The Instigator
silntwaves
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The death penalty should be illegal in the united states.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,075 times Debate No: 9847
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

silntwaves

Pro

My third debate. I retired from debating from a while..sat back and watched some debates (writers debate..vegetarian lunches..ect.) and am now ready to get back in the ring. Ill start off with some definitions.

Death:: the permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism

Penalty:: the disadvantage or painful consequences of an action or condition

Death Penalty:: execution: putting a condemned person to death

Condemned:: express strong disapproval of

The death penalty is a cruel punishment. It is believed to be vulgar, and not to be used. This penalty prevents any kind of rehabilitation, and denies human rights. I would imagine you would think, well what about the murderers? The rapists? This does not mean 2 wrongs make a right. There are other ways of punishing these criminals that doesn't include killing them.

http://findarticles.com...

"This long-standing debate heated up last month when New York state became the 38th state since 1976 to impose the death penalty. For 12 years, New York state legislatures had passed death penalty bills, only to see them vetoed (turned down) by Governor Mario Cuomo. But last November 8, Democrat Cuomo was defeated by Republican George Pataki. Pataki, a supporter of the death penalty, signed a death penalty bill into law on March 7."

Do we know why George Pataki decided to actually signed the death penalty bill? People believe that the death penalty creates a better justice system and keeps the harm "Off The Streets." "There is no question in my mind that [the death penalty law] will [help stop crime]" quoted George Pataki. This is a step backward and solves nothing. It is murdering people who may have deserved it, but in the long run didn't. We have no rights to take away a life.

"Since 1976, 77 persons have been released from death row because they were not guilty of the crime for which they had been condemned to death"

http://www.youdebate.com...

Yet another reason the death penalty is wrong. When will we learn? These people could have been on death row for a number of years. This is a breach in our justice system that needs to be/can be fixed.

Reasons::

-The United States is the only Western industrialized nation that practices the death penalty, and is by far the nation with the largest death row roster in the world.
( ngry murder's, and who cares? most murders go around killing people and end up killing theirselves afterward. this is where I mentioned REHABILITATION. )

-What would it accomplish to put someone on death row?
(the feeling of accomplishment and being able to say..Haha! your dead! we don't have to worry about her anymore! [you know people are still going to commit crimes, and may make these "so called murderers angrier])

-A since of failer sinks in, because this penalty is used at a last resort.

-Fear of Death Does not Reduce Crime.

And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.' !!!!!!!!!!!

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Uh oh. congress broke a commandment. You murder people everyday. Death Penalty :PP
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro, for starting this debate.

Here are my opponent's arguments:

1. Putting someone on death row wouldn't accomplish anything.
2. Fear of death does not reduce crime.
3. God said that we shouldn't kill.
4. Some people are wrongly convicted.

Pro, if you had any other substantial points, please point them out. The rest of what you wrote just looked like filler.

--------- Rebuttal ---------

I'll begin by pointing out that what the "Lord" said should be completely irrelevant to this debate. Since we do not live in a theocracy, the laws of the U.S. Constitution should prevail: there is a mandatory separation between Church and State. This completely negates my opponent's third point. That said, I'll concede to the second point that the death penalty not deterring crime. However, that is not the reason that the death penalty is in place. One argument in favor of the death penalty is that people who intentionally and maliciously deprive another of their right to life open themselves up in justice to any proportional punishment. In other words, the answer to your first point is that the death penalty "accomplishes" justice.

Regarding your last point, while it's true that some people are wrongly convicted, I'd argue that this is irrelevant as the death penalty should only be utilized in situations where there is a plethora of empirical evidence demonstrating with almost certainty that the defendant is guilty. Since we now have advanced technology and DNA testing in addition to a whole bunch of other crime scene investigation resources, we can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. In the cases where we can, the death penalty should be an option. Remember that this punishment can be reserved for special cases only, or perhaps not even implemented at all (if a judge or jury rules against it). However, keeping it legal means that it will remain viable option; one that I don't think is necessarily wrong.

