The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
RyouofFunce
Con (against)
Losing
0 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 3 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,229 times Debate No: 20178
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

16kadams

Pro

first round acceptance
RyouofFunce

Con

I accept, to you pro
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

Thanks for accepting:

C1: Deters crime

few studies;

The rigorous examination of the deterrent effect of capital punishment began with research in the 1970s by Isaac Ehrlich, currently a University of Buffalo Distinguished Professor of Economics. Professor Ehrlich's research found that the death penalty had a strong deterrent effect. While his research was debated by other scholars, additional research by Professor Ehrlich reconfirmed his original findings.In addition, research by Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro strongly reconfirmed Ehrlich's previous findings. [1]

Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders. [1]

So it deters 18 murders.

Deterrence theory:

General deterrence manifests itself in policy whereby examples are made of deviants. The individual actor is not the focus of the attempt at behavioral change, but rather receives punishment in public view in order to deter other individuals from deviance in the future. [2]

This makes sense. It shows others you kill, be killed. So it makes sense that the DP does this.

This is the main reason to be pro DP so I will add on.

My 7 source has good info.

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument _ whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer. [8]

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect." [8]

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. [8]
That means that if you don't get the DP there are 5 more murders.

A new study from Pepperdine University says every inmate who is executed results in 74 fewer deaths the following year. It comes as many states have imposed de facto moratoriums on executions. [9]

Yeah that shocked me too.

The highest murder rate in Houston (Harris County), Texas occurred in 1981, with 701 murders. Texas resumed executions in 1982. Since that time, Houston (Harris County) has executed more murderers than any other city or state (except Texas) AND has seen the greatest reduction in murder, 701 in 1981 down to 261 in 1996 - a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential! (FBI, UCR, 1982 & Houston Chronicle, 2/1/97, pg. 31A). [10]

So when they stopped DP murder up, DP = less murder

C2: public safety

It is common that people will repeat their offenses. Once a convicted person is executed there is no way he will ever commit the crimes again. This is self explanatory, it would end repeat offenders.

Obviously, those executed can't murder again. "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153) Using a 75% murder clearance rate, it is most probable that the actual number of lives saved would have been 1026, or fifty times the number legally executed that year. This suggests that some 10,000 persons have been murdered, since 1971, by those who had previously committed additional murders (JFA). See B.5. [10]

C3: save lives

There have been many instances in our justice system where a murderer has reoffended, in fact a study from the U.S. Department of Justice finds that of prisoners released in 1994, 1.2% of those convicted of homicide were arrested for another homicide within three years of their release. [3]

This holds especially true for our most dangerous criminals, in 2009 8.6% of those on death row had a prior homicide conviction. Over 5% of those on death row committed their capital crime while in custody or during an escape. [3]

C4: it is a better punishment then life without parole

LWOP (life without parole) doesn't always mean life without parole:

The law can also change, take for example the tragic case of Pamela Moss: "In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws in 1982, James Moore is eligible for parole every two years" [4]
The only way to truly know if a murderer will not ever be released is to execute them.

another example:

5/1/09 - Illinois governor commutes sentence of mom who killed kids

"The new Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has commuted the sentence of Debra Lynn Gindorf, a woman some experts believe was suffering from postpartum depression when she killed her two children more than two decades ago. Gindorf, now 45, was found guilty but mentally ill for the 1985 murders of Christina, 23 months and Jason, 3 months. Gindorf was given a sentence of life without parole, but Quinn shortened the sentence to 48 years. In Illinois, she will receive a day of credit for every day she has served under "good conduct" rules and will be eligible for immediate release on parole because she has already served 24 years. The 45-year-old Gindorf was found guilty but mentally ill in the 1985 slayings of 23-month-old Christina and 3-month-old Jason. She tried to kill herself and the children but she survived the blend of alcohol and sleeping pills and woke the next morning beside her dead children. Quinn spokesman Bob Reed declined comment. The Lake County State's Attorney's office had supported clemency for Gindorf. In interviews published in local papers, Gindorf refers to the murder of her children as "the accident." [5]

C5: low risk of executing an innocent

As Dieter and other death penalty opponents make no distinction between the actually innocent and the legally innocent, why don't they claim that over 2500 innocents have been "exonerated" from death row? That is the number of legally and actually innocent released from death row since 1973 [6]

So they get released often if their innocent.

Dieter made a study saying 48 innocents where innocent, but there is a difference from legally innocent, ad innocence. Here's his definition of innocent: "A defendant whose conviction is overturned by a judge must be further exonerated in one of three ways: he must be acquitted at a new trial, or the prosecutor must drop the charges against him, or a governor must grant an absolute pardon." [6]

None of these actually mean innocence. It means legal innocence.

A review of the DPIC 102 case descriptions finds that only about 32 claim actual innocence, with alleged proof to support the claim. 12 of those 32 are DNA cases. That is 32 cases out of about 7300 death sentences since 1973, or 0.4%. National Review's Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru, independently, came up with the same number for his "Bad List" article [6]

So 32 proven innocent, in america that's only 0.4% chance at accidental execution.

http://www.heritage.org... [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [3]
http://www.globalpolitician.com... [4]
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... [5]
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... [6]
http://www.cema.edu.ar... [7]
http://www.washingtonpost.com... [8]
http://www.npr.org... [9
RyouofFunce

Con

RyouofFunce forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

what a pity extend all arguments
RyouofFunce

Con

RyouofFunce forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

this is depressing. extend arguments.
RyouofFunce

Con

RyouofFunce forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
hate it when that happens it happened to my friend he did it by accident
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
holy sh!t I need to add him in as a source. didn't mean to copy him.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
really?
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Pro, 90% of the text in your first round belongs to someone else (including thett3 in http://www.debate.org...). Even if you source the material, that amount of lifted material still constitutes plagiarism.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
lol
Posted by RyouofFunce 4 years ago
RyouofFunce
haha sorry I thought I posted I accept but I didn't
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
just say I accept
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
16kadamsRyouofFunceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff...it's to bad....a waste, a waste, a waste...
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
16kadamsRyouofFunceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy vote is easy.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
16kadamsRyouofFunceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF