The Instigator
kaif_dus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
leethal
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

capital punishment

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  
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: 2/22/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,327 times Debate No: 7060
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

kaif_dus

Pro

i am totally in favour of the capital punishment that is meted out to those that are guilty of heinous crimes. people those who are against capital punishment might say that the government does not have the right to take something that it can not give back. but i say that who has given this right to the criminals?? i am not saying that the government should go about declaring death sentences to every second criminal. but instead it can look into what were the ccircumstances that forced the perpetrator to resort to such a lowly act.
and most imporatntly if not for any crme but a person guilty of rape should be given death sentence without any delay. this is the worst crime a person can commit and makes the survival of the victim and the immediate family miserable. for an adrenaline rush of 5minutes its too exorbitant a price to pay.
all said and done its known that no punishment can help in cleansing the crime and bringing the deceased back but still its at least a consolation to the victims' kins that their loss has not gone unnoticed and steps have been taken to inflict almost the same horrors upon the criminal.
leethal

Con

Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. I will provide counter-arguments to my opponent's one argument from Round 1, and will save my own arguments for Round 2.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS:
----------------------------
My opponent discusses the death penalty throughout his argument, but only really provides one argument to support it:

- It is a consolation to the victims' family that their loss has been noticed by the Government, who has taken steps to "inflict almost the same horrors upon the criminal."

I will provide 2 counter-arguments for this assertion:

1. Your argument rests upon the assumption that it is horrific to the criminal to be put to death. This is not the case. As long as it is done painlessly, the death penalty is over before it begins. Sure, it must be psychologically punishing to know, to the day, when you will die, but this is the only punishment the death penalised prisoner will receive. Once the injection has been made, the criminal slowly fades to an unending sleep. The prisoner will now Rest In Peace, so to speak. There will be no further pain or suffering, no further thought put to the perhaps unspeakable crimes the prisoner has committed. My opponent may argue that the deceased can no longer enjoy a nice sunset or watch their kids grow old, or enjoy life in general. The point I am making is that dead people are unable to reflect on the past and realise what they are missing out on, while someone doing life imprisonment can certainly dwell on these things. Hence they are being punished far more harshly.

Now consider someone given life imprisonment. There is every possibility and indeed likelihood that this person will be punished, mentally and physically in prison. They will be forced every day to think about the crimes that landed them in the situation they are in, and a guilty conscience can often be akin to torture. They will be forced to eat food they don't particularly enjoy, as opposed to the deceased who will never again be forced to do anything they don't want to, and will not be able to consider what he/she is missing out on. The prisoners will be forced into laborious jobs they don't enjoy, and again this obviously can't be said of the deceased.

I could go on but I feel I'm rambling. My point is that someone put painlessly into an eternal sleep has hardly been punished at all, and certainly much less than someone put into prison for life.

2. The frame of mind my opponent has presented always reminds me of Nietzsche's quote that (very loosely translated) when one is arguing monsters, one must make certain not to become one in the process. If murder is wrong, murder is wrong, no matter who's doing it. My opponent must prove that murder is not necessarily wrong, or at least not in the case of revenge.

I'll leave it here for Round 1, thanks to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
kaif_dus

Pro

thank you for providing an enlightening argument for the other side of the coin. i agree that in reality death penalty looks like a better option than dying each day in solitary punishment. but in a developing country particularly the asian countries where the law is influnced to a large extent by the filthy rich and the political big shots. its really very frustating to see the criminals go scott free due to people pulling a few strings here and there to turn the judgement in their favour.

life imprisonment is the better option when you know that the punishment would be duly served by the guilty. i will provide you with a very startling fact that will really bewilder you. in some countries like India there are "VIP" cells that provide you with such luxuries that one cannot imagine. the "cell" has BASIC amenities like an air conditioner, tv, etc. i doubt people would really mind spending the rest of there lives in this plush jail.

but in the case of capital punishment if not for anything else at least he is denied of these benefits, and the days he spends waiting for the day of his execution will be the longest days of his life. after that long wait am sure he will accept the execution with open arms. the wait will also give him time for introspection and help him in sinking the feeling of what he has actually done.

waiting till then for another round of healthy argument.
leethal

Con

I will quote my opponent's arguments and provide counter-arguments.

"in a developing country particularly the asian countries where the law is influnced to a large extent by the filthy rich and the political big shots. its really very frustating to see the criminals go scott free due to people pulling a few strings here and there to turn the judgement in their favour."

If that is the case, it would happen with the death penalty as well. It doesn't matter what the law is, if it is influenced by politicians and the rich then this type of behaviour will always happen. This is not an argument for the death penalty, and is in fact an argument against it. If the law in some places is as easy to corrupt as making a few bribes, surely we don't want to give those same law-makers the legal right to murder do we?

"life imprisonment is the better option when you know that the punishment would be duly served by the guilty. i will provide you with a very startling fact that will really bewilder you. in some countries like India there are "VIP" cells that provide you with such luxuries that one cannot imagine. the "cell" has BASIC amenities like an air conditioner, tv, etc. i doubt people would really mind spending the rest of there lives in this plush jail."