Now that I've dismantled your arguments, I'll provide a few contentions in favor of the Con position. First, utilizing the death penalty can provide a source of comfort or closure to a victim's family. Now I'm not saying that the justice system should be about revenge; however, eliminating the death penalty as an option is seemingly showing more sympathy for the killer than it is for the victim or their families. Moreover, while the death penalty may not work as a deterrent outside of prison walls, it very well serves as a deterrent for prisoners already serving a sentence (usually a life sentence) in jail. And finally, with the death penalty being an option for punishment in a particular law case, it can serve as a useful tool that gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. Many times the killers even confess (shortening the process and saving people a lot of work, time, grief and money) simply because they're scared of potentially receiving the death penalty.

With that said, I'll send the debate back over to my opponent for now.
Debate Round No. 1
silntwaves

Pro

Let the race continue.

"I'll begin by pointing out that what the "Lord" said should be completely irrelevant to this debate. Since we do not live in a theocracy, the laws of the U.S. Constitution should prevail: there is a mandatory separation between Church and State."

My opponent has avoided the question because she has no answer. There will be some instances where situations come up that are "irrelevant to this debate."

"One argument in favor of the death penalty is that people who intentionally and maliciously deprive another of their right to life open themselves up in justice to any proportional punishment. In other words, the answer to your first point is that the death penalty "accomplishes" justice."

Yes and yet another question avoided. What gives us the right to kill anyone? What/who does it benefit when we kill people because they break the law?

"Since we now have advanced technology and DNA testing in addition to a whole bunch of other crime scene investigation resources, we can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. In the cases where we can, the death penalty should be an option."

This doesn't mean that over half or a "good" amount of people are not wrongly convicted. If our technology is so advanced, then why are these people still being told "they did it" when they didn't? I'm not asking for 100% of the people in jail to be guilty. I'm saying that when some of these people are getting the death penalty and they know they didn't do it.....its a problem. How would you feel if you were put in that Electric Chair? Your friend? I understand where you come from, justice needs to be delivered, but if even if that present you receive looks good on the outside, it really wont matter when that time bomb inside goes off.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-First, utilizing the death penalty can provide a source of comfort or closure to a victim's family.
You stated that eliminating the death penalty as an option is seemingly showing more sympathy for the killer than it is for the victim or their families. Death isn't like a concert (a good thing) Either way the "killer" is going to suffer, whether it be sentencing them to life in jail, or just 4 years. How is this not benefiting the family? The killer is getter punished and that all that should matter. What more Do you suggest?
You also said the death penalty wasn't about revenge. (justice system) How do the families feel about this one? can you provide a source a story?

Now I didn't say the justice system is about revenge, (kinda off subject don't you think? this is about the death penalty. told you it would come around. :)

"bargaining chip in the plea bargain process" explain please.

Many times the killers even confess (shortening the process and saving people a lot of work, time, grief and money) simply because they're scared of potentially receiving the death penalty.
But what about the awsome justice system? (off subject.) If the system is so great, why do we even need this?

"In other words, the answer to your first point is that the death penalty "accomplishes" justice."

Explain how.

Onward :]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For my (new) first contention, The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process. You mentioned that the parents of the one who was killed ("") would suffer. Now I point out that the victim that is receiving the death penalty has a family. His or her family still know that it may be so that they committed a crime. But does congress consider the other side?

Second contention: 2 wrongs don't make a right, To kill because someone killed is not right.
You may have attempted to address this, but failed to provide an accurate response. Answer this, how is killing someone because they killed justice?

Third contention: Death is actually a better punishment than they deserve.
Depending the way it is set up, death is/can be a painfulness punishment. If your just dying, you get away from the brutal punishment you really deserve. Isn't that what you want? You and your families?

In conclusion, the death penalty isn't helping, its just showing what we as America have come down to. We haven't learned yet that "and eye for an eye" is wrong. Teachers always tell us if we are hit, don't hit them back? Same goes for the killing, just at a more extreme level.

Hoping for a good debate, man this took me so long to write.
:]
Danielle

Con

1. My opponent begins by saying that I "don't have an answer" regarding the Lord's commandments. That is an absurd and ridiculous assertion; the reality is that SHE doesn't have an answer to MY point, which maintains that a Separation between Church and States exists as it pertains to the laws of the United States of America. As such, what the "Lord" says is completely irrelevant to this debate.

