The Instigator
bnumerous1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Le.Doctor
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The death penalty should be banned

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 1 vote the winner is...
Le.Doctor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 69883
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

bnumerous1

Pro

Hello, I'm Billy. I will be debating against the death penalty, the most extreme form of crime punishment. I will show you that the death penalty should and ought to be abolished. Here are 2 opening reasons to oppose capital punishment. (There will be 10 reasons total, 2 in each of the 5 rounds.)

1. The occasional mistake is more risky than it's worth. Let's say you accuse someone of murder, and the jury votes him as guilty and the state government executes him, but later you find out he's innocent. What would you say to his widow and children? Wouldn't they possibly end up suing the state? Executing the innocent is immorally evil and we cannot take this risk.

2. Racial and economic discrimination take part of execution. A 1980 study showed that those who killed whites are nearly 40 times likely to be executed than those who killed blacks, and it hasn't really improved these days. The poor are also more likely to be executed than the wealthy and prosperous. Black people are not only less likely to have their murderer punished, but is more prone to the death penalty. Of the 1,052 death row inmates on August 20, 1982, 42% of them were blacks, when 12% of the US population is blacks.
Le.Doctor

Con

Hello there Billy! My name is Rahmet, and I am arguing that the death penalty should NOT be banned. Furthermore, I will argue that the death penalty should be limited, and overseen a little more carefully, but not banned. Thank You for letting me accept this debate; I appreciate it.

First off, we must note that with the death penalty there is the death row. Death row is the place, often a section of a prison, that houses prisoners awaiting execution. After persons are found guilty of an offense and sentenced to death, they remain on death row during appeal and habeas corpus procedures, and if those are unsuccessful, until execution.

In order to be convicted of the death penalty, there are certain boundaries and crimes that must be committed before the idea of jail time or a fine is removed. Since I do not want to list all thirty to fifty crimes that are to be warranted by the death penalty, here is the site where I got my information: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . If you didn't know, the Supreme Court in 1976, heard the Gregg vs Georgia case, where they overruled their previous decision to ban the death penalty. Today, the death penalty is legal in 32 states, including major states like : Virginia, California, Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

My opponent states that: "The occasional mistake is more risky than it's worth." Although it is not impossible, the facts behind a person who should have been executed, or was on death row, when said person was innocent is 150. Since 1973, there have been approximately 150 people who have been exonerated from the death penalty because of new evidence, or whatever the case may be. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... .

In his second argument, my opponent states that " racial and economic discrimination take part of execution." Although, the statistics of many source and his own source would force me to agree with it. I would like to say that the racial and economic conditions of the defendant does not matter. It matters on the bias of the judge(if any), the jury(which will allows by there based on past experiences, culture, etc), and the media(because they stick their nose in everything and many times manipulate the facts). However, I have a statistic from 2000-2010, that states that a racially biased number of executions has not occurred; 317 (57.5%) people were white, 180 people (32.6%) were black, 45 (8.2%) people were Latino, 6 people (1.1%) were Native American, 1 person (.2%) was Asian, and two people were listed as "other." - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com....

However, one must also look at the number of death sentences through the year of 1976 to present year. To this day, with the exception of 2007, the number of death sentences has decreased substantially; but also the number of actual executions has also dropped, in the recent years.

Furthermore, I would like to state even with the amount of different barriers, the US Justice System has to defend those accused with the death penalty; there should be other barriers to prevent what my opponent states as innocent deaths by the state.

Thank You Billy for your time! I am looking froward to continuing this! :)
Debate Round No. 1
bnumerous1

Pro

Thanks for accepting my challenge. Now let's have some fun. I will not be posting 2 reasons every argument like I said last argument (change of plans, sorry). Nevertheless, good luck.

First of all, the death penalty does not necessarily deter crime rates. Universities have wanted to, but failed to show that capital punishment deters crime. The Southern US, where 80% of executions take place in America, has a higher crime rate than the North.