So my opponent has admitted that life imprisonment is the better option when you know that the punishment would be duly served by the guilty. This is my point exactly, and my opponent has unwittingly conceded the argument. I agree that it is no good that some places in India has plush jails, but this is not an argument for the capital punishment. If anything it's an argument for harsher prisons.

"in the case of capital punishment... the days he spends waiting for the day of his execution will be the longest days of his life. after that long wait am sure he will accept the execution with open arms. the wait will also give him time for introspection and help him in sinking the feeling of what he has actually done."

This could all be achieved with a prison sentence, and with a prison sentence there's also the possibility of rehabilitating the person so he can become useful to society again.

Thanks to my opponent, I await your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
kaif_dus

Pro

one again thank you for providing an insight for round 2. i will try and convince you with the support of an example.

if a man has been brutally murdered for whatever inconsequential reasons, will his family be satisfied by watching the convict rehabilitate and one day coming out and ENJOY the sunset or for that matter see his children grow? life imprisonment is not putting somebody behind bars for the rest of their remainder life. the imprisonment is not even for a major chunk of his life.

as far as rehabilitation is concerned what good will it do to him when he knows that at the end of the day he will be back to his normal life in a few years. there is an old saying that remains somewhere behind the cobwebs of our otherwise over practical mind. YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW.. this five word dictum just about sums evrything up. the criminals must realize that to be fit to survive in the society again is to pay back with what they have taken.

giving them a chance to repent and improve themselves is out of the question as even innumerable efforts by them cannot make good the loss. we should take a leaf out of the book of the Gulf countries, where harsh punishments are meted out to as trivial cases as a petty theft. there at least the people there think twice before putting their toe over the line. the idea is not to make a crime free society beause that is almost a hypothetical situation and looks good in fairy tales only, instead the idea is to instil a fear in the minds of the instigators and perpetrators of heinous crimes.

in todays society its the other way round. minds of innocent people are brimmed with fears in turn giving the criminals an unsolicited right to inflict attrocities upon US.

i am not saying that you go about handing death sentences to ever petty theif. but in rare cases like murder, rapes, terror strikes, etc. the law should not bat an eyelid before sending them to the gallows. people's faith in judiciary will also increase when they realize that the law empathizes with them and has given the harshest punishment possible to the guilty.

thank you for this enlightening debate.
leethal

Con

"if a man has been brutally murdered for whatever inconsequential reasons, will his family be satisfied by watching the convict rehabilitate and one day coming out and ENJOY the sunset or for that matter see his children grow?"

This is far too personal, and the law should never, and does never, allow personal emotions to get in the way of what is right and what is wrong. It doesn't matter whether or not that one family finds solice, what matters is that murder is not morally right, and that Governmentally sanctioned mass-murder of criminals is even less-so.

"life imprisonment is not putting somebody behind bars for the rest of their remainder life. the imprisonment is not even for a major chunk of his life."

This is a problem with the justice system; it is not an argument for the death penalty. My opponent is essentially saying that because a Judge gives a life sentence, and that 'life sentence' doesn't even take a major chunk of the criminal's life, that we as a society should murder the criminal. This is clearly wrong. Besides, if the judge deems the crime so heinous as to warrant and ACTUAL life-imprisonment, he can hand out several consecutive 'life sentences', which will ensure the criminal never does see the light of day.

"YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW.. this five word dictum just about sums evrything up. the criminals must realize that to be fit to survive in the society again is to pay back with what they have taken."

My opponent's assertion here seems to be that if a man takes a life, his life should be taken. So why don't we extend this notion to ALL crimes... someone breaks into your house, his punishment is that you get to break into his. Someone rapes your daughter, he must be raped. And so on. It is at best impractical, and at worst barbaric. It brings to mind the phrase that 'an eye for an eye just leaves everybody blind.'

"giving them a chance to repent and improve themselves is out of the question as even innumerable efforts by them cannot make good the loss."

My opponent has provided no argument as to why a criminal should have the chance to repent, improve themselves, serve their punishment, and once again become useful to society. This is clearly a much better alternative to taking a human life, and my opponent has not attempted to show otherwise.

"we should take a leaf out of the book of the Gulf countries, where harsh punishments are meted out to as trivial cases as a petty theft. there at least the people there think twice before putting their toe over the line."

My opponent has not provided any proof for the assertion that harsh punishments for trivial crimes is good for a society. If my opponent is talking about the Gulf countries I think he is talking about, I don't think we should be taking civility lessons from them.

"but in rare cases like murder, rapes, terror strikes, etc. the law should not bat an eyelid before sending them to the gallows. people's faith in judiciary will also increase when they realize that the law empathizes with them and has given the harshest punishment possible to the guilty."

Cases of murder and rape are by no means 'rare', and the biggest problem with sentencing somebody to death is the flawed nature of the justice system. Innocent men are sentenced to death all the time, and this is the true unspeakable crime. It is amazing to me how people view a person killing a person as 'cold-blooded murder', but a group of people killing a person as 'what needs to be done'.
My opponent has again asserted that the death penalty is 'the harshest punishment possible', but I provided several good arguments in Round 1 to show that a life in prison is far harsher a punishment on those truly deserving of it. My opponent failed to argue these points.