2. Next Pro again makes a wrongful assumption in saying that I have "avoided" her question of what gives us the right to kill anyone. Well, as I already stated, people who intentionally and maliciously deprive another of their right to life open themselves up in justice to any proportional punishment. The answer is that the death penalty "accomplishes justice." We have a social contract to the society in which we live; if we don't obey the law, we are punished. Punishment should vary depending on the crime, the intent, the proof and other individual circumstances. In cases where a jury of peers along with the prosecutor and other court officials deem appropriate, the death penalty should be a viable option to achieve justice on the same scale (or similar) to that of the crime committed. We have a "right" to implement the death penalty because of the social contract theory, and because of our responsibility to achieve justice and punish offenders as well as uphold the laws.

3. Pro next states that "half or a good amount of people are wrongly convicted." Those who are wrongly sentenced to death should be the only ones relevant to this discussion, and moreover, I'd like to see proof and statistics backing up that claim before addressing it. Also, later on in this debate I will explain how those wrongly convicted are few and far between, and have an abundant amount of time before the actual death to appeal their case.

4. Pro's next argument is that if I or a loved one were wrongly convicted, I would be upset. This is true; however, the reality is that only a handful of people actually die from the death penalty each year. There are A LOT more murders and homicides committed than the number of actual people who make it to the end of death row. In this case, we have to implement the philosophy that we should choose the approach which achieves the maximum amount of justice, even at the sacrifice of a few (Utilitarianism). Plus, as I said, with technology and other advances, our likelihood of killing an innocent person is far less than in the past. Moreover, prisoners on death row typically have to wait over *20 years* before they die... Plenty of time to overturn a wrong conviction or appeal time and again [1].

5. Moving on to a rebuttal of my arguments, Pro said that the killer was going to be punished either way (via life in prison) so implementing the death penalty was unnecessary. Obviously what's important to consider here is the nature of the crime and the morality behind the punishment. Culpae poenae par esto -- Latin for "Let the punishment fit the crime." If one takes another's life and robs them of all capacity to feel emotion, to think thoughts, to experience life in general, etc., then it's fair to punish the offender in the same way and rob him of the same right to life that he or she imposed upon another.

6. Finally regarding my points, Pro says that she doesn't understand my point about the plea bargain process... then she goes on to combat it, so I'm not really sure where she stands. Either way, my point was that it can be a key tool essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. Many times the killers even confess because they're scared of potentially receiving the death penalty. Pro asks, "What about the awesome justice system?" Like I said, this shortens the process and saves a lot of work, time, grief and money... didn't I explain that?

7. Pro then introduces a new argument, claiming that the killer's family would have to see their loved one condemned to death. That is truly unfortunate for the killer's family; however, the death penalty is not only about satisfying people's families, but about achieving justice and being responsible to society. Also, let me point out that the killer's family would be upset to see their relative being put in jail for life as well. Sure, they would be able to visit that person, but again why should they and the killer have that luxury when the deceased and their family do not? This is about the rights and privileges about the one who's left alive. The killer should not receive better or superior treatment than the victim (even though they usually do, because the DP isn't implemented in a cruel way). The victim did not choose an action that lead to their demise, while the killer did (with intent, and carried it out maliciously). This is about responsibility.

8. Regarding "two wrongs don't make a right," that is a silly argument as it would condemn the punishment of all criminals. Putting someone in jail isn't "right" either, and yet we do it as a way to keep citizens safe, and uphold/enforce the law. As I've said many times, justice is achieved because it's bestowing the same action upon the offender as the crime which he or she has committed. This isn't true of all crimes because typically the crimes do not commit the ultimate injustice: depriving another of their right to life. If a malicious person wishes to do this, he or she must accept the consequences of the same action (or at least one with a similar result).

9. The last argument from Pro claims that the killers can suffer more (thus achieving justice better) while in prison. I negate. In prison, one can receive an education, play sports, read, or even have a job with wages (albeit small). Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that while in prison, these predators are still alive; they are still breathing, thinking, feeling and enjoying the what makes "life" while the deceased can not. Further, punishing crime isn't only about making the perpetrator suffer; it's about achieving justice by having a suitable punishment for the crime. That is the most fair thing to do for everyone: the victim, society and even the killer themselves.

[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Debate Round No. 2
silntwaves

Pro

This one should be fun :]

"My opponent begins by saying that I "don't have an answer" regarding the Lord's commandments. That is an absurd and ridiculous assertion; the reality is that SHE doesn't have an answer to MY point, which maintains that a Separation between Church and States exists as it pertains to the laws of the United States of America. As such, what the "Lord" says is completely irrelevant to this debate."
1. Okay. Now that we established it it "irrelevant" , I will move on.

"Next Pro again makes a wrongful assumption in saying that I have "avoided" her question of what gives us the right to kill anyone. Well, as I already stated, people who intentionally and maliciously deprive another of their right to life open themselves up in justice to any proportional punishment. The answer is that the death penalty "accomplishes justice." We have a social contract to the society in which we live; if we don't obey the law, we are punished. Punishment should vary depending on the crime, the intent, the proof and other individual circumstances. In cases where a jury of peers along with the prosecutor and other court officials deem appropriate, the death penalty should be a viable option to achieve justice on the same scale (or similar) to that of the crime committed. We have a "right" to implement the death penalty because of the social contract theory, and because of our responsibility to achieve justice and punish offenders as well as uphold the laws."
2. Do you think that justice is better served by the death penalty? Do you think that we are "doing away" with the whole situation when the death penalty comes into play? How is this benefiting us?
Let me enlighten you on my perspective of this subject.

~What is the history of the death penalty?
The death penalty has been going on as long as the 18 century B.C., back when King Hammurabi confirmed it.
The first recorded execution in the English American colonies was in 1608 when officials executed George Kendall of Virginia for supposedly plotting to betray the British to the Spanish.

(source) http://www.pbs.org...

Don't you think its about time we start thinking of new ways to punish people? We are clearly above the ancient times of bathing in public places and eating with our hands.

"Pro next states that "half or a good amount of people are wrongly convicted." Those who are wrongly sentenced to death should be the only ones relevant to this discussion, and moreover, I'd like to see proof and statistics backing up that claim before addressing it. Also, later on in this debate I will explain how those wrongly convicted are few and far between, and have an abundant amount of time before the actual death to appeal their case."
3. Just because few people have been wrongly convicted, doesn't mean its not a problem. What about our "awesome justice system (I say again?"

Oh yeah. statistics.

"More than 7,000 people have been executed in the United States since 1900, according to research conducted by Radelet. The United States and Japan are the only industrialized countries that still apply the death penalty."

http://www.colorado.edu...

Number of U.S. executions Value
Year 1999 98
Year 2000 85
Year 2001 66
Year 2002 71
Average per year since 1976 29
Total executions since 1976 820

http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Since 1977, over 1,100 people have been executed in the U.S.; there are currently around 3,300 men and women on death row across the country. Grassroots activists throughout the USA play an essential role in advocating against this human rights violation through monitoring cases, mobilizing around upcoming events, and lobbying for anti-death penalty legislation.

http://www.amnestyusa.org...

"Pros next argument is that if I or a loved one were wrongly convicted, I would be upset. This is true; however, the reality is that only a handful of people actually die from the death penalty each year. There are A LOT more murders and homicides committed than the number of actual people who make it to the end of death row. In this case, we have to implement the philosophy that we should choose the approach which achieves the maximum amount of justice, even at the sacrifice of a few (Utilitarianism). Plus, as I said, with technology and other advances, our likelihood of killing an innocent person is far less than in the past. Moreover, prisoners on death row typically have to wait over *20 years* before they die... Plenty of time to overturn a wrong conviction or appeal time and again"
4. Statistics at the top. Repeat. Over turn? once the wrong being has been done its done. there's no turning back, and theirs going to be a consequence. What makes it right for a person to have to wait 20 years to be sentenced to death?

