This House supports the death penalty!
Debate Rounds (3)
Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman whose mother's killer faced the death penalty before the State Governor commuted the sentences to life in prison, stated 'we were looking forward to the death penalty. I'm just so disappointed in the system. Other victims' families deemed the decision a 'mockery', that 'justice is not done.
MOREOVER ... The state has a responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the death penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime.
The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful motivating role in convincing potential murderers not to carry out their acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, surely death is a more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can change the cost-benefit calculus in the mind of murderers-to be so that the act is no longer worthwhile for them1.
Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A 1985 study by Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina showed that a single execution deters 18 murders. Another influential study, which looked at over 3,054 counties over two decades, further found support for the claim that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise2.
On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty an even more effective deterrent than it is today. For instance, reducing the wait time on death row prior to execution can dramatically increase its deterrent effect in the United States1.
In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent people.
In conclusion Proposition is begging you to vote with the motion! :)
Pro Gives us a few reasons why a convicted killer should be executed. These reasons include closure for the family, prevention of future murders, and a responsibility of the state to do so.
To address the issue of closure I will give this example. What right did the murderer have to take the family members life? Absolutely none. The right to life should not be taken away because one person violated another persons right to life. The principle survives. It is wrong to kill, it is wrong to act in aggression, it is wrong to infringe on the lives of others. The family would be acting in the same aggression enacted against their loved one in allowing this man to be killed. Not only would this be a violation of this mans right to life but now the family has acted in the same manner as the killer. The killer doesn't have to face any true consequence because once you are dead you know no consequence. You don't know what you did, when you did it, or why you're in trouble for it because when you're dead that's it. You are dead. Furthermore it wouldn't really benefit the family in any significant way. Their loved one would still be dead.
To address the death penalty and its ability to deter murders, there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty deters murders. In fact many places have higher murder rates where there is a death penalty. Places like Texas. 
Any attempt to correlate lower murder rates with the death sentence is futile. Murder rates have consistently decreased as society has advanced.
Pros example study is outdated and with out a source to back it up. Even if it was credible it is refuted by the simple fact that across the board murder rates are falling. It is impossible to know whether its because of the death penalty and its actually more unlikely considering Texas employs the death penalty and has a higher murder rate than a state like Colorado as seen in my source. 
Finally I would point out that we should want to retract as far as possible from a state that can kill its people. Countless examples from past show us that putting the decision of life and death into the hands of the state on any level is a bad idea. Communism, Nazism, fascism, governments that kidnap dissidents. If the government has the power to execute criminals or murderers would it be impossible for them to falsely accuse some dissident who speaks out against them?
Thank you and I look forward to you're response.
 - http://www.denverpost.com...
As for the executioners themselves, there are methods of execution that involve multiple executioners which might reduce the associated psychological burdens. At any rate, no one is forced to become an executioner, and people who choose to take on that role do so with full awareness of the risks involved.
Another thing I want to say about Opposition's way of debating is that he is based only on countering arguments. He never says why is it so bad to vote with the death penalty.
And now I wish to pass to another of my arguments, by explaining how death penalty prevents the accused from committing further crimes. The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or commit further crimes while in prison.
While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide, suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive1. Putting dangerous murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them.
The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison. Even the highest security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be absolutely certain that a convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them.
1 Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30, 2001. Accessed June 9, 2011
2 Davis, Laura. "Crime and Punishment: the view from a convicted criminal." The Independent. May 19, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2001.
"Another thing I want to say about Opposition's way of debating is that he is based only on countering arguments. He never says why is it so bad to vote with the death penalty."
Pro, he BOP lays with you. I am here to refute your resolution.
"While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide, suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive1. Putting dangerous murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them. "
Well yes the criminal may commit murder in jail. But according to your argument this would not be a problem. You stated that "When you commit certain heinous crimes, you forgo your right to life". So any criminal that commits a crime the state deems heinous has forgone their right to life. Thus if they lose their life in prison it is no problem because according to you they lost their right to life anyway.
"The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison. Even the highest security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be absolutely certain that a convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them."
Let me make an analogy. Even the most reputable and reliable condoms fail. But we don't cut off the penis because the condom may fail.
"This does not devalue life, but rather affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the criminal"
Or proves that a life can easily be disposed of and that the victims life contained the same value of the criminal.