I have made several points to show that capital punishment is really no punishment at all to the one deserving of it, and these arguments have all gone unanswered by my opponent. I have also argued that murder is wrong, no matter who is doing it, and that due to the fallibility and corruption evident in our justice system, they are the last group of people who should be given the legal right to murder. Vote CON.

I thank my opponent for a good, quick debate, and I'm glad I could be his first on the site.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jjmd280 7 years ago
jjmd280
But a live person has the ability to appeal til the cows come home. Not a dead one. You'd have an innocent put to death just to preserve the system? OK - Methinks the present system actually thinks like you- not me. And I showed you innocents put to death, which were ignored. And how the heck do you figure it reduces the number of innocent lives taken? That's a new one.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
No sir, i can not. But at least in this case there would be a chance of the person being vilified an compensated for the wrong. How do you compensate a dead man?"
People die in prison all the time dude. How often are people vindicated WITHIN THEIR LIFETIME?

Given the fact that procedures for imprisonment are less strict than for the death penalty (because they think like you), and the death penalty is more effective when they are guilty, the miniscule chance of compensation that can probably never really approach the actual value lost anyway isn't sufficient to choose prison over capital punishment. The death penalty reduces the number of innocent lives taken, frankly.
Posted by jjmd280 7 years ago
jjmd280
Edit - Not VILIFIED, but VINDICATED, R_R - it's late here, please forgive. ;-)
Posted by jjmd280 7 years ago
jjmd280
Leethal -Which crimes do you believe warrant the death penalty jjmd, just out of curiousity? And what do you feel it would add to the justice system that is lacking without it?

Murder, that's about it, maybe rape. I haven't really decided. ADD to a system? I'm more for taking out the PROVEN trash. BUT - if there is the slightest chance that an innocent would be put to death - nope.

R_R - Can you guarantee no innocent person ever goes to prison?
No sir, i can not. But at least in this case there would be a chance of the person being vilified an compensated for the wrong. How do you compensate a dead man?

jjmd280 the law always goes into the intricacies of the case before it announces the death sentence. it takes this long so as to justify the fact that death was the most apt punishment for the crime. even if there is any ounce of doubt it will never resort to capital punishment. so an innocent being sentenced to death sentence is pretty rare.

Please tell this to Carlos DeLuna, Ruben Cantu, Larry Griffin, Joseph O'Dell, David Spence, and Leo Jones. There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
I would be surprised if that were true. Do you have anything to prove that?"
Only logical deduction... how many people are there, ya think, who would rather the person trying to kill them survive the encounter? :)

"
My point exactly. But my solution to this is not to eliminate courts, but to eliminate the murderer's methodology from the lawbooks."
The murderer's methodology is killing innocents without a trial, as you've just conceded :). Therefore, such methodology is not on the lawbooks :).

If you simply mean killing, need I remind you that fines are in that sense the methodology of highway robbers and prison is the methodology of kidnappers, and neither works often without the implicit threat of deadly force anyway?
Posted by leethal 7 years ago
leethal
"Death by self-defense is rarely an accident..."

I would be surprised if that were true. Do you have anything to prove that?

"If the average murderer's methodology a trial doth make... what do we need courts for?"

My point exactly. But my solution to this is not to eliminate courts, but to eliminate the murderer's methodology from the lawbooks.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Death by self-defense is rarely an accident...

And courts kill to defend themselves from future killings by same, part of the reason anyway... after all, where one killing without cause occurs, there is little reason to believe another won't follow...

If the average murderer's methodology a trial doth make... what do we need courts for?
Posted by leethal 7 years ago
leethal
No worries kaif, the pleasure was all mine.

"The murderer holds a trial and other such procedures?"

In a manner of speaking, yes. Particularly when murdering for vengeance, which is the only type of murder we can parallel with Capital Punishment. In the case of killing for vengeance, the one doing the killing must find suspects, weigh evidence to ensure that they have found the guilty culprit, and then decide that murder is the only appropriate punishment for the criminal. This is not too different from the role of a judge in a case which ends with the death penalty.

"And if that is irrelevant and killing is killing, self-defense is therefore on the same level as murder?"

Clearly not. You have compared the following two situations:
a) A man commits a crime to someone unrelated to the judge and jury. The judge and jury hear the man's case and that of the prosecutors, and decide the only logical punishment is to have the man murdered.
b) Someone is coming at you swinging a knife, making clear his intent on murdering you. You act in the only way your situation and instincts allow; you punch the man in the face, accidentally killing him in the process.

These are two incompatible situations.
Posted by kaif_dus 7 years ago
kaif_dus
thnx leethal for being my first opponent. will surely learn from you. please do not worry about the voting. they will remain as fair as they can be. all the best. hope to compete with you once again. cheers mate.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"i think the death penalty just makes the government stoop down to the murderer's level
"
The murderer holds a trial and other such procedures?

And if that is irrelevant and killing is killing, self-defense is therefore on the same level as murder? :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jjmd280 7 years ago
jjmd280
kaif_dusleethalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by 106627 7 years ago
106627
kaif_dusleethalTied
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