"Moving on to a rebuttal of my arguments, Pro said that the killer was going to be punished either way (via life in prison) so implementing the death penalty was unnecessary. Obviously what's important to consider here is the nature of the crime and the morality behind the punishment. Culpae poenae par esto -- Latin for "Let the punishment fit the crime." If one takes another's life and robs them of all capacity to feel emotion, to think thoughts, to experience life in general, etc., then it's fair to punish the offender in the same way and rob him of the same right to life that he or she imposed upon another."
5.But taking another life....what makes this right? can you prove this? an eye for an eye..that was back in the constitution.

6. No, you didn't explain enough to where "people" could understand. If our system is so well put together, we wouldn't need this alternative to our process.

7. How does a mother/father having there daughter/son killed satisfying and achieving justice? And jail for life is not as nearly as painful for a family as the death penalty. statistics as to how it is on the opposite side? put the thought into your own hands. you would rather have the family member killed than put in jail for life? the only reason I could see that is to end the suffering.

8.No, there's a difference between a consequence and just morally wrong. Just because someone slaps you doesn't give you the right to slap them back, because it all ends up in a brawl and no one really wins, we just judge that by who looks less bloody, or whoever the one is who didn't burst into tears. and in the end we still have the "consequence behind it"

9. You don't watch tv do you. ohh so much fun is this. :]
here is from (source)
http://www.vancouversun.com...

The cell was cold and he was only given one blanket and no pillow, she said. He had to share the only nail-clippers with inmates who are HIV-positive, McEwan heard.

He had no clean sheet or clothing for the first month he was in jail after he was arrested and charged with first-degree murder in connection with the October 2007 gangland slaughter known as the Surrey Six slayings.

Eldred admitted Bacon's initial few weeks in jail were the worst, but that things are slightly better now after he was moved to a medical isolation unit within the Surrey jail.

There is access to a light switch, radio, electrical outlet and some small appliances in the common area to which he gets access One Hour A Day.

But Eldred said the microwave and television have been smashed more than once by mentally ill inmates housed in the same unit.

One of those inmates, who has since been moved, would scream all day that "the guards were going to harvest his internal organs."

Eldred said her client got an expert to view the facilities at Surrey pre-trial, including the filthy cell in which he was held last spring.
Danielle

Con

1. Pro concedes that the Lord is irrelevant in this debate.

2. Pro says that we are "above" the death penalty simply because it was used in ancient times as a form of punishment as well. That is a fallacious argument; this debate isn't about finding a modern punishment but rather which option best achieves justice. My opponent asked if I think that justice is better served by implementing the death penalty and my answer is yes. She then asks if it helps to "do away" with the whole situation. Uh, what? Nothing will "do away" with the whole situation (assuming the situation is murder). As I said, I'm not using the death penalty being a deterrent as an argument for my case.

3. Moving on, I asked for statistics regarding the number of people that were wrongfully put to death. Pro merely provided statistics detailing the number of people who died by the hand of the death penalty, which is irrelevant. Moreover, I already included my input regarding those who were wrongly convicted, but I'll repeat it:

4. As I said in the last round (which my opponent ignored), the continuation of point 3 noted in point 4 is as follows -- Only a handful of people actually die from the death penalty each year. There are A LOT more murders and homicides committed than the number of actual people who make it to the end of death row. In this case, we have to implement the philosophy that we should choose the approach which achieves the maximum amount of justice, even at the sacrifice of a few (Utilitarianism). Plus, as I said, with technology and other advances, our likelihood of killing an innocent person is far less than in the past. I also said that one had about 20 years to overturn a wrong conviction because it takes that long for the person to actually be put to death. Pro said that you can't overturn the conviction once someone is already dead... but like I said, they have over 20 years to get it right.

Plus, Pro asks, "What makes it right for a person to have to wait 20 years to be sentenced to death?" This is a complete contradiction from her stance in this debate. On one hand, she's saying that the death penalty shouldn't exist and instead that prison alternatives should be implemented. Meanwhile, she's complaining about the killer spending time in prison instead of immediately being put to death. This also seems to conflict with the fact that a person has time to appeal a wrong conviction by spending time in prison first, instead of just being killed and then people finding out they made the wrong decision too late.

5. Pro then asks what makes taking a life the right decision. Ladies and gentlemen, all Pro is doing is copying and pasting chunks of what I wrote, and then providing a completely retarded one sentence rebuttal or asking a one sentence question at the end of it. I have given so many reasons throughout this debate of why I feel that the death penalty is "right" in the sense that it establishes justice. Since Pro merely copies and pasted all of my arguments instead of actually debating them, she should have no trouble scrolling back and reading the plethora of reasons I have provided for my reasoning. Furthermore, the "eye for an eye" concept was NOT detailed in the Constitution; it was mentioned the Bible.

6. Regarding my point about plea bargaining, Pro insists that if our system was better put together, then this wouldn't be an issue. The reality, however, is that our system isn't so well put together and the parameters of the current system are what we have to work with. Moreover, I maintain that even if the system was more efficient, it would still be a useful tool in terms of plea bargaining to save a lot of work, time, grief, money, etc.

7. I'm beginning to think that Pro needs some reading comprehension levels. Nowhere did I say that it was preferable see a family member be condemned to death instead of receiving life in prison, and that was exactly my point. Like I said in the last round, why should they and the killer and their families have the luxury of still seeing their loved ones when the deceased and their family do not? This is about the rights and privileges about the one who's left alive. The killer should not receive better or superior treatment than the victim. The victim did not choose an action that lead to their demise, while the killer did (with intent, and carried it out maliciously). This is about responsibility. I would appreciate it if Pro actually read and understood my arguments so we both didn't have to keep copy and pasting them.

8. Once again, Pro proves to be incompetent. She provides an example of someone slapping someone and then saying that the penalty shouldn't be that the original offender gets slapped back, because then it just turns into a brawl. Well as I said regarding the same punishment being given IN THE LAST ROUND (again I have to copy and paste to deal with Pro not reading what I said in the first place), we shouldn't bestow the same punishment as the crime in all cases because typically the crimes do not commit the ultimate injustice: depriving another of their right to life. If a malicious person wishes to do this, he or she must accept the consequences of the same action (or at least one with a similar result) since life is the ultimate value.

9. Next, ironically enough, despite Pro's lack of comprehension or ability to put forth a decent argument, she proceeds to insult my intelligence by saying that I don't watch a lot of TV. She's mistaken. While she's watching the Jonas Brothers accomplish nothing on the Disney Channel, I watch a lot of CNN, BBC and CSPAN. I presume to know a lot more about the law and politics than my opponent, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that I really don't care whether or not Eldred (the man from Pro's link) is having a hard time in jail because he's bored and uncomfortable. That's what you get for killing people and taking their lives. Depriving another of their right to life is the ultimate crime and injustice. As such, it deserves the most ultimate punishment.

Back to Pro for now.
Debate Round No. 3
silntwaves

Pro

2. According to http://www.mocadsv.org... , justice is defined as this: "Justice is generally understood to mean what is right, fair, appropriate, deserved.
(My opponent asked if I think that justice is better served by implementing the death penalty and my answer is yes.) So she is saying that what is right, fair, appropriate, and deserved is superior to use by carrying out the execution to test its functionality. Execution needs to be carried out to confirm what is right, fair, appropriate, and deserved.
(what implementing means, http://www.english-test.net...)
This is not true. The death penalty is not yet a permanent solution, and has obviously had some "issues". Here are a few.

1. Most of our allies in the war on terror have abolished the death penalty and believe it to be a human rights violation.

2.Many countries refuse to cooperate with extraditing suspected terrorists to the United States for prosecution until they receive assurances that the U.S. will not seek the death penalty

3.Finally, serious racial and geographic disparities have been identified with the federal death penalty and these problems have not been addressed.

http://www.talkleft.com...

3.In a small random DNA sampling, University of Michigan Professor Samuel Gross found that, of Death Row cases, 2.5% to 5% are wrongfully convicted but it could be as high as 9%
http://www.amfor.net...

