The Instigator
SocialDemocrat
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
queencoop
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The death penalty should be abolished.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
SocialDemocrat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 88712
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (1)

 

SocialDemocrat

Pro

The death penalty should be abolished. Death penalty-the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime.

"The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrant, and the appeals process is expensive and cruel to the survivng family members."-Martin O'Malley

"The death penalty issue is obviously a divisive one. But, whether one if for or against, you can nt deny the basic illogic, if we know the system is flawed, if we know that innocent people are on death row, then until the system is reformed, should we not allow the death penalty to protect those who are innocent?"-Richard LaGravanese

"My objection to the death penalty is based on the idea that this is a democracy, and in a democracy the government is me, and if the government kills somebody then I'm killing somebody."-Steve Earle
queencoop

Con

"...fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury." -Leviticus 24:20

It should be rarely used, but the death penalty is sometimes needed. Why should we as people show mercy to someone who showed no mercy to anyone, and instead ruthlessly murdered their own kind.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." - Abraham Lincoln

Abe himself, know from his honesty and good intention, states that someone who stole the freedom of one person should not deserve to live and keep their freedom.

"If we are to abolish the death penalty, I should like to see the first steps taken by my friends the murders" -Alphonse Karr
Debate Round No. 1
SocialDemocrat

Pro

"...fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. -Leviticus 24:20." After this, I assume my opponent is part of some sect of Christianity, and with many Christians, I have to say, the Bible does not have a place in law.

"...but the death penalty is sometimes needed. Why should we as people show mercy to anyone, and instead ruthlessly murdered their own kind."

A. This is factually incorrect.

The thing is, I hear people go on about the idea of the death penalty, retribution. I get it to a certain extant, if some one rapes and kills anyone close to you, why would you want them to live?

However the problem is, in any criminal justice system, people are going to slip through the cracks, innocent people, will be wrongly killed for a murder they didn't commit at times. Do not forget, if you say the death penalty is good, then you are accepting that through the years, this system will be killing thousands of people innocent of the crime. Imagine yourself in that situation, waited to be injected with a drug that kills you, knowing that you played no part in the crime you were arrested on.

But I need evidence for this, as it is, I am only making a claim.

There was a fascinating article done by the guardian about 2 years ago, that commented on a study done by legal experts and statisticians from both Pennsylvania and Michigan in order to analyze the effectiveness of the death penalty in the U.S. The study found that AT LEAST 4.1% of people executed in the U.S since the 1970's were later proven as well as anything could be proven to be innocent, this is a crazy number. This is hundreds of people put to death who were false convicted, keep in mind, there are bound to be more cases that have not been proven yet. Source: http://www.theguardian.com...

The significance of this is that the death penalty is killing innocent people. So now, I have to ask, what does the death penalty do besides kill some people innocent of the crime and satisfy some families the nice warm fuzzy feelings of retribution?
queencoop

Con

I would like to reiterate that my quote was not false. The old testament talks about that, before being changed in the New Testament as turn the other cheek.

Now it is my turn to disprove your point as false. The '1970s tape" is invalid because it was almost 50 years ago. The criminal system and America has come far since then. It is EXTREMELY hard to receive the death penalty. It is only given when there is indisputable evidence that the convicted criminal committed the crime. Rarely has the penalty even been given to an innocent man.

Must I also point out that not everyone is scared to death of getting executed. Some twisted criminals feel no guilt for what they did, and are not fazed by their execution. The last words of one criminal were "How is this for your headline: french fries." Showing a very cocky attitude and no remorse these are the criminals that receive the death penalty. The ones that deserve it.

Now I have a question: How would seeing a child serial killer live the rest of his life around others, with privileges such as internet time feel? How would you feel when comparing that criminal to the crying families at their child's grave?
Debate Round No. 2
SocialDemocrat

Pro

"I would like to reiterate that my quote was not false. The old testament talks about that, before being changed in the New Testament as turn the other cheek."

A. never said it was false, but a Bible quote plays 0 in determining law.

"The 1970s tape is invalud because it was almost 50 years ago. The criminal system and America has come far since then."

A. No it isn't invalid.

B. It was some time ago, but the data is cumulative, it takes place over a period of time. It has been spread out over years. In a criminal justice system, people will fall through the cracks.

"It is only given when there is indisputible evidence the convicted criminal commited the crime. Rarely has the penalty even been given to an innocent man."

A. If it is only given with indisputible evidence, why are people innocent of crimes being executed?

B.It has been given to an innocent person hundreds of times, just in the U.S, and they have been killed.

C. So far I have to ask again, why do we need the death penalty when innocent people get killed?

"Must I also point out that not everyone is scared ti death of gettign executed. Some twisted criminals feel no guilt for what they did, and are not fazes by their execution."

