There is no good reason for the death penalty to be banned .
Debate Rounds (4)
The title speaks for itself .
Here are the works I cited to get the numbers, so that you can be sure I'm telling the truth and not fabricating statistics.
'Why should the death penalty be legal?' The burden of proof lies onto my opponent to prove that there is a good reason to ban it , It's a form of punishment , we aim to punish criminals and reform criminals but if a criminal is so evil at heart or commited a horrible crime than I do not believe he is worthy of living . I simply support it because I do not believe there are any good reasons to stop this type of punishment . 'Let's say you've got someone who is 20 years old, convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.Estimating at most he will live another 60-70 years at a reasonable 30k a year' 60-70 years is quite a lot a 20 year old living another 70 or 80 years that would either make him 90 or a 100 or do you mean he will live until he is 70 or 80 ?. I would like to mention that I support the death penalty only in very serious cases . ' 1.8 million dollars is exactly what the legal proceedings would cost to find them guilty, appeal to a higher court, and to put them on death row. ' I want to point out that first of all , like I said before it would be quite rare and generally wouldn't be used for crimes like first degree murder or rape what you are telling me is that because the costs are the same its worth banning one form of punishment? this doesnt make sense . Also I support the prisoner getting shot rather than through something like lethal injection. Since I haven't used any statistics or anything in my argument I do not have to list the sources since there is none i'm just refuting my opponents arguments since the burden of proof lies onto him .
'Alright. You state that the burden of proving the illegitimacy lies on my shoulder, I feel as though you should take equal steps to prove the legitimacy of such a measure.' This is a logical fallacy , It doesn't matter what you feel the title clearly says 'There is no good reason for the death penalty to be banned ' now the burden of proof lies onto you , you have to prove to me that there are good reasons to ban it , I don't have to state my case . 'killing someone will not bring justice to the situation. It won't undo what they did, ' I could use the same argument in a case in which I would argue that we should not punish murderers since we can't bring back the lost lives . It's a highest form of punishment of course it is not nice but the criminals who deserve it have done incredibly evil crimes . ', all it does is claim another life at greater expense to the state (' Why is it a greater expense to the state? I don't get my opponents argument . 'You state there is no good reason to stop it, which I hope to prove fundamentally untrue, but can you give me reasons why it is worth keeping?' like I explained at the beginning the burden of proof lies onto my opponent . I support it because these criminals deserve it why would I be against it? is the question and I really do not need to expand , I could but I don't have to therefore i'm not going to because it's my opponents job to come up with arguments against it . 'The average life span in America is 71 for males, the most common offenders and only offenders who see the death penalty. So saying that convicts will live until they are 90-100 is unlikely and I have never seen any cases where this is ' you are the one who said a 20 year old man will live 70-80 years not me I was correcting your mistake . 'Regardless of how rare or heinous the crime is, stripping a person of their life is an act that is has frightening implications placing a lot of power into the hands of the legal system.' there would be restrictions on who the death penalty can be imposed on . 'It is important to note that the vast majority of the expense of the death penalty is not in the method of execution' Yet you said the cost of keeping someone alive is not less than killing someone through capital punishment . therefore what is the argument here? . The Title is important here I do not have to prove anything my opponent has to prove it to me . Once again I have to point out that the burden of proof lies onto my opponent.
Do you feel as though there is some kind of justice in killing someone? Is claiming their life how you seek to claim justice? I feel as if incarcerating someone for there entire life, making them live and dwell on it, putting them in the legal confines of jail which force these rebels to adhere to rules and listen and respect someone else, that's justice. Not the quick way out, not the easy way for everybody, but the hard way. Their freedoms are taken from them, and that's justice. Not killing them, incarcerating them. So if you feel that there is greater justice in quickly killing them, then I would disagree wholeheartedly.
Set an example
A lot of people think that killing someone sets an example and that this will deter other criminals. Of course, this is foolish logic. Crime statistics show that crime has not gone down in any demonstrable amount in states, cities, and elsewhere where the death penalty is in more common use. It is impossible to deter criminals with the thought of consequence because they do not weigh consequences to their actions. Mostly their actions are not premeditated and even if they are they always believe that they will get away with it. No one commits the crime thinking they will get caught and us such the thought of punishment will deter them, meaning the idea of deterrence is an ineffective reason to support the death penalty.
We've already covered this in depth and I feel I've proven quite enough that the death penalty is far more expensive than life incarceration. Please tell me I do not need to further prove this.
Some people say that it is moral to kill them. An eye for an eye sort of thing, it's 'the right thing to do'. Taking this from a religious point of view, killing a man before his creator is ready to take him deprives him of the opportunity to repent and become a good person. This denies him his chance to make it into heaven, or whatever you choose to believe in. I cannot see anything moral in killing a man, and putting the power to kill men in the hands of men.
Again, if you need citation of these facts they can be provided though I think at this point that's a little superfluous. If you can provide equivalent reasoning for your side, please do so.
'It appears my opponent has chosen to take the easy road which I hope those who take the time to vote will note.' my opponent tries to appeal to the general audience by claiming it is the right thing to vote for him since I did not state my case , Like I explained numerous times the burden of proof lies onto him to prove to me there are good reasons to ban it , my opponent doesn't understands the rules of the game and appears new to me . 'It seems the only good reason you can provide for this is that you think it's right. ' Instead of making a case for himself my opponent continues to whine . No I did not provide any good reasons because I do not have to since the burden of proof lies onto me and I'm simply not bothered or feel obligated to make my own case because I do not have to but my opponent does since the title is ' there is no good reason for the death penalty to be banned' my opponent as con has to provide me with reasons that I cannot refute I on the other hand do not have to do anything . 'The death penalty is wildly more expensive for the government to execute. As I stated before, just for the legal proceedings alone it is 1.8 million dollars. This is the equivalent of keeping someone jailed for 60 years. In addition to the 1.8 million dollars for legal fees is the cost of execution and the cost of incarcerating them for an elongated period of time(5-20 years). This means it is going to cost more to kill someone than to incarcerate them for the rest of their life. ' OKAY according to a new study by the Kansas Judicial Council. Examining 34 potential death-penalty cases from 2004-2011, the study found that defense costs for death penalty trials averaged $395,762 per case . Just because I support the Death Penalty doesn't mean that I support the way it is done right now , thinking I do would be a logical fallacy I am not arguing that the current methods are good rather I believe we shouldn't ban the technique altogether just because what the government imposed right now is not sufficient enough . ' I said that a convict will live 60-70 years, if you look correctly, so I made no mistake for you to correct.' um are you sure about that? '20 years old, convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Estimating at most he will live another 60-70 years at a reasonable 30k a year' You said he will live another 60-70 years , Im not a mathematical genius but 20 + 80 is 100 and 20+70 = 90 . 'is only legal to execute by firing squad in 2 states so shooting someone as a method of death penalty is again unlikely' again like I explained before I support the technique but not how the government manages it . The cost of lethal injections has risen dramatically since states that execute prisoners were forced to change the drugs they use for the executions. The state of Texas was forced to stop using sodium thiopental in 2011. That state must now use Nembutal, which is a form of phenobarbital, for executions. In 2011, the execution drug used cost the state of Texas $83.55. The Nembutal that must be used now costs Texas $1,286.86 per execution. - http://www.ask.com... I would like to point out one more time we are not arguing about the efficiency of the government imposing it in the way it does we are arguing if the method should be used at all . ' Not the quick way out, not the easy way for everybody, but the hard way. ' My opponent argues that in some way it is morally better to reform these people , remember Anders Breivik who killed 77 people on a Norwegian island? why would he deserve to live ? He doesn't want to change and most other such serious criminals believe they are right take Adolf Hitler for example . People like him are not worthy of living . Next my opponent argues that deterrance is not a good reason to support the death penalty however in my writing I have not used deterrance as an argument for the death penalty . I do not feel the need to adress this in detail because what my opponent is saying is that deterrance is not an argument that should be used for the death penalty . I mean yes well done I have never used that as an argument . Expense - 'We've already covered this in depth and I feel I've proven quite enough that the death penalty is far more expensive' and I feel I have in enough detail explained that supporting the use of the technique is not the same as supporting how the government does it right now . 'Some people say that it is moral to kill them. An eye for an eye sort of thing, it's 'the right thing to do'. Taking this from a religious point of view' my opponent than explains why he thinks its not a good moral decision for a religious person , however most ancient sacred texts support the death penalty and your views don't matter . My views on the death penalty have nothing to do with my religious views . A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral. So the question really... when the system works and when you manage to identify somebody who has done such heinous evil, do we as a society have a right to take his life? I think the answer's plainly yes. sources -http://www.bbc.co.uk... , http://en.wikipedia.org...; , http://deathpenalty.procon.org...; , It might appear to the audience that I did not provide many sources before but this is perfectly justified since it is the duty of my opponent to argue that there are reasons against the death penalty and I am here simply refuting his arguments and it is natural this way for my opponent to have more sources . I thank my opponent and I await his argument .
As this will be my last opportunity to rebut my opponent I ask simply that he propose counterarguments to my arguments. I await his reply and hope that his statistics are more sound, citations more reliable, and grammar more correct than previously.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.