The Instigator
dude234
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonnykelly
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

should capitol punishment be legal

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 1 vote the winner is...
Jonnykelly
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 86655
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

dude234

Con

The debate shall start from round 2 if you accept this debate
Jonnykelly

Pro

I accept, and will be arguing that capital punishment (the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime) ought to be a part of a just society.

Seeing as my opponent wishes to oppose the norm, he must carry the primary burden of proof.

Best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
dude234

Con

First of all I would like to thank you for accepting the challenge

What if the cops or whoever makes a mistake and the convicted person was not the one who actually committed the crime and years later after the person was killed they found out it wasn't the convicted person then what? An innocent man would have died for something that he /she didn't do and there are better alternatives for homicide committers for example they could be sentenced to prison for life. I understand that Capitol Punishment can be necessary at times so there should be a law or statement that states that Capitol Punishment could be used only when there is a mass destruction or mass killing time.
Jonnykelly

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for the debate opportunity, and once again, best of luck to them. On to the debate:

Capital punishment, or the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime, has been a part of society for thousands of years, including the entire existence of the United States. Since ancient times, it has been a proven way to deter crime by severity. In the days of Rome, those killed on crosses or stakes were displayed at city entrances. While this is brutal, it resulted in a much more orderly society than otherwise existed at the time. In a much more refined and advanced way, capital punishment still keeps peace. The logic behind this is apparent: if a person is considering murder in any degree, and they consider the death penalty as a risk, they are less likely to go through with their action. There are several strong point that enforce the idea of capital punishment, as follows.

1. The punishment fits the crime.
Justice is only justice if punishment is at least somewhat equal to the crime committed. If a person chooses to murder another in cold blood, it is only just that he is in turn killed. Whether or not this is morally permissible is up to the household to decide, but it is, by definition, just. If a nation's legal system wishes to uphold justice, it must uphold capital punishment.

2. Certain cases of error are bound to happen.
Whether it is capital punishment, jail time, or anything else, wrongful conviction is bound to happen sometimes. No system is perfect, we as a society can only try to limit the amount of error in a system. This being said, we should not alter the forms of punishment we use for the very small chance of error. This being said, the "what if" argument that many use against capital punishment is weak. "What if" a person is wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for 30 years? Maybe they aren't dead, but the same principle applies. We must not alter our system for a margin of error.

3. Wrongful convictions happen far less often than implied.
Media, politicians, and people like my opponent would have us believe that every other case of capital punishment is a wrongful conviction. This, unfortunately is far from the truth. In fact, only about 4% MAY have been innocent [1]. This statistic is no worse than any other statistic regarding capital punishment. Our justice system is thorough, and rarely does a solid case of wrongful death come up.

4. People who take lives have forfeited their rights.
When a person makes the decision to kill, they are willfully giving up their own right to life over to the government. Plain and simple, murderers made a choice to die. This is not the fault of the government, and especially not of capital punishment.

Conclusion:
Capital punishment must be included in a just society. By definition, it is the just response to a murderers actions, is fairly precise, and is fitting for crimes committed. Unless con can prove beyond any doubt that capital punishment is unjust, ineffective, or morally wrong, capital punishment stands.

Sources:
[1] http://www.newsweek.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dude234

Con

dude234 forfeited this round.
Jonnykelly

Pro

I'll give my opponent a chance to argue.
Debate Round No. 3
dude234

Con

dude234 forfeited this round.
Jonnykelly

Pro

Jonnykelly forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SocialDemocrat// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments say that an eye for an eye is the correct philosophy, however con explains that sometimes it is not always the correct person, and they did not kill anybody. Pro pretty much refutes this by saying well its an eye for an eye, even though 4.1% of the time its the wrong person, and that so what its only 4.1% who cares. That really does not seem like an argument to me at all. I gave con conduct because pro offered a weak rebuttal then went on to make arguments that ignore the fact con stated.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. Conduct should only be awarded in instances where the debaters have directly attacked one another or someone separate from the debate, or in the case of a forfeit. This reasoning does not suffice. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. While the voter characterizes several points as representing arguments made by each side, it's not clear that any of these points actually appeared in the debate. The voter has to clearly address actual points made in the debate, not vaguely allude to those points.
************************************************************************
Posted by Jonnykelly 1 year ago
Jonnykelly
Talk about an unprofessional vote.
Posted by dude234 1 year ago
dude234
Thank you......people/person who voted for me this is my first victory in 4 debates.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Death Penalty is indeed a necessary application of a just society. It is not the act itself that is in error, rather it is THE WAY in which it is carried out that renders it ineffective. Society has reached a point where Death penalty cases should ONLY BE USED (IF) scientific evidence exists where the probability of error is greatly reduced such as DNA, blood evidence, gun residual, knife association to perpetrator etc... and any other scientific data which connects perpetrator to victim and scene of the crime.

Further it should be carried out no later than 1-4 year of imposition.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
dude234JonnykellyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited more turns.