With the rise of lethal injections, there are more and more botched executions, leading to the victim feeling tortured before his or her death. In the United States, torturing to death is usually considered "cruel and unusual punishment", which is outlawed in the Eighth Amendment in out Constitution. Here's an example. In December 13, 2006, an execution in Florida was botched so badly that the Republican governor of Florida halted all executions in the state. What a dramatic change!
Le.Doctor

Con

My opponent states "The Death Penalty does not necessarily deter crime rates." I never stated that it did, however the principle of a crime being shown in public, usually gives other criminals at least the thought of the consequences. But if it actually lowers it than i am not sure. However, according to the Census of 2006, Texas, the state with the most amount of executions, has a smaller crime rate than others states that dont use the death penalty, either as much or at all. https://www.census.gov... The Site that is here, states that the state with the highest crime rate is South Carolina. And South Carolina has killed a total of 0 criminals in the last five years. Texas has killed a total of 73 criminals. If you scroll to the bottom of both of these sources, you will see that South Carolina has a higher crime rate compared to Texas' maybe because they dont use the death penalty. http://www.disastercenter.com... This is Texas' and http://www.disastercenter.com... this is South Carolina's. The data shows that Texas is actually quite lower on the list.

Now onto to the topic of botched lethal injections. This topic is very iffy, because knowing whether a criminal is "feeling" tortured is not always known. I would say that criminals would not hesitate to lie, in order to get out of the punishment; i would not doubt that, however, there are certainly cases where the criminal has felt pain and therefore the state broke that citizen's 8th Amendment of No Cruel or Unusual Punishments. BTW it is in the Bill of Rights; not the Constitution. For your example, i would like to have a source on that, but i am willingly to agree to that, if you agree to the fact that for every 100 or so executions there is maybe one if even so called "botched" execution. Every since 1900, there have been about 9,000 executions; the British Journal of American Legal Studies has found that every since 1900, there have been about 270 "botched" executions. That isn't a lot of supposed "botched" executions, and of course we have to count for the fact that some of them might be lie.

Overall, the idea of the death penalty not working or at least doing what it is supposed to do; kill those who have done very VERY horrendous deeds and deserve them, is not true. There is no reason on why the death penalty should not be banned. It does what it should do, although like anything else, there is room for improvement because as humans we have errors.
Thank you! Your Turn! :)
Debate Round No. 2
bnumerous1

Pro

bnumerous1 forfeited this round.
Le.Doctor

Con

So... not sure what to say, but as I was talking about earlier, if a person commits a deed so horrendous, what choice do we have but to punish them to the best of our ability? Should we let them sit in jail, eating food, laughing, enjoying their life, while their victim may be dead, paralyzed, in a coma. And how about the victim's family? Do they not get to mourn for their loved one? And do they not seek vengeance for their loved one? How would you feel if your brother was shot in cold blooded murder, or if your sister was raped, or if your father died in a house fire that was caused by an arsonist? Do those people who would do such horrendous acts, not deserve anything but what they did to others? According to Hammurabi's Law Code, it was said that he judged things by making everything equal; "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." This may seem harsh, and the defendant may not be in the right state of mind, but who is to say that it still isn't wrong? If i had a family member who was killed in such a way, i would guarantee you that I would push for my loved one to be remembered and given justice.

I would say that it is not fair to the family and friends of the deceased. But life is never fair, anyway; however this is our way of making it more fair.
Debate Round No. 3
bnumerous1

Pro

bnumerous1 forfeited this round.
Le.Doctor

Con

I am not sure what else to say, since my opponent has not yet said anything at all. I am still in favor of the death penalty, and I would enjoy any comments on this topic! Thank You.
Debate Round No. 4
bnumerous1

Pro

bnumerous1 forfeited this round.
Le.Doctor

Con

Le.Doctor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Monster_Neo 1 year ago
Monster_Neo
Hey,

Well I think that death penalty should be banned, the reason is because you see when people who actually have done something wrong and not even once in their life, but a lot. People like terrorists and gangsters etc. should be punished since they are taking others life. Also if you see this way that if those criminals won't get punished then more people will start doing those things. Death penalty is a something major I know. But if them people will not get punished then there will be more people doing the same thing.

I understand that people deserve a second chance, but if someone says that they wont repeat what they did in the past... do they really mean it?

another thing I would like to include here is that you see when criminals have just being told that they will NOT get a death penalty but will be in the prison for their lifetime, this is more dangerous since their friends or other members could take him out of the prison.

Death penalty is not just finishing the life of a criminal but it also is to scare other up coming criminals or terrorists, so they will not do such thing again.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
bnumerous1Le.DoctorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture