. Lets use the 10 numbers again.
50*10=500
1*1=1
1:500.
so in reality 499 lives are saved per 50 executions. That it a great ratio, so you would like to lose 499 lies to save 1? Mathematically and logicall that makes no sense.

"What you seem to be saying is that while Britain may make mistakes American will not so I will go on to look at some more of America's mistakes on top of the Alan Gell case in my last argument in my substantive."

I am sorry If I misphrased. But here's the thing, I have proven the DP deters crime and saves lives for a few rounds now. With math, credible sources, etc. So sure a few examples ofer the years is tragic but you need to look at the ratios above. You wan't to save 1 life, I want to sae 499.

"On your first point I would love to know how this information was collected. Was an interview done on all of those on death row asking how many more people would you have killed of you were not about to be killed yourself? "

It is actually simple to figure this out. You look at states and their crime rates before and after the DP or states with it compered to states without it and crime fluctuations. So the data can be explaind easily.

"the 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate. The South accounts for over 80% of executions. "

I love and hoped that you would post this argument, so lets look at the stats. Texas has one of the higher murder stats:

24,782,302 - Jul 2009
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

(population)


Lets compare this to wisconsin (No DP):

5,654,774 - Jul 2009
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wisconsin has a lower crime rate, but look at the population sizes. Texas has a higher population and is more urban. More population and urban areas lead higher crime then smaller states and this cannot be changed. So this argument is a fallay as it doesn't take into account these factors.

"According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 88% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder."

1. experts are sometimes wrong
2. So? they couls have had biasses (religeon [roman catholic], politics [liberal]) etc.

SO lets look at the first point.

Wall street economists failed to predict the economic downturn. http://www.usnews.com...

So experts can be wrong

biasses

that is self-explanatory

"So even in states where the execution rate is high where according to your statement the deterrence should be at it's greatest we see the most murders."


forgot other factors shown above.

Why do these potential victims "have more of a right to life than people that have been wrongly convicted and killed by the state that is meant to keep them from harm?"


Because they don't, but 499 potenial victems have moe of right to life than 1 because there are 499 pf them.

"Lets look at a very recent case that took place in America "


lol stlll a few examples mean nothing you have to look at the overall ratio. Once again, a few examples mean nothing, the overall ratio means more.

"Texas has the highest capital punishment rate in America but from 1960 until 2010 the number of murders increased from 824 to 1,249 with a peak of 2,652 in 1991."

Already refuted the state by state argument. But also there where 6 years where the DP wasn't used, hence the graph above.
For more info for the deterence ad such: http://wesleylowe.com...

"To sum up there are more factors at play in relation to murder and violent crimes"

my point...

"innocents might die but we are supposedly saving all these other people. Life should be granted more respect than that."

Also my point. If you would like to grant life respect then save 10 lives (once again the median 3-18 number). So you save more lives than you lose. Also look you say the word MIGHT. My point as well.


C1: Deters crime

David B. Muhlhausen, PhD, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, in testimony delivered on June 27, 2007 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, stated:

"The recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives... Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates. In fact, studies done in recent years, using sophisticated panel data methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents. Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh [and] Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution saves on average 18 lives.

They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders.
.. While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African–Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African–Americans. Further moratoria, commuted sentences, and death row removals appear to increase the incidence of murder... Americans support capital punishment for two good reasons. First, there is little evidence to suggest that minorities are treated unfairly. Second, capital punishment produces a strong deterrent effect that saves lives.
"

Robert B. Ekelund, PhD, Professor of Economics and Lowder Eminent Scholar Emeritus at Auburn University, et. al, in a Jan. 2006 Southern Economic Journal article titled "Marginal Deterrence and Multiple Murders," wrote:

"However strongly, execution variables deter first and only murders, the marginal cost of additional murders is, in effect, zero. Empirically, we find that execution and the death penalty have no significant effect on multiple murders... our study also shows that... single murders are deterred by execution variables... the form of execution --electrocution being considered marginally more 'painful' than lethal injection-- is an added deterrent to single murders..."


C2: saves lives

saves lives as the first study pointed out, and the ones in the first round.

Conclusion:

your stats ignore other factors and the DP does deter crime, which in turn aves lives.

VOTE PRO!

thanks for the debate :)

Fluer

Con

Since my opponent thinks the debate is finished I will make this short.
In the first few rounds I have shown why this is not going to work as a deterrence therefore I will strengthen my case for why this is not going to save lives.
Say the police eventually manage to catch and convict a killer and the killer is sentenced to death. The sentence is carried out and what we have is one dead murderer and one or more dead victim(s). That is still a lot of dead people. Since there are still humans alive on earth there will be another person out there that commits a murder or is highly likely to. You give him the death penalty and we have more dead people. What if we give police more specialised training, better equipment and more resources? We know that a better police force stops more crimes and catches more killers usually quicker. This means that there are less victims if it is to be a multiple murder. This saves lives. What would save even more lives is if we do not kill the killers. What we need to remember is that many many people are forced into crime and fall in a downward spiral outwit the reach of any service that can help them before it gets to the point that they are forced to kill. My opponent says that there is no greater fear than death. That is not necessarily true. Gang crime is a good example Many young men and women are forced to gangs as a way of surviving because they are living in such poor conditions. When someone like a gang leader has you and those that you love in the palm of their hand most people subject to their will. What we see is that people have a desire to live but they also have the ability to love. Most people put in a situation where their loved ones are seriously at risk and someone is offering you a way to save them but it means you may have to give up your life most people will do that. What I am suggesting is that we deal with the social problems and gang crimes better it means that less people are likely to be forced down a life of crime preventing murders and many other violent crimes related to poverty and gangs which saves lives and shows that the state will not give up on any of its citizens, showing that their is another way that is possible, showing that we understand and want to help. This is more of a deterrence to crime because humans love. It is this emotion that keeps us string and it is these bonds that will help make a better society if the state steps up and provides the path needed for more to escape from lives of poverty and crime.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

Sorry for making it end early. But I decided to thank you ahead of time.

Since she didn't visaby refute I will just add on to my aruments first:

firstly lets start with deterence:

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?" [1]

Additionally, one of the studies found the the time between convictions and executions also affected the homicide rate. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented. [1]

SO the DP in and of itself results in fewer murders, but shortning the wait time helps.

Still, there is a logical piece to the death penalty acting as a deterrent to crime. Statistics seem to indicate that when the cost is too high, people will change their behavior. [1]

As I said before, basic deterence theory.

Now you will point out to people who are crazed:

only 3% of the criminal population is crazy, 97% is not. [2]

SO the DP will deter those 97% of criminals.

Also lets get some quotes:

Isaac Ehrlich, PhD, Professor of Economics at the State University of New York and prominent analyst of the "deterrence theory," in a June 1977 American Economic Review study titled "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," concluded:"...the results of [this] empirical investigation are not inconsistent with the hypothesis that, on balance, capital punishment reduces the murder rate...

In view of the new evidence presented here, one cannot reject the hypothesis that law enforcement activities in general and executions in particular do exert a deterrent effect on acts of murder. Strong inferences to the contrary drawn from earlier investigations appear to have been premature.

In contrast, since the results of this investigation support the notion that execution exerts a pure deterrent effect on offenders, they can be used to suggest that other punishments, even those which do not have any preventive effect, can in principle serve as substitutes."

the DP deters crime.

Saves lives:

lol first round I proved it saves 3-18 lives, and you still say it doesn't save lives. So each execution saveabout 3-15 lives.

"The sentence is carried out and what we have is one dead murderer and one or more dead victim(s). That is still a lot of dead people."

It is but the DP saves 3-18 lives, you didn't even refute that. So that's a lot of saved lives.

"you give him the death penalty and we have more dead people."

so lets use the 10 number. so 10-2=8. So in the end 8 lives are saved, only 2 lost. SO yes it is tragic that 2 had to go, but it is great that 8 are saved.

"We know that a better police force stops more crimes and catches more killers usually quicker."

that is impossible. The average response time is 30 minutes in Albuquerque. England tried that idea when they banned guns, and crime rose. The British army tried it in Israel while they banned guns for Jews and tried to protect them and it didn't work.

also look at this:

Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:

Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [3]

wow.

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [3]

so the courts in America say that their is no obligation to protect citizens as police officers.

your argument is absurd.

"Gang crime is a good example Many young men and women are forced to gangs as a way of surviving because they are living in such poor conditions."

False all you have to do is not join a gang. Also look at this:

The term gang often provokes images of violence, drug use and dealing, and crime. However, youth gangs also have other consequences. Gangs can provide youths with a sense of belonging and identity, social support, and solidarity. Gang youths often compare their gangs to family, and in some respects gangs resemble families. [4]

"is is more of a deterrence to crime because humans love. It is this emotion that keeps us string and it is these bonds that will help make a better society if the state steps up and provides the path needed for more to escape from lives of poverty and crime."

If love is a deterrence then either there is little love or it doesn't work. Also more punishment makes more deterrence. I was deterred from doing stupid things when I was little through spankings. When the only punishment was a time out or a grounding it was less of a deterrence. That falls into deterrence theory. So does the DP, people weigh the pros and cons, when death is a con they will be less inclined to do it, hence the effectiveness of the DP.

Conclusion:

The DP saves lives through the deterrence of crime which I have proved. My graph proved my point as my studies. Also she has failed to refute many of my arguments and didn't respond to my ratio's argument of the innocents killed. Sh has conceded much of my case through that. I urge you to vote pro as my arguments where superior and my refutations more clear. Thanks for the debate again =)

Also I'll PM you about round 5.

sources:
http://www.boundlessline.org... [1]

Front Sight firearms training institute [2]

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com... [3]

http://family.jrank.org... [4]
Fluer

Con

As I am the last speaker I will make this last round a summation focusing on two main points of clash: deterrence and saving lives as the motion of the debate would suggest.
In the first round Pro made the case that it deters crime because humans fear nothing more than death. I agree that death is a capital fear but I pointed out that there are crimes that cannot be deterred simply due to the nature of the crime that Pro did not handle properly. Murder is a human act, as long as there are humans there will be murders nothing not even our fear of death can deter that.

Also dealt with in the first round was the mechanistic problems such as accuracy. Pro made the case and later extended it that with advances in technology we are now able to handle evidence to such a high degree that the problem of an innocent death is no longer an issue. However I sought to disagree with many example of how a jury can be subjective and biased however hard we try to stop it. I also brought up the point later that we still make mistakes even with our modern technology and where there is still a chance for a mistake to be made it is too much of a possibility to let one happen.

On the second point of clash Pro brought in an argument based simply on a study which suggested that every time the death penalty is used an average of 3-18 deaths are prevented I believe it was. This I regret to say I did not handle as well as I wished however I stand by judgment that one innocent life is too many to lose and as a brought in, perhaps too late however it is still a valid argument not properly dealt with by Pro, that we can save far more lives by identifying the root of many of the violent crimes that may be more affected by a deterrence than those that I had pointed out earlier. Gang violence is a very dangerous but prominent part of society and it tends to go hand in hand with violent crime. Using this example we can show that there are many other important factor in these crimes that were simply overlooked. Unfortunately the majority of many government policies tend to attempt to solve a problem but either scrape the tip of the iceberg or add to the problem and the death penalty does both in this case. The phrase Pro used was "all you have to do is not join a gang" this may be considered easier said than done to put it lightly. Just to add to this point, Pro's next piece of rebuttal demonstrates a lack of due thought for the complexities of a murder. There is hardly ever a time where there is a simple thought process that is simply deterred by our natural fear of death.

For these reasons this motion should be opposed.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
16kadams

Pro

yes con and I agreed (via PM) that this is the last round, the debate ends here, vote pro
Fluer

Con

Yes I was aware of that that's why I summated.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sorry8140 5 years ago
sorry8140
i would be in favor of the death penalty. when you see cases like albert gardner who raped and murdered 2 teens, a year apart from each other,it makes you wish that the death penalty would seek justice for this. however, when you see cases like that of troy davis, an african american who was sentenced to death despite having 7 of the 9 witnesses recant their statements and having no physical evidence that he did the crime, it makes you want it to be abolished. i would rather no innocent men be put to death for the sake of punishing the guilty. and if you were that one innocent guy you may just agree with me.
Posted by dipnt 5 years ago
dipnt
Without commenting on either argument in general, I wonder whether pro is willing to voluntarily sacrifice his life for the theoretical possibility that 3-18 lives might be saved? If so I wonder how those who love and care for pro would feel about that. He seems perfectly willing to ask others to make this sacrifice when they are wrongly convicted.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
kk I did do it but not clearly, a source was the DOJ but I didn't link it
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
By the way, your link on R2 did not work.
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
You should have linked it in the round it was presented.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
in later rounds and I had the department of justice as a source
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
@ master kage i linked it to westly lowe and the department of justice
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
RFD:

Conduct: There was no conduct violations, so this is tied.

S/G: Con had better spelling and grammar through out the debate. Pro, the spell checker is a magnificent thing. There were some simple words that you incorrectly spelled. Using the spell checker and running through you're argument before you post it will ensure little to no spelling and grammar mistakes.

Arguments: It seemed Con's arguments relied solely on the flaws and disorganization of the actual trials. The resolution was The death penalty deters crime and saves lives, not the trial or judicial process. Since the majority of Con's focus was on the actual misdeeds of the judicial system, arguments goes to Pro.

Sources: It seems Con's only credible source (The stephen-stratford sources don't look frankly credible, thus Con' only valid source was the Death Penalty Information center. Pro had much better sources. Pro's R2 graph was particularly good, although he should have linked it.

Just one more comment that did not influence the voting, but Con's organization was not very good. Con should work on better organization in her debates.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I thought I handled the in the heat of the moment well. You didn't even push that argument till the end just so the voters vote for you cause you said that wtf. y graphs pwn though
Posted by VishnuBalachandran 5 years ago
VishnuBalachandran
Death penalty is an absolute necessity, provided there is enough proof to support the claim.
The only way, any body with tendencies that attract capital punishment can be deterred from committing them is by making them realize that an axe in hanging above their heads.
Now one compelling argument that anti-death penalty supporters could state is whether capital punishments brings the rate of heinous crimes to zero, of course not,but it would be worse without it.
The question of death penalty is not a whether but a how?
The methodology of getting rid of criminals should be debated, may be to make it more humane.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
16kadamsFluerTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Had the numbers and the statistics.
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 5 years ago
youngpolitic
16kadamsFluerTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: He said vote Pro...
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
16kadamsFluerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO provided good evidence and fully supported his BoP. His arguments seemed superior and con did not have good counter arguments.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
16kadamsFluerTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was framed to be about net lives saved. The context was clear that it was innocent lives at issue. Pro had good statistical evidence of murder rates dropping, and con did not have good counter evidence. The argument that one innocent person executed is worse than many innocent murder victims killed in outside the scope of the debate, which is framed in terms of the total numbers.
Vote Placed by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
16kadamsFluerTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.