The Instigator
ethopia619
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
debatefreak22
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

We should not ban the deah penalty

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 2 votes the winner is...
ethopia619
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,929 times Debate No: 13684
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

ethopia619

Con

I will let my opponent go first.
debatefreak22

Pro

[1] Capital punishment is the death penalty given by the government of a country, to people who have committed hideous crimes like homicide, rape, etc. Capital punishment has been a way of punishing people since ages. Although there are some countries that have abolished death penalty from their law, there are still many which still practice the act of killing a person for crime. Capital punishment is prevalent in the US, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Some of the ways of executing criminals are hanging, shooting, electrocution and giving lethal injections.

1) The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apodictic proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense.

2) If a criminal is jailed, he may again commit the same crime after being released from prison. Giving him capital punishment would make sure that the society is safe from being attacked by criminals. It seems to be an appropriate punishment for serial killers and for those who continue to commit crimes even after serving imprisonment

3) Some believe that instead of announcing life imprisonment for the convicts, where they would have to live a futile life behind closed bars, it is better to kill them. It is said that imprisoning someone is more expensive than executing him. Rather than spending on a person who may again commit terrifying crime, it is better to put him to death.

4) Capital punishment is equated as revenge for pain and suffering that the criminal inflicted on the victim. Some people strongly believe that a person who has taken the life of another person does not have a right to live. Sentencing such a criminal can give relief to the family members of the victim that their loved one has obtained justice.

5)It is also important for the safety of fellow prison inmates and guards, as people who commit horrifying crimes like murder are believed to have a violent personality and may, in future, attack someone during imprisonment. These reasons emphasize the importance of capital punishment for the betterment of human society. However, there is another section of people who believe that it is an immoral and unethical act of violence.

[1] http://www.buzzle.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ethopia619

Con

Greetings debatefreak22,

1)He has stated: "Some of the ways of executing criminals are hanging, shooting, electrocution and giving lethal injections." Think of this: You are also killing someone. Isn't that a bad thing?
2)My opponent has an argument on his number three. So it's like: We're occupied, we have to kill you. That is unjustified.
3)The Death Penalty is unjustified and racist, because 50% of the white do not get killed if they commit a horrible crime, whereas if you were from a different race, they would kill you with a higher percentage.
4)The judge could also sentence someone to jail, even if the convicted person was innocent. The convicted person would not even have a lawyer because they were poor, so they would get hanged for no reason.
5)There were 23 deaths in the 20th Century that the victim was innocent.
6)As said in www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=688, the death penalty is unjustified.
7) This is economically bad to the population.

Sources:
1)www.middleschooldebate.com/documents/deathpenalty.pdf
2)www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=688

I await my opponent's response. Good Luck!
debatefreak22

Pro

Counter argument 1) Killing is wrong so we should kill them so they will not be KILLING more people. Plus people who commit murder or rape are most likely to commit the same crime more then once. So shouldn't we as American citizens take out the criminals to make America more enjoyable?

2) The second argument goes back to counter argument 1

3) [1] United States does not execute people based on their population counts but on the murders they commit. As blacks represent 47% of murderers and whites 37%, we see that whites are twice as likely to be executed for committing murder as are their black counterparts. Furthermore, the Bureau of Justice Statistics says that whites sentenced to death are executed 17 months more quickly than blacks.

4) The Sixth Amendment provides the right to have an attorney. The right to a court-appointed attorney for people who couldn't afford to hire a private attorney was firmly established in the US Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright. There for they have a right to fair trial and the jury first has to pick guilty or innocent BEFORE the judge can make a verdict. Who even said the judge was going to put him to death row? "As for the penalty system, accidentally executing an innocent person, I must point out that in this imperfect world, citizens are required to take certain risks in exchange for safety." ~ Wesley Lowe

5) As the world is changing so is technology. We have the technology to figure out who did the crime with DNA.

6) [2] The death penalty was first instituted by God Himself in Genesis 9:6: "Those who sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Man didn't invent the death penalty, so man has no right to abandon it. We live in an age when everyone is far too concerned with "human rights", and God has been practically ignored, as if He had no rights at all. God has given man the MORAL DUTY to execute those who choose to take the lives of others. Exodus 21:12 says, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Do you wish to honor God? Then you must support the death penalty, because God commands it.

7) We do not want felons and criminals as a part of our society so even if they were alive they wouldn't amount as much to society as a person who doesn't have a record at the police station.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

1) The fear of Death: It is human nature to fear death. Imposing death punishment for brutal crimes like rapes and murders will definitely make the criminal think twice before committing a crime! Most people argue that most murders are done in the heat of anger or passion! But there are also people who are professional murderers. Looking at both sides, I feel that death penalty will surely deter a person from committing a crime.