The death penalty does nothing to deter crime, asserts the states ability to kill, and makes equal the life of the victim and the criminal.
Secondly... There are no such things as jails for murderers. In a jail there are murderers, burglars and others, BUT the death penalty is applied just to murderers of a high rank, so we don't want to kill the burglars, because they have never taken a life so they have just a prison punishment.
Another thing is that very WRONG analogy that he made. He said that you can compare a HUMAN with a CONDOM. A human is complex entity, spiritual and physical! Comparing humans to condoms is such a STUPID TING!!!
Lastly I want to give you my last 2 arguments:
Firstly, the worst crimes deserve the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the intentional slaughter of another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral, but there are none that are more deadly. Such a heinous crime can only be punished, in a just and fair manner, with the death penalty.
As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that is simple and satisfying enough to feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than the worst possible
punishment'1.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that those violating that fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value and importance placed upon the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would fail in this duty.
1 Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30, 2011.
Secondly, the death penalty can help ease the problem of overcrowded prisons in many countries, where keeping people for life in prison contributes to expensive and at times unconstitutional overcrowding1.
In 2011, California prison overcrowding was so problematic that a district court panel ordered authorities to release or transfer more than 33,000 inmates. This decision was held up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which argued that the conditions in the overcrowded prisons are so overwhelming that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment2. Similarly, in the United Kingdom two thirds of prisons in England and Wales have been deemed overcrowded3.
As such, the death penalty may be preferable to life in prison since it helps alleviate a pressing problem in the criminal justice system. It is better to execute those who deserve it than to be forced to release dangerous offenders into society because prisons are overcrowded by people serving life sentences.
1Sanchez, Mary. "California prisons: Cruel and unusual." The Miami Herald. May 30, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011.
2 Martinez, Michael. "California officials: We'll fix prison crowding, won't free 33,000." CNN. May 24,2011. Accessed June 9, 2011.
3"Two-thirds of prisons overcrowded." The Guardian. August 25, 2009. Accessed June 8, 2011
My opponent falsely claims that the death penalty is reserved for murderers. In the Federal Death Penalty act of 1994 it is stated that the death penalty can be administered to people committing crimes of terrorism or drug trafficking which does not necessarily mean murder. 
Pro did not understand the analogy. The human was the penis in that analogy, the condom was the jail. Condoms, like prisons, fail to keep what they hold in. This does not mean we should kill all criminals/cut off all penises to solve the problem.
Pro claims that murder is only justifiably punishable by death. I would object to that claim. On one hand the death penalty takes you away from the world silently and painlessly. Never to remember what you did yesterday and never again to think about tomorrow. But a life sentence forces you to live out the rest of your years in a small cage with limited access to commodities like books and tv. These inmates will look out small windows and think about how they will never be free to do what they want because of the actions they took. There's time to reflect on the ills they have committed and the things they will never enjoy because of it. It would also be tough to face aging and death in a harsh environment like prison. Analysis over both punishments shows that life in prison is more severe, psychologically, and physically.
Pro brings up a very interesting point by talking about overcrowded prisons and how implementation of the death penalty can help solve this issue. Unfortunately by his standards this would mean that the majority (or at least a third) of convicts would need to be murderers. Currently there are around 1,518,559 people in federal prisons. Only 7 percent were charged with violent crimes. That's only 106,299 out of the 1,518,559 people. 
Not to mention even if those small numbers (not all of which are murderers) were put to death the wait on death row is lengthy and many die before it is their time to go.
"It is better to execute those who deserve it than to be forced to release dangerous offenders into society because prisons are overcrowded by people serving life sentences."
I found this statement silly, the US has no problems with spending money, It should seem obvious that more prisons would be built and that they would not just let these people run amok.
I have successfully refuted my opponents arguments and given ample reason as to why the death penalty should not be used a method of punishment. It would be unfair to let the criminal just die instead of have to live an unsatisfactory life thinking about the penalty they have earned and why they earned it. Thank you and merry Christmas.
 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hey, at least Wiki isn't biased.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Here is my RFV, Conduct goes to the pro because the con mentioned penises and condoms which is very vulgar. Spelling and grammar go to the con because of the 1's and 2's after some sentences. Reliable sources go to the con because the pro did not put the actual link while the con did. Overall convincing arguments go to con because the pro did not have the BOP. i feel that the pro felt like he had it in the bag so much he just stopped trying. Cudos to the con for hanging in there when it looked bleak.
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.