The Instigator
SocialDemocrat
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
RapidCurrents
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The death penalty should be abolished in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
SocialDemocrat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 803 times Debate No: 87731
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

SocialDemocrat

Pro

Just clarify you know your position in the first round.
Read the title and you should probably have an adequate handle on what the debate is,
RapidCurrents

Con

During this debate I will be the Contender. I look forward to debating with you, and I wish you the best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1
SocialDemocrat

Pro

The first reason I oppose the death penalty is because it is pretty ineffective at deterring crime, which makes putting it into use fairly useless.
An article by the Washington Post says this, "By contrast, the question of whether executions discourage criminals from violent acts is not up to the conscience to decide. Despite extensive research on the question, criminologists have been unable to assemble a strong case that capital punishment deters crime."
So what does this show, it shows that the majority of top criminologists do believe that having death penalty does not effectively deter crime. What does this mean, it means the people who research this have failed to assemble a good case that the death penalty will stop people from crimes. But there are studies that do help show that it does not deter crime.
The article continues to reference a study that says this.

"Fagan pointed to New York as an example. Former Gov. George Pataki (R) reinstated capital punishment in New York in 1995, and although no prisoners were executed, the law remained in place until the New York Court of Appeals struck it down in 2004. Whether or not criminals faced the threat of death seemed to have little effect on their behavior. "New York's homicide decline has continued before the capital-punishment statute, through the capital-punishment statute, and after the capital-punishment statute," Fagan said.
This shows that there is an example of where the death penalty was in place at a time, and comparison to the time it was not, there was really no change, in fact crime rates actually decreased during the time it was in place. There is another example as well.

"Fagan and two collaborators recently compared murder rates in Hong Kong, where capital punishment was abolished in 1993, and Singapore, where a death sentence is mandatory for murder and other crimes and is typically administered within a year and a half. The researchers found little difference between the two Asian metropolises."
So in summary it really does not help deter crime, so what is the point of practicing it?

I will only make one more point this round, that sometimes the wrong people are killed. Sometimes in the U.S the wrong people are convicted... and are killed for it. That's not a positive thing. Innocent people are executed for no reason, that is not exactly justice at all.

Wait here is my source from before. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So the Guardian used a study conducted by legal experts and statisticians from Michigan and Pennsylvania and put out a peer reviewed study about how often people that are now proven innocent were executed in the U.S since the 1970's.

The article says this, "At least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent, according to the first major study to attempt to calculate how often states get it wrong in their wielding of the ultimate punishment. A team of legal experts and statisticians from Michigan and Pennsylvania used the latest statistical techniques to produce a peer-reviewed estimate of the "dark figure" that lies behind the death penalty " how many of the more than 8,000 men and women who have been put on death row since the 1970s were falsely convicted."

What does this show, it shows that people are being wrongly killed. To figure out approximately how many look at the number they give, the give 4.1% which we will actually round down to 4% and 8,000 people killed in the U.S about.

4% of 8,000 in 320, and we rounded down. This means that more than 320 people were wrongly convicted and executed in the U.S since the 1970's. That isn't justice that's just a bad system. If we have the death penalty in place for the purpose of deterring crime and getting justice for the families of people who were murdered yet it doesn't deter crime and people innocent of crime are being killed, then there is no justice there.
If they had a long jail sentence if the evidence that pretty much proved them innocent was released and they were still alive and they could be released, when they're dead its just a bad system.

So in turn the death penalty is a waste, it does not fulfill any of the purposes it is supposed to, and it has killed hundreds of random people who did not commit crimes in the last couple decades so, why is it in place. It shouldn't be.

http://www.theguardian.com...
RapidCurrents

Con

Imagine if your daughter was raped and then killed. Would you rather let the criminal spend time in jail, knowing that he is still alive, or have him brought to justice?

In November, 2008, Dominc Cinelli was charged with life sentence after shooting a security guard during an armed robbery to feed his heroin addiction. Only spending 2 years in jail, In 2010, Cinelli was granted parole after stating that he "is a changed man." Only days later, did Cinelli fatally shoot 60 year old, Officer Maguire while robbing a Kohl's Department Store. Cinelli did infact lose his life, during the shooting. If this man was given the death penalty, Officer Maguire wouldn't have been brutally murdered.

There are dozens of cases in which murderers are granted parole, only to be found committing a similar homicide crime. If these men and women were brought to justice, many innocent people would still be alive today.

The death penalty does in fact take a person's life, but it also save others from horrific crimes brought upon them.

Also, the death penalty sends a message to all the criminals roaming the United States of America. The death penalty sends them fear. If a person knew that if he committed a certain crime, he would then have the potential to be sentenced the death penalty, chances are they would not commit that act. If the death penalty is legalize throughout the United States, order would be brought in place; saving more lives than killing.

Yes, taking a life is horrible, but the death penalty assures innocent people to be safe from harm.
Debate Round No. 2
SocialDemocrat

Pro

"Imagine if your daughter was raped alive then killed. Would you rather let the criminal spend time in jail, knowing that he is still alive, or have him brought to justice?"
Look I'm not against a life sentence for this guy, but imagine this.
This scenario happened, they thought they had the right guy, the gave him the death penalty, and they executed him.
But 6 months later, they find out, it wasn't him, it was some one else. Then, is it really justice?
It is FAR from as black and white as you are implicating. This has happened hundreds of times, does that just not count?

By the example you state, it is still, to my awareness at least, an isolated instance. As stated before, the death penalty does not deter crime, all the evidence shows that. If you have hundreds of exampled of some one in the U.S committing a homicide again after parole when the death penalty could have stopped it then you have a case, but otherwise, this is the risk cops take, and a couple isolated instances isn't enough at this point to justify the killings of hundreds of innocent people through the death penalty.
If there are dozens of examples you should be citing a study, or statistic, I did that, so you should to or else the word dozens means nothing.

Also if the death penalty was abolished, hundreds of innocent people would have not been killed through it.

"The death penalty does on fact take a person's life, but it also save others from horrific crimes brought upon them." Wow, with the evidence I did bring up, do you not see the catch 22 here.

"Also, the death penalty sends a message to all the criminals roaming the United States of America. The death penalty sends them fear. If a person knew that if he committed a certain crime, he would then have the potential to be sentenced the death penalty, chances are they would not commit that act. If the death penalty is legalize throughout the United States, order would be brought in place; saving more lives than killing."

Are you serious, I literally gave you evidence that shows what you say here is blatantly incorrect, you can't just ignore the evidence and just make things up.

"Yes, taking a life is horrible, but the death penalty assures innocent people to be safe from harm." Again, total catch 22. This just ignores the evidence I brought up.

In conclusion a couple isolated circumstances doesn't justify the killings of hundreds of people innocent of crimes.
RapidCurrents

Con

RapidCurrents forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RapidCurrents

Con

RapidCurrents forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SocialDemocrat 1 year ago
SocialDemocrat
They could get life sentences. But the point is there have been hundreds on instances in the U.S in the 1970's where they now know that they were innocent, sometimes the people aren't actually guilty, that's the point.
Posted by AATI 1 year ago
AATI
There are many savage criminals out there that commit numerous crimes against humanity. Just taking them to jail, and releasing them just a few years later won't teach them a lesson, and they would probably go out and and commit more crimes. The death penalty is the only way that they are not going to be a danger to the people around them.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
SocialDemocratRapidCurrentsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
SocialDemocratRapidCurrentsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.