The Instigator
effy
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
InsertNameHere
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

The death penalty should be made illegal worldwide

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,229 times Debate No: 11259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

effy

Pro

I, am for the death penalty being totally abolished. I now give my opponent the opportunity to argue:
- Why the death penalty is necessary in ALL cases
- What possitive effects it has on society
- Where and why the death penalty is called for reasonably
- Why taking away a persons life is a fair punishment

I now hand the debate over to my opponent.
InsertNameHere

Con

Thank you Effy for setting this debate up. Keep in mind that I'll be taking on the role of Devil's Advocate for the duration of this debate. Good luck to the both of us!

My opponent stated that I should argue why the death penalty should be necessary in all cases. Criminals are a burden on society. Why lock them up only to later release them to have them commit the same crime again? Also, upon being tried and sentence a criminal is no longer a member of regular society so they shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of mainstream society. It's also safe to say that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an accurate mentality to have regarding crime. "You rob me, I'll rob you back!" Wouldn't YOU want to get revenge if somebody harmed somebody close to you?

More to come after my opponent posts her first argument. :)
Debate Round No. 1
effy

Pro

First of all I thank my opponent for taking on this debate. The role of Devils Advocate, I believe, will make this a healthy debate & help to improve argumental skills, so, good luck.

Now, I asked that my opponent stated WHY the death penalty is necessary in ALL cases.
"Criminals are a burden on society. Why lock them up to later release them to have them
commit the same crime again?"
Crime is a major issue in today's society, agreed. But, for minor crimes, rehabilitation is offered in the vast majority of cases. Whether the accused is jailed for their crimes or not, there are professionals who are there to help, to encourage the accused that a life of crime is not the way forward, that what they are doing/done is wrong, hence the legality.
In more serious cases, murder, rape, kidnapping etc. capital punishment should, in all cases, be looked at as an easy way out. Granted, if someone committed one of the following crimes upon a family member or close friend of mine, yes there would be a side of me that wanted them dead too. But, what would that gain? A lifetime behind bars seems the harsher punishment. Death, is an easy way out. Having to spend every last day of ones life confined to a cell for 23 hours of the day, everyday, having to live with their conscience knowing they will never play a role in society again
is surely a more effective punishment than taking ones life away.

My opponent claims that, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is an accurate mentality to have regarding crime. I strongly oppose. The difference between punishment and the crime is that one is legalised and the other is not. So, in regards, that would make the instigator a criminal too. People are more brutalised by what they see on T.V. daily. People are not brutalised by punishments.

My opponent failed to state where, when and why the death penalty is a fair resolution,also why it is a fair punishment and what positive effects it has on society. Please take this into consideration, and vote pro.
InsertNameHere

Con

My opponent states that rehabilitation is an acceptable alternative to punish. However, this isn't the case. This method provides no deterrance to keep a criminal from committing the same crime again. It's easy to go out and do the same thing again when you "have nothing to lose". With death you have EVERYTHING to lose. The recidivism rates in the United States can be as high as 22%(http://www.nber.org...) which could result from a lack of deterrance. Even convicts for less serious crimes should go through a system of punishment rather than a system of rehabilitation in order to deter them from committing crimes again in the future.

My opponent also states that death is the "easy way out" while sitting in prison is a punishment. I'll like to address that nowadays many prisons are filled with many luxuries that a criminal clearly doesn't deserve. Does a criminal deserve to sit more, have more leisure time, and more luxuries than an average law-abiding citizen who has to work long hours in order to make a living? This is one such example of these luxurious prisons: http://sabbah.biz.... These prisons don't really punish a criminal therefore death would be the better alternative for crimes such as murder which is considered to be one of the worst crimes in most countries. Also, if somebody killed a family member or friend of mine I would want them dead. It's a common mentality most people would probably have regarding murderers.

Lastly, my opponent states that "an eye for an eye" would make the instigator a criminal too. However, the criminal struck first and did harm to the victim. The victim should be able to strike back in self-defense in order to protect themselves and others when their property and/or bodies are threatened. It's not exactly fair justice when a criminal recieves about half a punishment as what the victim recieved by being victimized. If the criminal doesn't want to be punished they shouldn't be a criminal.

To address my opponent's last point, for the sake of this debate I'm arguing that the death penalty is acceptable as a punishment for murder.
Debate Round No. 2
effy

Pro

First of all, my opponent has claimed I believe rehabilitation is an ALTERNATIVE to punishment. This is not the case, I pointed out that people can change, and rehabilitation is available to prevent re-offending, and should be a part of the punishment for lasting affects. My opponent also claims with death you have EVERYTHING to lose. Let's have an example;
A young boy given up for adoption as a child, passed onto many different foster parents, never settling into a family life. Over time takes on a life of crime. Eventually committing such a crime that sentence's him to death. This guy has no family, no real friends, no real life. He has nothing to lose, death isn't a worry to such a person, who has he to miss and who is there to miss him. Granted, not everyone will have such a story, but many criminals hold the same social and family issues. So just to state, I am not against punishment, just capital punishment. Saying that, I also believe stronger punishments will help to prevent future re-offending.

My opponent has some pre conception of a state prison. Yes, you here many stories of some criminals living the life of luxury behind bars, but this really isn't the case. Here are a few links from many prisons, none of which state any such luxury's:
http://www.british-prisons.co.uk...
http://www.opsi.gov.uk...
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk...
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk...
You must also take into serious consideration, no matter the crime or mental state of mind of any prisoner, every human has human rights. As a living, breathing person, one is entitled to fresh air and leisure time. It is just immoral to lock someone in a cage no matter the seriousness of their crimes. Prison security makes sure RIGHTS like these are handed out safely to prevent any risk of escape or further crimes being committed at that time.

Now, my opponent seems to believe that capital punishment is in comparison to self defense! There is no denying a criminal should not be punished, but the punishment should under no circumstances be death.

I accept that for the sake of the argument, and to save any confusion, we shall argue that murder is the primary target of this debate.

My opponent has still failed in two attempts to state what good capital punishment does for society. Granted, if, after many years in prison and countless hours of rehabilitation does not change a person, letting them back into society should not be considered an option. But keeping that person behind bars until they die of natural causes, is just as effective in keeping society that little bit safer as killing them is.
So what seems the fairer choice there?

Another point, which has not yet been raised, there is always room for mistake. Many times, a law abiding citizen has lost their life down to their countries justice system, only for the true perpetrator of the crime to come forward many years later, when the outcome cannot be reversed. Let's face it, guilty or not, the majority of criminals will protest their innocence, who's to say that half of the inmates on death row as we speak are actually innocent of their apparent crimes? One thing that cannot be reversed is taking someone's life, and all too often, the jury are wrong in their decision. I believe this to be a very strong point to the argument and should not be bypassed.
http://www.commondreams.org...

The death penalty is barbaric and belongs in the past. There is no evidence of the death penalty having any deterrent effect, life imprisonment without parole is just as effective a means of preventing re-offending, any system of capital punishment is bound to make mistakes, and who are we to take another human being's life in any case?

Most countries have got rid of it already. However, a few - including China, the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -
still regularly put people to death. They should join the civilised world and make the death penalty history.
http://www.squidoo.com...

I hope everything I have stated is taken into consideration as well as my opponents lack of opposing arguments. The death penalty is inhumane, two wrongs do not make a right. Vote pro!
InsertNameHere

Con

Addressing my opponent's first rebuttal, I'll like to say that if the boy has nothing and goes into a life of crime, eventually being sentenced to death then what is the big concern about his death? He's not leaving family/friends or valuable property behind therefore the death wouldn't be a burden on society.

Upon committing a crime against somebody else(in this case it's murder) is that person not violating their victim's human rights? Everybody has a right to life and the murderer has violated that, therefore why shouldn't their right to life also be taken away? It's just like when a thief violates their victim's right to property. My opponent fails to address that murdering somebody is violating one of their fundamental rights. As for the luxuries in prisons, my opponent failed to address the fact that many people in prisons are better off than many law-abiding citizens. Prisoners have a bed to sleep in, meals on the table, and leisure time, all of which are things many homeless people have to struggle for daily. According to my opponent, criminals deserve more rights than homeless people!

As for helping society, killing off some of the more dangerous prisoners who are indeed a threat to society would help make prisons safer for inmates serving time for less serious crimes. It would also prevent over-crowding and staggering costs which could go towards other things that benefit society such as healthcare and education. It would also prevent a dangerous offender from being released back into society upon serving their sentence. Wouldn't it be safer for everybody if a dangerous murderer was kept away from the rest of society? My opponent is indeed correct that sometimes the jury can be incorrect in convicting somebody. However, with today's technology a quick DNA test could be performed to determine the person's guilt.

My opponent also mentions countries like China, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan which indeed do still practice the death penalty. However, one could argue that in many Middle Eastern and Asian countries the crime rates are much lower. With harsher laws and harsher penalties comes lower crime rates as it serves as deterrance.
http://answers.yahoo.com...
http://www.nationmaster.com...
http://thegovmonitor.com...

I thank my opponent for an interesting debate. Please vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tal 7 years ago
Tal
in ye olden days (i cant remember exactly where), it was punishable by death to commit any crime. what happened was people would get murdered when they were robbed, because it didnt matter to the criminal since they would get the death penalty either way if they got caught
Posted by NotArrogantJustRight 7 years ago
NotArrogantJustRight
According to effy (Pro), "A lifetime behind bars seems the harsher punishment. Death, is an easy way out." If this were the case, why is the court system clogged with death penalty appeals hoping to get "only" life imprisonment? If it were true we would see the reverse happen.
Posted by KafkianRoach 7 years ago
KafkianRoach
The below comment was to correct <insertnamehere> point about DNA in there closing statement.
Posted by KafkianRoach 7 years ago
KafkianRoach
As a student of Forensics, I'd like to point out in DNA isn't available in all cases, which is why there are many other fields of Forensic science, and each can go awry. However in cases where we expect to find DNA, such as one recent case had a Husband try to poison her wife, the crime done in their own home, isn't going to tell us anything, but exclude the possibility of a third person perhaps involved. (Which was taken in consideration to the husband's cover story.)

Misidentification can occur, but worse yet is the Jury misinterprets the evidence, or downplays it's value in favour of the not present biological evidence. As a Student of Forensics, I felt obliged to correct that point. However a problem with Capitol Punishment, that some jury members may find it difficult or oppose capitol punishment, and this vote for their "innocence", perceiving the "unethical" outcome of the trial could place bias on them, either way.
Posted by effy 7 years ago
effy
In all cases where capital punishment is an option for the crime. I am in no way stating petty crimes such as theft or criminal damage are to be taken into consideration. Excuse my wording if anyone has misinterpreted what I have said, but I think it is all round general knowledge what crimes are a possibility for capital punishment.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
I sure hope you aren't arguing that point, cause that isn't devil's advocate, that is enacting a true strawman.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Maybe. It seems my opponent's wording is calling for that... :P
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Wait, are you gonna try to defend that criminals should be executed in "all cases" as in for all crimes?
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
I'm terrible at starting too. Bear with me, lol.
Posted by effy 7 years ago
effy
That was my reasoning.
I will openly admit when it comes to staring debates, I am useless...
I would rather my opponent begin with the cons & I will follow.
That is just my personal method.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Lovebotlass17 7 years ago
Lovebotlass17
effyInsertNameHereTied
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 russianmaster999 7 years ago
russianmaster999
effyInsertNameHereTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
effyInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
effyInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 7 years ago
cooljpk
effyInsertNameHereTied
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 belle 7 years ago
belle
effyInsertNameHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05