2) No Escape: It is easier for a person to escape imprisonment in the long run, but no one can escape death! We have seen in the above mentioned real life scenarios where criminals managed to to escape prison and punishment, only to commit more crimes and making the innocent suffer! That I think, is more than enough to support this statement.

3) It's Retribution, Not Killing!: Most people who are against death penalty, say that it is just taking revenge or killing under the name of law! Well, I personally believe that life is precious and sacred. Which is why, I think that a person who has taken it away, must realize that by committing this crime, he has also taken away the right to have his own life. When I think about the victim and their loved ones, I think that letting the criminal facing 'inconvenience for some time in prison' would be unfair to them. It's not the law that is killing the criminal, he chose it with his own actions!

4) Saving the Innocent: "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." ~ John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

5) Law Should Provide Justice: We follow the law so that we get justice when what happened to us is unfair! Even the victims ask for mercy, plead for their lives, but if the criminals show no mercy, why should the law be merciful to the criminal? I think that the death penalty too, is lenient when it comes to justice. At least the guilty criminals get time to say their last words, make a will, mentally prepare themselves for death. Did the innocent victims get a chance to do so? If you knew that you would be killed instantly after committing a murder, would you kill?

[1] http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...
[2] http://www.biblebelievers.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ethopia619

Con

Counter Attack

1)For his number 5 argument, about "would you kill?", yes, because if you were emo, you would do that.

2)For his number 1 argument, wrong. Example: Home invaders. They would definitely try to murder you or hold you on hostage. They aren't afraid.

3)For Counter argument 1, there are many ways to stop someone from doing a crime instead of executing them. Examples: living in the city dump with fences around the dump with little food so they won't die but it will teach them a lesson.

4)For counter argument 5, you can always pin the crime on someone else easily by using the other person's fingerprint on a clear piece of tape or ink.

5)For counter argument 4, you can always use the lie detector instead of killing them or even interrogate them. (Not the bad way) Defined- to examine by asking questions. You could put them in jail or in the city dump instead.

6)For counter argument 6, some people are atheists or polytheistic. There was this Christian I know that does not support the death penalty even though he prays to God every day.

7)For counter argument 3 about racism, this is false because in http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... , people with darker skin are truly more likely to be killed in Philadelphia and in the United States; therefore, my opponent's counter argument 3 is false.

Arguments

1)"The government should not be deciding who is to live and who is to die. " ~ www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=688

2)My opponent has stated a lot of "I"s, therefore, I will not answer those questions because they aren't true facts but they are his opinions. So, this cannot be used against me for any of the rounds.

Sources

1)www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=688

2)http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
debatefreak22

Pro

debatefreak22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ethopia619

Con

Counter Argument

1)"These reasons emphasize the importance of capital punishment for the betterment of human society." Imagine if the innocent person was convicted, and that person was you. Example: Stanley "Tookie" Williams.

2) My opponent has forfeited a round.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Arguments

1)The Salem Witch Trial. Many women were executed because the people thought that they were "witches". Historical fact.

2)Archbishop of Washington, said "...the death penalty diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing."

3)Indiana Prosecuting Attorney writes that "...there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent."

4)Amnesty International believes that "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life...It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment."
______________________________________________________________________________
Sources
1)http://usliberals.about.com...

2)uspolitics.about.com/od/deathpenalty/i/death_penalty_2.htm
debatefreak22

Pro

debatefreak22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ethopia619

Con

Counter Arguments

1) My arguments stand. My opponent has forfeited two of the debate rounds.

2) I have refuted almost all of his arguments, while he only refuted a little.
__________________________________________________________________
Arguments

1) Did you know that it costs a lot of money just to execute a person from jail?
___________________________________________________________________
To the voters:

Conduct: My opponent has forfeited two of the debate rounds.

Spelling and Grammar: I had better spelling and grammar by a little.

Reliable Sources: I have listed more sources than my opponent.
____________________________________________________________________
Sources

1) www.deathpenalty.org/

2) www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty

Thank you to debatefreak22.
debatefreak22

Pro

debatefreak22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
Amazing improvement in this debate, you guys!!

Debatefreak22 ; You skipped a round, but don't assume you'll lose because of it. The only thing you'll lose is PROBABLY conduct, you can still win arguments , sources, etc.

Ethopia619 ; you are doing a great job as well. My only recommendation is citing in your arguments, for example,
"Blah blah blah statistic [1]" It looks cleaner.
I also took your silly debate, good luck, :)
Posted by debatefreak22 6 years ago
debatefreak22
Sounds good and thank you! You too
Posted by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
How about this?

1) Speech and argument
2) Rebuttal and argument
3) Rebuttal and argument
4) Rebuttal, argument, defend previous arguments
5) Wrap up
Posted by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
Good luck!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
ethopia619debatefreak22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
ethopia619debatefreak22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40