4."Only a handful of people actually die from the death penalty each year."
*cough* look back at the top. i place three sources in which there were severel people executed by the death penalty.
If you want to say this part of the debate is irrelevant, fine. Feel free to do so. But dont come back in the next round and tell me about it ;]
"There are A LOT more murders and homicides committed than the number of actual people who make it to the end of death row." We are now talking about 1. How many people have died from the death penalty 2. "statistics regarding the number of people that were wrongfully put to death." What you are saying about murder and homicides have absolutely nothing to do with these too added discussions, (stated::There are A LOT more murders and homicides committed than the number of actual people who make it to the end of death row [for you, darling just incase you thought i made it up.]) at which i will let you dwell on that and let you save it for a later debate.

Oh and 20 years to get it right? Can you answer a question correctly instead of ignoring mine? (i.e. the awesome justice system) 20 years. It wont matter because you are in jail, you have to pay for your consequences, and You Tell Me what you are gonna do to "get it right?!" The jail is a fabulous place to do that. And because of the current way of things, no matter what your doing in that jail cell, you get out of jail, whatever, life never again will be the same.

Moving right along into the danger zone.

5. You like how im doing mine now? im actually taking time righting it...and only copied and pasted a couple of sentences.
plethora-extreme excess; maximum, you have givin me 2 or 3 reasons why I was wrong, Not why you were right.

"Furthermore, the "eye for an eye" concept was NOT detailed in the Constitution; it was mentioned the Bible."
10 points.

6. Dare I ask::Do you think that the death penalty is bringing down the reason why the system isnt better put together? Do you thing (said) penalty should be stricter? (tell me if this is irrelevant.)

7. You did say that "eliminating the death penalty as an option is seemingly showing more sympathy for the killer than it is for the victim or their families."
So in some way you have to either pick a side of supporting the death of the killer or leaving them be. You can hang on the edge of the cliff forever. you either let go or pull yourself back up there.

8. we shouldn't bestow the same punishment as the crime in all cases because typically the crimes do not commit the ultimate injustice: depriving another of their right to life. You will find exactly where you quoted this. up at the top.

9. Thank you! I tingle at the words Jonas Brothers!! And true i love the disney channel. i am also not 20 and do not enjoy the news. :] "Depriving another of their right to life is the ultimate crime and injustice." Can you tell me how the death penalty is able to stear clear on this?
Danielle

Con

1. My opponent concedes the first argument.

2. Pro herself says, "My opponent asked if I think that justice is better served by implementing the death penalty and my answer is yes." This looks to me like Pro has conceded the 2nd point as well; the death penalty is the best way of achieving justice. She then continues to post random arguments about our allies in the so-called War on Terror and geographic disparities regarding the DP. These points are completely irrelevant.

3. Pro points out that over 95% of death penalty cases have made rightful convictions. That is more than non-death penalty convictions, which have over a 12% rate of being wrong [1]. Do we stop other processes of the justice system because they can be wrong 10 or more percent of the time? No, we press on knowing that we're aiming for the greater good. The same logic must be applied to the death penalty, because with increasing technology including DNA validation and updates, that figure of being 5 wrong in death penalty cases can, will and has decreased.

4. I said that only a handful of people die from the DP each yet. Pro then said that "several" people die each year... and then made a snide remark about me being wrong, when meanwhile, these approximate figures match up exactly Fail. Regarding waiting 20 years to be sentenced to death, I've already answered Pro's question. You cannot let a convicted murderer roam the streets free on the basis that the verdict might have been wrong. If that were the case, the entire justice system would fall apart for every crime. We have to trust our system and continuously improve it.

5. Pro concedes to my argument.

6. Yes, I think that's irrelevant. No, I don't think the DP has anything to do with the fail justice system.

7. Pro says, "So in some way you have to either pick a side of supporting the death of the killer or leaving them be." Yes. I say to "leave them be" would not only be immoral but dangerous to society.

8. Uh, Pro concedes?

9. Once again, killing a convicted felon achieves justice. Their right to life is only being infringed upon aftre that made a conscious and malicious decision to take the life of another.

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 4
silntwaves

Pro

1. Established and done.

2. Obviously you cant read. This is what I stated in defence:: This is not true. The death penalty is not yet a permanent solution, and has obviously had some "issues". Here are a few.

