The Instigator
debate11111111
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

should pedophiles and rapists be executed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 91585
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

debate11111111

Pro

pedophiles and rapist ruin their victims lives. so i think they should be executed to stop future incidents. and to take those sick little puppies out of this world
tejretics

Con

== Intro ==

Pro's BoP in this debate is to show that both pedophiles *and* rapists should be executed. If Pro doesn't show both of these things, vote Con. So if I'm able to show that even one of these two categories shouldn't be executed, or if both shouldn't be executed, I win the debate.

== My case ==

1) Pedophiles shouldn't be executed

Pedophilia is merely a state of mind. Pro says pedophiles "ruin their victims' lives," but pedophiles don't necessarily have "victims" because they don't *act* on their states of mind. To charge someone with a crime, under criminal law, is only possible when (1) there is a "guilty mind," i.e. a person had intent to commit a crime, and (2) the person actually committed the act in question. [1] If only one of these conditions are met, it isn't a crime, because that's how criminal law is structured internationally. For example, if a person died in a car accident, one can't punish the driver of the other car, because it was an accident, though the act (killing a person) is still committed. Similarly, pedophilia is a state of mind, and isn't a choice, so punishing it doesn't meet these requirements. [2]

Execution is a form of punishment by the criminal justice system. Indeed, the Oxford Dictionary's definition of "execution" is "the carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person." [3] A state of mind isn't compatible under criminal law, because pedophiles aren't culpable of any crime. Culpability (comprising of both action and guilty mind) is required to merit any form of punishment. Most pedophiles don't act on their thoughts, so they don't merit punishment at all, let alone execution. Pedophilia isn't a choice, and it would be unjust to punish something innate. Instead, punish the *act* of sex with a minor and similar acts.

2) Capital punishment should be abolished

I've proven that, even under the existence of execution, pedophiles shouldn't be executed. Now I'm going to argue from a kritikal perspective: nobody should be executed. Capital punishment is harmful to society and should be abolished from the criminal justice system. There are a few reasons for this being the case.

Psychological damage. Executioners and those that witness the execution often face clinical depression and similar psychological damage from seeing it take place. [4] The trauma from witnessing a struggling person being killed is beyond words.

Cost. There are huge fiscal costs to capital punishment. Cases in which capital punishment is considered cost a lot more than other cases. When a person's life is being considered, there's a lot more scrutiny applied in the criminal justice system regarding whom they execute. This level of scrutiny leads to the death penalty in California costing $137 million per year vs. lifetime incarceration costing $11.5 million annually. [5] This disadvantage doesn't even need to be a kritik, because if we're going to execute rapists and pedophiles, the number of executions increases, and -- with that -- the cost.

Inhumanity. Methods of execution are often grossly inhumane and torturous. There are usually two methods of execution followed in the United States: lethal injection and electrocution. Lethal injection uses an anesthetic (usually sodium thiopental), a drug that induces cardiac arrest, and a drug that causes the heart to stop. [6] But the anesthetic wears off after around 6 minutes. [7] This means -- during the execution -- the victim is awake but paralyzed by the cardiac arrest-inducing drug, so they experience intense pain without being able to express it. [7] The second method of execution, electrocution, is even worse. Justice William Brennan explained, "[T]he prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks. The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. The body turns bright red as its temperature rises, and the prisoner's flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner catches fire . . . [w]itnesses hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the chamber." [8]

3) Recidivism

Pro argues that execution of rapists prevents recidivism. But there are much better ways to prevent recidivism. High-security prisons and rehabilitation are two such methods. Rehabilitation of rapists actually works and significantly reduces the rate of rapes [9], and imprisonment also results in a *significant* reduction, with high-security prisons ensuring the lack of in-prison rapes. Current authorities are seemingly not concerned with that much -- but fiat that. I offer this plan: significantly increase prison security and launch criminal investigations into in-prison rape.

The magnitude from psychological damage and inhumanity outweighs any magnitude gained from in-prison rape and recidivism because the impact is significantly mitigated by rehabilitation and prison security.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] http://www.njadp.org...
[5] http://www.forbes.com...
[6] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[7] http://www.scientificjournals.org...
[8] Craig Brandon, "The Electric Chair," p. 205
[9] http://www.theherald.com.au...
Debate Round No. 1
debate11111111

Pro

debate11111111 forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

I have repeated this multiple times: do not instigate a debate unless you're willing to continue it fully. Every debater is expected to offer a response. If you simply want to express something random without responding to objections, don't debate it - because debate is an exercise in persuasion, that involves a back-and-forth in argumentation.

I win arguments because I've thoroughly refuted Pro's case by showing that pedophiles don't have any "victims" to ruin and that there are better ways -- in both rapists and pedophiles -- to prevent recidivism. I have also shown that criminal punishment requires both guilty mind and action; pedophilia is a state of mind, so it shouldn't be punished, and that capital punishment in itself should be abolished. I win conduct because of Pro's forfeit. I win sources because Pro's whole argument is based on speculative impacts, assumptions and bare assertions that lack sources, while I have sufficiently justified all my statements with extensive citations and don't have that many bare assertions.
Debate Round No. 2
debate11111111

Pro

debate11111111 forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Extend my arguments -- the death penalty is unjust, pedophiles are often innocent of any crimes and the Pro model isn't the best way to prevent recidivism.
Debate Round No. 3
debate11111111

Pro

debate11111111 forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Okay.

tejretics forfeited this round.

Debate Round No. 4
debate11111111

Pro

debate11111111 forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Watch this for fun.

https://www.youtube.com...

But before you do that, vote Con. Full forfeit and all that jazz.

Okay, /fin.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con is the only one with arguments, so arguments to Con by default. Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited all rounds except for the first round. Vote Con/ (P.S. Tej, how did you even do "tejretics forfeited this round." in red? It is the exact same.)

[*Reason for non-removal*] Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
>Tej, how did you even do "tejretics forfeited this round." in red?

"<h4><font face=red>tejretics forfeited this round.</font></h4>"

HTML formatting, basically.
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
@Adquinn

1. It's the *trial* that is costly. We need to ensure such a trial because not doing that risks losing innocent lives due to executions.

2. The executioner doesn't directly cause the death. Electric chair and lethal injection are both administered at the flip of a switch (not literal; I'm merely saying that the executioner doesn't directly cause the death). The problem is, there has to be someone to flip that switch and ensure it goes fine [same with the "shoot in the head machine" plan]. And they'll end up facing psychological damage.
Posted by Adquinn 9 months ago
Adquinn
Valid argument from the con side that capital punishment is needlessly costly/damaging in many ways, but frankly the damages can easily be minimized. For example the cost of capital punishment vs life imprisonment, it's not difficult to kill someone, nor does it have to be costly. A person will die just as easily from a bullet to the brain as with a lethal injection, and the bullet would probably be less painful in all honesty. As for the psychological damages inflicted upon the executor, it would not take too much work to design and implement a mechanized system of shooting a death row inmate in the head, and if the prison in question were to actually care about their staff then there would be no problem with the implementation of such a machine.

The potential is there to have an execution system which is cheap and efficient, so it is illogical (to my mind) to use an argument of cost in what should be an argument of ethics. And in this case, crimes which were committed with obvious intent to inflict massive and lasting trauma for one's own satisfaction (i.e. rape) are punishable by death.
Posted by kasmic 9 months ago
kasmic
Overkill!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by harrytruman 8 months ago
harrytruman
debate11111111tejreticsTied
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: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Wylted 8 months ago
Wylted
debate11111111tejreticsTied
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: Ff
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 months ago
Danielle
debate11111111tejreticsTied
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: Con argues that not all pedophiles act on their urges, and therefore do not necessarily commit any crimes or harm any children. Pro loses arguments for not fulfilling his burden - that is not making any arguments at all. Con made successful arguments that Pro did not respond to. Pro dropped Con's point on action and his supposition that the DP should be abolished. Pro's lack of making a case and failure to respond to even 1 round is poor conduct.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 8 months ago
fire_wings
debate11111111tejreticsTied
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: Con is the only one with arguments, so arguments to Con by default. Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited all rounds except for the first round. Vote Con/ (P.S. Tej, how did you even do "tejretics forfeited this round." in red? It is the exact same.)