The Instigator
mc9
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Bob13
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The death penalty should be an option for criminal punishment

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 834 times Debate No: 84769
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

mc9

Con

This debate is for Hayd and Rosalie's beginner tourney

I will be arguing that the death penalty should never be used for criminal punishment.

No kritiks, no semantics, no trolling and no definition wars.

First round is acceptance

Good luck and have fun😀
Bob13

Pro

Since you did not mention it, I am assuming that the burden of proof is shared. I will also assume that we will follow a round structure of:

1. Acceptance

2. Arguments/Rebuttals

3. Rebuttals

4. Conclusions ("I won this debate because...")-No new arguments.

I accept the challenge.

Thanks to Hayd and Rosalie for hosting the tournament and thanks to mc9 for challenging me.
Debate Round No. 1
mc9

Con

Thank you for that Bob and I hope we have an excellent debate.

1) My first contention is that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, as shown in the graph of (1)

Year

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Murder Rate in Death Penalty States*

9.94

9.51

9.69

9.23

8.59

7.72

7.09

6.51

5.86

5.70

5.82

5.82

5.91

5.71

5.87

5.90

5.83

5.72

5.26

5.00

4.89

4.95

4.72

Murder Rate in
Non-death
Penalty States

9.27

8.63

8.81

7.88

6.78

5.37

5.00

4.61

4.59

4.25

4.25

4.27

4.10

4.02

4.03

4.22

4.10

4.05

3.90

4.01

4.13

4.09

3.88

Percent
Difference

7%

10%

10%

17%

27%

44%

42%

41%

28%

35%

37%

36%

44%

42%

46%

40%

42%

41%

35%

25%

18%

21%

22%

Sorry it may not be complete as this is on word but through the power of excel I have found that the average murder rate over this time span was 5.14087 in states without the death penalty and that of the ones with it had an average of 6.575652. These statistics are per 100,000 people.

I believe I have sufficiently shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder.

2) It is Hypocritical

How does punishing a murder with the death penalty make us any better than the murderer?

3) The Death penalty is more costly than a life sentence

As you can see the death penalty simply costs more than life in prison (2) as seen in many states such as Kansas where it costs 70% more, in Tennessee where it costs 48% more, Maryland where it costs 3 times more and California where it costs roughly 12 times more.

4) Innocent people get convicted and they can’t be let out once it is found that they are innocent.

About 10,000 people get convicted of serious crimes per year (4)

Sources (1) "Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...;.

(2) "Death Penalty Cost." Amnesty International USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.amnestyusa.org...;.

(3) N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://researchnews.osu.edu...;.

Bob13

Pro

This is the argument/rebuttal round, so I will present my own arguments and then refute Con's.

Arguments

The death penalty prevents murderers from murdering again.


Murderers who are released from prison often go on to murder again. In a study of 405,000 prisoners released in 2005, 77% were arrested again for a new crime within 3 years, including 71% of violent offenders such as murderers. [1] Based on these statistics, releasing a murderer will only cause more death. There are two ways to prevent this from happening: life in prison, or an execution. My next argument will explain why the latter is more effective.


The death penalty is more effective than a life sentence.


First of all, a life sentence increases a prisoner's chance of escape. When you have a lifetime to plan your escape, it will likely be well thought out and more likely to be successful than an escape from death row. A person waiting on death row usually waits 15 years before execution [2], but using less expensive and faster methods of execution such as hanging can reduce this number greatly and further decrease the chance of escape.


Second, a life sentence is much like an execution, but the death is delayed. Criminals facing a life sentence will eventually die in prison, so an execution will will do the same thing, but with less time for a prisoner to escape.


Rebuttals


The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.


Based on the chart you provided, you can see that murder rates have decreased in all states, and that the rate of decrease is approximately the same in states with the death penalty and states without it. The decrease is likely caused by life in prison and executions both acting as deterrents, but as I explained earlier, the death penalty is more effective than a life sentence for reasons other than deterrence.


It is hypocritical.


Here you ask a question, so I will answer it. Punishing a murderer with death does not exactly make us any better, but it makes our actions better than the murderer's actions because we are killing to protect people while the murderer is killing for the opposite reason.


The death penalty is more costly than a life sentence.


This is only for lethal injections. As I said before, hanging would be a much less expensive alternative.


Innocent people get convicted.


Your entire argument here is a single fact which does not even relate to innocent people. Extend it.



Debate Round No. 2
mc9

Con

mc9 forfeited this round.
Bob13

Pro

The next round is conclusions.
Debate Round No. 3
mc9

Con

I have won as Bob13 has not proven that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, he has not refuted the statistics and they state that the death penalty is just inneffective.
Bob13

Pro

Con has forfeited the rebuttal round and has not even attempted to refute any one of my arguments in the conclusion round. He only states that I was unsuccessful without proving it. My points still stand as he has not made a rebuttal.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 1 year ago
RyuuKyuzo
Looks like my vote is the one that'll decide the winner.

Unfortunately for Con, he ff'd the only round he could've posted counter arguments/ defence for his own arguments. This means he effectively dropped all of Pro's arguments. While Pro's counter-arguments weren't as compelling as they could've been, because Con never countered them, I can't side against them without injecting my own arguments into the debate. As such, I have no choice but to give Pro the win.

Congrats, Pro. You win the debate.
Posted by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
Because nobody voted on this, I will chose someone to vote in the comment section. Whoever wins by this one vote, goes through round 2.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Objectivity// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments), 2 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con used better sources that were more descriptive but Pro impacted his evidence and claims and didn't drop a round so conduct and arguments go to him

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to directly address specific arguments made in the debate and not merely state nebulous reasons why they're better. (2) More explanation is needed for sources. Merely saying that one side's sources are "more descriptive" is not enough of a justification.
************************************************************************
Posted by logical-master123 1 year ago
logical-master123
... again?
Posted by mc9 1 year ago
mc9
Ok there Imthought we were short on time but this would be useful for me too.
Posted by Bob13 1 year ago
Bob13
I will accept this if you change the time for posting an argument to 72 hours.
No votes have been placed for this debate.