- Most of our allies in the war on terror have abolished the death penalty and believe it to be a human rights violation.

- Many countries refuse to cooperate with extraditing suspected terrorists to the United States for prosecution until they receive assurances that the U.S. will not seek the death penalty

- Finally, serious racial and geographic disparities have been identified with the federal death penalty and these problems have not been addressed.

So I am saying there has been debates on the death penalty and it is not yet permanent; thus it has problems. above I named a few. in defence to this, you are saying that what I said is "irrelevant" and refuse to come back with an argument that is defending that the death penalty is "the solution" to justice. Thank you.

3."Do we stop other processes of the justice system because they can be wrong 10 or more percent of the time?"
This is not what we are talking about, we are debating the resolution The death penalty should be illegal in the united states. Could you point out where I said 95%?? I stated that 2.5 to 5% are wrongfully convicted but could be as high as 9%. If indeed I said this in contention 4, could you keep a little bit more organized so the audience doesn't get confused.

I will state again, that even if the %ages have decreased, this does not mean that the problem goes away, or this is any less of a problem.

4. No, you didn't say a handful of people die from DP each yet? here is the whole paragraph I've copied and pasted for you from round 3. (second line first sentence)

(4.) As I said in the last round (which my opponent ignored), the continuation of point 3 noted in point 4 is as follows -- Only a handful of people actually die from the death penalty each year. There are A LOT more murders and homicides committed than the number of actual people who make it to the end of death row. In this case, we have to implement the philosophy that we should choose the approach which achieves the maximum amount of justice, even at the sacrifice of a few (Utilitarianism). Plus, as I said, with technology and other advances, our likelihood of killing an innocent person is far less than in the past. I also said that one had about 20 years to overturn a wrong conviction because it takes that long for the person to actually be put to death. Pro said that you can't overturn the conviction once someone is already dead... but like I said, they have over 20 years to get it right.

You also said "the figures add up to exact 'Fail.'
We established that the sources are irrelevant, because they are statistics about how many people have been executed by the death penalty, instead of how many have been wrongly convicted.
In round four I came up with a statistic that confirmed how many people have been wrongly convicted. (below)

"In a small random DNA sampling, University of Michigan Professor Samuel Gross found that, of Death Row cases, 2.5% to 5% are wrongfully convicted but it could be as high as 9%
http://www.amfor.net...;

Next time, keep your information organized, because while you are attacking arguments that have already been Resolved....they were also "yesterdays arguments" posted way back from round 3. You have already attacked and I have already resolved. Moving on.
Also, I am not saying that you should let a murderer or whoever roam the streets. (since we are now attacking arguments from round three, I will present my own.) In round three, contention 4, you stated You cannot let a convicted murderer roam the streets free on the basis that the verdict might have been wrong.
I never said that would solve anything. In the 3rd round you said that the victim had "20 years to get it right." In response, I said that in jail, the convict would have no opportunity to get it right because they are, in jail.

5. No, not the whole argument, took your advice and stopped copying and pasting.

6. Done away with contention six.

7. Even if you state to leave them be would be immortal and dangerous to society, you still avoided the question. I assume you support the death.

8. ......

9. When you deprive another of a life, it is the ultimate crime and injustice. I did not ask you if the death penalty achieves justice. I asked if you think that the death penalty is excluded from depriving another one of life and if it is the ultimate crime and injustice. (I implied)

Nice debate interesting. Learned a plethora :]. And for these reasons of this debate I would advise you to vote CON.
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by silntwaves 4 years ago
silntwaves
oh okay i thought you gave in or something..nice debate.
Posted by Lwerd 4 years ago
Lwerd
I'm not going to be able to post an argument because my account was banned.
Posted by TigerFB21 4 years ago
TigerFB21
I personally hate this topic
Posted by silntwaves 4 years ago
silntwaves
fine sorry :P
Posted by Clockwork 4 years ago
Clockwork
"You murder people everyday. Death Penalty :PP"

/facepalm
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
silntwavesDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by silntwaves 4 years ago
silntwaves
silntwavesDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 4 years ago
SaintNick
silntwavesDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07