A. And... what about the people innocent of the crime that get killed.

"The last words of one criminal were "How is this for your headline: french fries. Showing a very cocky attitude."

A. How the hell does this help your case? What about the innocent people?

"Now I have a question: How would seeing a child serial killer live the rest of his life around others, with privileges such as internet time feel? How would you feel when comparing that criminal to the crying families at their child's grave?"

A. What is he/she is innocent? Like I said this has happens about 4% of the time.

B. You never answered my question. What purpose does the death penalty serve other than sometimes killing innocent people of a crime and satsfy some families the nice warm fuzzy feelings of retribution?

I have heard like 1,000 times or so the argument about the cost of prisoners, but it is actually the other way around.

A. Literally, while they are on death row the prisoner cost is being paid anyway so this isn't really avoiding it?

Let's see the cost of the death penalty compared to the average cost of a prisoner.

Each year, it costs $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 PER DEATH SENTENCE, while a life in prison for 40 years costs roughly $1,000,000-$1,300,000 http://okcadp.org...

So the death penalty is actually so much more expensive than sentencing them to prison, again another reason to abolish it.

So what is the advantage of the death penalty?
queencoop

Con

"never said it was false, but a Bible quote plays 0 in determining law."
- Neither do opinions and the only thing you have provided so far are opinions. Facts are the only evidence accepted in law.

"If it is only given with indisputable evidence, why are people innocent of crimes being executed?"
-Because they are not, convictions are based off facts. They don't say "well this probably is our guy so we will just kill him". Give evidence that innocent people many have been killed recently.

"The last words of one criminal were "How is this for your headline: french fries. Showing a very cocky attitude."

A. How the hell does this help your case? What about the innocent people?
- It proves that it is not mostly innocent people being executed, that more often it is people like that same cocky guy who is incapable of remorse.

"B. You never answered my question. What purpose does the death penalty serve other than sometimes killing innocent people of a crime and satsfy some families the nice warm fuzzy feelings of retribution?"
-It kills guilty people, carries out punishment for crimes, it shows the world that dangerous criminals will not be privileged,
gives the families peace of mind, and removes dangerous criminals from threatening more lives.

"Each year, it costs $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 PER DEATH SENTENCE, while a life in prison for 40 years costs roughly $1,000,000-$1,300,000 http://okcadp.org...;
-It must be considered that you kill them once and it is over, giving someone a life sentance makes up pay that amount for years to come.

Since you keep mentioning the innocently convicted:

"There is no way to tell how many of the more than 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent."
Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

-I would like to not that since 1976 only approximately 1000 people have received the death penalty. If they are innocent it really can't be proven. May I ask where is the undeniable evidence you speak of? The evidence of many innocent people being killed.... There is not any because you can't for sure prove if anyone has been wrongly accused.
Debate Round No. 3
SocialDemocrat

Pro

"Neither do opinions and the only things you have provided so far are opinions. Facts are the only evidence accepted in law."

A. What about those facts I stated about innocent people getting killed, and the death penalty being a lot more expensive than prison sentences, and you not stating anything except families get warm fuzzy feelings from retribution. I guess mine don't count, I guess?

"Because they are not."

A. Yes they are, I showed you a study, do you have any counter studies?

'Give evidence that innocent people many have been killed recently."

A. As of now, this is impossible, the study I presented was the only modern one done, and it was sprinkled over a long period of time. Distributed.

B. You also have to keep in mind, since over this period many people were falsely executed, there is an almost guarantee to be more that have not been found out yet.

"It proves that it is not mostly innocent people being executed, that more often it is people like that same cocky guy who is incapable of remorse."

A. I have to say, to my awareness you have no actual grounds to say he was incapable of remorse.

B. So what if it is usually not innocent people, it still is sometimes, that still counts.... completely.

"It kills guilty people."

A. Sometimes the people were not guilty.

B. How exactly is them being killed an advantage?

"carries out punishment for crimes."

A. Life in a cell is fairly punishing.

B. How exactly is this super important? Cost is important for obvious reasons, and innocent people being killed undermines the entire purpose.

"...it shows the world that dangerous criminals will not be privileges.

A. Ah the old death penalty is a deterrent to crime argument, I'll cover why this is wrong soon.

"...give the families peace of mind."

A. Do you have any solid evidence for making this claim?

B. How does this undermine innocent people's lives and tax revenue.

"... removes dangerous criminals from threatening more lives."

A. Ever heard of life sentences? I have, all the death penalty is is a replacement for some of those. Life sentences exist, and without the death penalty, more of those take its place. But then, after however long, the people that did not commit the crime could be released with their lives.

Okay, now the old deterrent to crime argument... the death penalty fails as a deterrent to crime, and I will explain why.

A study that surveyed some top criminologists in The American Society of Criminology, Winner's of the ASC Sutherland Award the highest reward for criminology in The American Society of Criminology, and presidents of the ASC since 1997.
Ready... 88% said the death penalty was not an effective deterrent to crime, 88%. So the professionals almost unanimously agree... the death penalty does not work for deterring crime. Also, even more, 94% believe that the death penalty has little or no empirical evidence to support it as a deterrent. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

There is more evidence to support it being not an effective deterrent, and I could give it at the request of con in the comments, but as of now, we understand, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.

"It must be considered that you kill them once and it is over, giving someone a life sentence makes up that pay amount for years to come."

A. No, no, no you are lying. I said, about $1,000,000 for 40 YEARS, the average life sentence. Some life sentences are more and therefore slightly more expensive yes, but some are also less. So an average life sentence costs 50% to as low as only 20% of a death penalty.

B. Do not forget, you also have to pay for room and food for the time the person being executed is on death row beforehand, so you will have to pay the price of prison until the finale execution price, combines with trials and appeals, and it is cheaper to put the person being executed in prison for their life every time. This is a fact.

"I would like to not that since only approximately 1,000 people have received the death penalty. If they are innocent that can't be proven."

A. Okay, nothing can really be 100% proven. That includes some ones guilt, where the burden of proof really lies, this is a logical fallacy.

B. We know as well as we can, that at least 4.1% of the people that have received the death penalty since 1976 were wrongly given the death penalty.

"May I ask where is the undeniable evidence you speak of? the evidence of many innocent people being killed... There is not any because you can't for sure prove is anyone has been wrongly accused."

A. Again the same logical fallacy, nothing can ever be 100% proven, even with a confession, maybe the confession was just a moral obligation, or political tactic, or maybe they were blackmailed, hey you don't know. This doesn't mean that nothing counts just because of this.

B. A study of top statisticians from Michigan and Pennsylvania, that is it. I will not explain it to you since I am not in that category, however, you could read their study for yourself too if you want. There is my evidence.

C. However, undeniable may be the wrong term, undeniable in the sense that, this is the best evidence we have on this.
http://www.pnas.org... Keep in mind always some of the innocent people were exonerated before death, some were found innocent after death, it is split.
queencoop

Con

I would like to point out that you are EXTREMELY rude. All you have done is repeat yourself. YOU HAVE YET TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCE OF INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING KILLED. A life sentence puts people in prison in danger. The prison workers and inmates. If you would do some reaserch people in prison can actually get killed by other people in the prison. Would you imagine that. Please do prove how I am lying in anyway. Your argument is 70% based on "the innocent people" being killed. You have yet to provide ANY evidence what so ever that innocent people have been killed.

The basics may cost more. However sometimes the price is worth to pay when defending the name of justice. May I also say that I did know the man was incapable of remorse because that was part of his criminal profile.

Let me show you one quote that completely disproves half your argument:

"Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976..."

Furthermore here a little good read for you to show it does effectively reduce crime:

"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?""

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com...

Thank you for your time, it was an honor to debate with you
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FieryNyan 8 months ago
FieryNyan
SocialDemocrat, I'd love to have a rematch with you regarding this topic :) Invite me if you're up for it.
Posted by queencoop 8 months ago
queencoop
I apologize I should have right speech and not name call. Please try to learn about the true way of Buddhism.
Posted by queencoop 8 months ago
queencoop
Please tell me you are kidding. You cannot seriously think that....omg. Do some research and stop making yourself sound stupid.
Posted by SocialDemocrat 8 months ago
SocialDemocrat
Polytheistic is any religion where there is multiple gods.

Bhuddism is polytheistic because in different sects they worship different Gods.
Posted by queencoop 8 months ago
queencoop
Are you aware of what polytheistic means
Posted by queencoop 8 months ago
queencoop
Buddah NEVER TAUGHT HOW TO FIND GOD. He taught how to find inner peace
Posted by queencoop 8 months ago
queencoop
No offense but: ARE YOU AN IDIOT....really. Buddhism definitely is not polytheistic. Do you know what you say half the time.
Posted by SocialDemocrat 8 months ago
SocialDemocrat
Buddhism is polytheistic.

Buddha taught about how to find God, in the religion, without Buddha God could never be found and therefore worshiped.
Posted by queencoop 8 months ago
queencoop
NO true Buddhist worships Buddah. He is a TEACHER
Posted by queencoop 8 months ago
queencoop
You must know nothing about buddhism
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
SocialDemocratqueencoopTied
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