The Instigator
williamsxoxo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mhykiel
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points

death penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
Mhykiel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 736 times Debate No: 53352
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

williamsxoxo

Con

In my opinion the death penalty is immoral. Partly because you "thou shall not kill" but also because two wrongs don"t make a right, so killing someone in retaliation would be teaching society that it"s okay to kill if the person has committed a wrongful act and as long as it"s handled by the government. But there are many issues with this; the system is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people, largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, race of the victim and where the crime took place. Stereotypes play a major role in this such as the stereotype that black people are more violent and less educated than white people, which isn"t true, but if you have a jury who believes that the stereotype is true then he is more likely to go to jail and get the death penalty than a white man. Jeffrey Dahmer was a decent looking, charismatic man and because of how he dressed and acted he was able to convince multiple juries that he was innocent. No one would believe that a well-educated, attractive, outgoing white male would be capable of murdering and raping those young boys; that"s just how social psychology works. In my opinion the ones who are not criminally insane should have to stay in prison and continue out their sentence that way they can think back to what they did and how they ruined their life. However the ones who are mentally insane (which is a whole other debate on how you can classify someone as mentally insane) should be given the death penalty. Now I"m only talking for those people who like Jeffery dahmer was a psychopath and butchered several people without any sympathy or remorse, but that"s because more times than none the medical treatment isn"t going to help and there is the possibility of them escaping and starting again. However this would have to be taken on a case by case situation, because even though I don"t want these people to be killed the punishment must fit the crime and the crime of killing and raping 17 people is definitely punishable by death in my eyes.
However think of the psychological trauma the guards would have; they would realize that they have the power to kill people very easily such as in the Milgram experiment. This could also lead to PTSD in the guards since their job now is to execute thousands of people. Also if you wrongfully accuse a person of murder and they are sentenced to death even though innocent, how are you going to explain that to his family? If he was in jail you should just release him and he would still have his life Innocent people are too often sentenced to death. Since 1973, over 140 people have been released from death rows in 26 states because of innocence. So if the death penalty becomes more widely used the court system needs to become more reliable and less corrupt.
Mhykiel

Pro

Hello, welcome to DDO.org. I want to thank my opponent for starting this debate and beginning the round with such a complete picture of what kind of death penalty rules she see acceptable. I will attempt to give the readers a good morally and logically contention to her concept of death penalty. Because she is the instigator and began with a clear definition of what they see as the correct execution of the death penalty, I assume the Burden Of Proof is shared (BOP). I think my alternate position will be elaborated through rebuttals of my opponents statements.

Case 1 The death penalty is moral (part 1)

My opponent states, "In my opinion the death penalty is immoral. Partly because you "thou shall not kill" but also because two wrongs don"t make a right, so killing someone in retaliation would be teaching society that it"s okay to kill if the person has committed a wrongful act and as long as it"s handled by the government"

the Bible as God's word clearly states the Death Penalty is moral and the rightful execution in matters of the law. The Old Testament is peppered with the punishment of various crimes being death. For the sake of brevity I reference Leviticus[1],

"Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death." Leviticus 24:21

This clearly states that for the crime of killing a man is death. This was usually done by stoning in that day. This verse is from the Old Testament and for some Christians is not part of the New Covenant. The New Covenant still encompasses the 10 Commandments. My opponent says partly to do with "thou shall not kill" [2] This is better translated as "Thou shall not murder" [3], because the Hebrew word for kill in Exodus 20:13 is never used to describe killing animals, or when a soldier kills in battle. How could this Commandment be thou shall not kill if the executioner from Leviticus is killing convicted criminals? You would have to kill the executioners. That is absurd, that is because killing when in the employment of the government is not murder. So according to the bible the Death Penalty is moral.

For the sake of brevity I will leave this for now and answer rebuttals. I plan to present more arguments in latter rounds for the morality of the death penalty.

Case 2 (rebuttal) The system is unfair and unjust

My opponent contends that the system is unfair and unjust. What legal system in the world is either of those? The system is made by mankind, ran by mankind, institutionalized, enforced by mankind. It is going to be inherently flawed with human bias and human corruption. But it is also refined, peer reviewed, and reinterpreted by mankind. This means that is not a system set in stone and such atrocities as unequal punishment for the rich vs. poor or black vs. white can be addressed by the voice of the people and change can occur. Now I want to make something clear, this system is not a Justice System. It is a Court System.[4] The law is a body of work to establish reparation of wrongs done.[5] Clearly the fact that the system may fail at times, is not a justification to not implement the punishment at all. In fact, my opponent asserts the same thing when in closing they state, "So if the death penalty becomes more widely used the court system needs to become more reliable and less corrupt."

Case 3 Exceptions to the Death Penalty

This is where I think the readers can see my opponent takes a surprising term. I thought she was against the death penalty in all cases but they assert "However the ones who are mentally insane... should be given the death penalty". _O.0_ what! what! So my opponent is no Pro-death penalty but only for the criminals who suffer a mental illness. She continues to claim, "...psychopath and butchered several people without any sympathy or remorse, but that"s because more times than none the medical treatment isn't going to help and there is the possibility of them escaping and starting again." First clearly it is not the responsibility of the medical staff to also handle security! Security should be left to the guards and those trained in physically detaining a human. But more to the point. As society gains a better knowledge of psychopathology they gain better treatment techniques. It's been shown now that many people who exhibit psychopathy are not murderers, they are doctors and lawyers.[6] And many murderers do not test positive for psychopathy. Therefore the punishment should apply equally well to this subset you have illustrated. Shows more the violent of killing someone was not accidental or by loss of a sober mind, but was more likely to be deliberate.

Case 4 (rebuttal) Guard PTSD

Most states have individuals who are paid just to do executions. You claim killing of thousands will give Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to the guards. Thousands is a bit extreme. In 2013 there were 39 executions the entire year. The lowest amount in the last 5 years. All those executions were not done in presence of the same guards. Second, PTSD does not work that way. It is not everyone experiencing an event will get PTSD. Usually PTSD is from life threatening events. The guards probably get PTSD from their normal high stress working conditions.

I pass the round to my opponent.

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2]http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3]http://www.biblegateway.com...
[4]http://realtruth.org...
[5]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[6]http://www.neulaw.org...
[7]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Debate Round No. 1
williamsxoxo

Con

williamsxoxo forfeited this round.
Mhykiel

Pro

Still many more rounds. I'll extend my arguments and hope they are good.
Debate Round No. 2
williamsxoxo

Con

i must say you put up a strong front sir. But i do see all of your many points. however i am not saying that the medical staff would be the security I'm just saying that people have ways of escaping and that keeping these people confined is not doing any good. i do have some expectations and i know that mankind is very corrupt and i do agree with most of your points. except the one thing i don't agree with is that you say that only 39 were executed, however if we were to kill every man or woman in every state who murdered someone i feel like it would be more than just 39, yes not thousands but still more than are executed now. now sir, what exactly if your view on how the death penalty should be handled?
Mhykiel

Pro

To clarify in my last round when I said, "hope they are good" I was referring to my opponent not my arguments, ha ha.

I reread and I see that I misunderstood you and thought you were saying the likely hood of escape was higher when receiving medical attention. This, though probably a likely case in the security of an individual, did not lead to any claim. Are you saying that because criminals can escape we should not attempt to imprison them?

To the second point, the law has differing degrees for murder based on intentionality or level of negligence. Not all murder require nor receive the death penalty. I am not advocating that either. So when you say, "however if we were to kill every man or woman in every state who murdered someone I feel like it would be more than just 39" I agree but I am not saying that should or would be the case in the death penalty being permitted.

As for my answer to the Death Penalty. I don't think there is convincing evidence that it works as a deterent. States with the death penalty have higher rates of murder in general. They also tend to have higher population density cities. So the punishment I don;t think is a factor in it's use.

I think it is morally acceptable to take a life. In the right context. If that other life is threatening to take yours. By all means, kill them. War, Self Defense, Medical Abortions, etc... All can give you a better understanding of my moral grounds for doing so. For a better world I agree war will stop when people who fight it refuse to go. I think there can be better measures than to take a life. But those measures are not always effective or sufficient in changing the situation.

I'll illustrate. Some one points a gun at me. (I use me because I am describing my moral grounds). Time permitting, I will ask them, "Why are you doing this?" In an attempt to start a dialogue and divert the situation away from having any one suffer. Maybe I can help them with the why, in a way that does not involve my death. Notice I said time permitting. The escalation could be so fierce and fast that a dialogue is not possible. A peaceful resolution has now been taken off the table. Leaving me the only options of submitting to being killed, or killing them. And being that I reasonably feel a right to life. I will fight for that right. I think everyone has that right. The other individual apparently does not feel the same. And in accordance with the golden rule "do onto others as you would have them do onto you."

Moving on to murder. The better resolutions should be an attempt at rehabilitation and treatment. This is not always possible. Now society has 2 options. Life imprisonment of a repeat offender who murders, or death penalty. Some cases a person kills someone for a very specific and situational reason. That person is likely to be rehabilitated. But in the cases when an individual elects to harm whomever, wherever they deem fit, they are a threat to anyone. By anyone, we have no measure to who is in harms way if this person was free to roam society. To be aware of the threat and make no attempts to stop or lessen it, would be criminal negligence. So society is by obligation to do something with this type of person.

If such a person, can not be rehabilitated, does not provide for himself (after all he is in prison), does not benefit society, and is a drain on societies resources. I see no reason to keep them alive.

These factors allow for many other possibilities. Maybe the person is a repeat murderer. Maybe his actions are from deep frustrations that can not be treated. Maybe this person conforms to prison life and supervision and through a in prison work program contributes to society. Now I feel a compromise can be reached. I full heartily endorse attempts by many anti-death penalty agencies in prison reform. They truly help to make other options more viable. For life, anyone's life, even a murderer, makes that good in my book.
Debate Round No. 3
williamsxoxo

Con

williamsxoxo forfeited this round.
Mhykiel

Pro

I hope she is well. Forfeit Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
williamsxoxoMhykielTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a much better job of presenting his arguments and backing it up with sources.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
williamsxoxoMhykielTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case just didn't have enough substance to survive the forfeits. Pro does more than enough to take down the argument, and much as I find many points of disagreement, I function with what was said in the debate, and Pro is easily winning at that.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
williamsxoxoMhykielTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and better arguments.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
williamsxoxoMhykielTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
williamsxoxoMhykielTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited twice, had bad round three capitaliaztion (I wasn't capitalized or the h in however.), and had no source to back a single claim. In total Pro had a far better argument and con's only good round was round one however this was refuted while Pro's arguments weren't.