The Instigator
jackleripper
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
ane92
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

the US should support the death penalty.

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: 4/6/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,757 times Debate No: 3539
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (13)

 

jackleripper

Pro

According to the bill of human rights, set up by the United Nations, article 3 states "people have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of security". However, does a person deserve these rights if they will not acknowledge the rights of others? The answer is no. The fact is that society can only be "humane" in punishment to those who have been humane in their actions.

I am arguing the negative side to the resolution: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment. The key terms in the resolution are "just society" and "death penalty". Just society is an association or company of persons united together by mutual consent in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose, while in keeping with truth or fact. Death penalty is supreme penalty exacted for murder or other capital crimes. The value I am basing my negative argument on is retribution. Retribution in criminal law, in Black's Law Dictionary, is defined as punishment based on the fact that every crime demands payment in the form of punishment. My value criterion is the thought of "an eye for an eye", which is also known as Roman law. Therefore, my two contentions will be as follows: my first is that all societies follow a basic law, which is commonly referred to as "the Golden rule" and this rule encourages the punishment to equal the crime, and my second contention is when a person kills then they do so in blatant disregard of the victim's rights and thus are civilly dead.

I will begin by arguing my first contention. No matter what society in the world we live in, we all have a basic belief to "do onto others as we would have others do onto us". This has been labeled as the "Golden Rule" in western societies. The fact is it is really just a rephrased version of an eye for an eye. For example, let us look at a person taking another person's life. In a society that follows the Roman law, the punisher would take the criminal's life for punishment equal to crime. However, what would be the punishment in a society that follows the "Golden Rule"? They would first look at what the criminal should have done, which is that obviously he shouldn't have murdered the victim on purpose in the first place. So what would be equal punishment for the crime? You can't ask for payment because how can it be judged how much the life is worth when there are so many contributions that that person could have made, people that could have been affected by that victim, and general good they could have provided for society? The truth is that the only fair punishment would be to end the life of the murderer. If a person were bold enough to kill another human being then they should be put to death themselves, so that the punishment can equal the crime. The fact is that a life, just like a lost limb, a foul relationship, or an act of treason, can not be compensated for through money or relinquishing possessions. Furthermore, taking a life isn't equal to the punishment of living the rest of your life in a prison cell. The fact is that while living the rest of your life in a prison cell you are given all the luxuries of living in a free world. The only thing infringed upon would be the criminal's freedoms, not their right to life.

I would like to now bring up my second contention which is when a person kills then they do so in blatant disregard of the victim's rights and thus are civilly dead. Civilly dead is defined as a person having no rights. In this case the murderer will have lost their human rights because they killed another person, which violates the victim's own rights. So, because the murderer has already lost their rights then it would be futile for the other side to debate that killing the murderer would go against their human rights. Going on the definition of society, the only way for it to function is for the individuals in the society to work to a common good. The society protects the individuals for working towards a common good and if the individuals don't work towards that then the society falls apart. Therefore it is imperative for the individuals to have a structured form of justice in order to keep social order. If a single individual goes against the most basic of laws in the society then they would automatically be separating themselves from the society for not going with the rest of the group towards the common good. This leads to them being civilly dead. It can probably be agreed upon that "thou shalt not kill" has been one of those basic laws since the time when civilizations were first being formed.
ane92

Con

The first reason that the United States should not support the death penalty is that the Bill of Rights, inspired by John Locke, has given all people of the United states the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The key aspect here is that everyone has been given the right to life. Everyone deserves to live.
The second reason that the United States should not support the death penalty is that the death penalty involves a permananent act. People have been acquitted after their deaths due to their innocence in the case that they died because of. Innocent people can be considered guilty when they really are not due to problems with DNA testing or other evidence and even because of slanted juries. Neither of these a excusable reason for the death of an innocent human being who was tortured with the prospect of their unnecessary death in the last period of their life.
Many other reasons show that the United States should not support the death penalty are available to the open mind. These include the cruel and unusual punishment that comes with waiting to be sentenced. The death penalty, among other punishments, is meant to act as a warning to end further crimes from being committed, but the death penalty has been proven to not be a deterrent. A New York Times study showed that over the last 20 years states with the death penalty had a 48% homicide rate compared to 23% in the states without the death penalty. Punishments for crime should also be made for the committer and not the rest of their family. The death penalty is so absolute that it affects the family members of the recipient by traumatizing them when they did nothing wrong but be related to the recipient.
Debate Round No. 1
jackleripper

Pro

"the Bill of Rights, inspired by John Locke, has given all people of the United states the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The key aspect here is that everyone has been given the right to life. Everyone deserves to live."

the right to life is definitely in dispute. As i adressed in my case, there is a social contract which provides for a reciprical relationship between the citizens and the government. while the governments holds the obligation to provide life, liberty, and the right to property, and the bill of rights even defends this, the constitution does not protect these rights if the person breaks the social contract. in this case the person would commit murder and thus break the social contract. thus, the governemnt, upon convictions, is no longer obligated to adhear to that person's rights. so for this reason they do not have the right to life anymore. Since, after all, why should the government be obligated to a person's rights if they are interfering with the rights of another and so blatantly disregard them?

"People have been acquitted after their deaths due to their innocence in the case that they died because of. Innocent people can be considered guilty when they really are not due to problems with DNA testing or other evidence and even because of slanted juries. Neither of these a excusable reason for the death of an innocent human being who was tortured with the prospect of their unnecessary death in the last period of their life."

my opponent is likely referring to this list. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

However, the very problem with the use of this argument is that this is an issue with the justice system, not the death penalty. The justice system requires that the jury convict "without a shadow of a doubt" and considering there is already a deterence for juries to agree to the death penalty, it is not as if the justice system weilds capital punishment lightly. I'd also like to bring into question the list itself. If you view the list, few enough people were acquitted due to DNA evidence. furthermore, the proportionality does not make sense. It would be no worse for a person to die by the death penalty before proof of innocence appears than if a person died after life in prison and were acquitted after they died.

"A New York Times study showed that over the last 20 years states with the death penalty had a 48% homicide rate compared to 23% in the states without the death penalty. Punishments for crime should also be made for the committer and not the rest of their family. The death penalty is so absolute that it affects the family members of the recipient by traumatizing them when they did nothing wrong but be related to the recipient."

The point of hate crimes is not to provide a deterence in society, for who would be deterred if they are crazy enough to kill someone, but rather to provide for proportionality in the criminal law system. To rebut the note about hte families, first of all the family could also be traumatized that a member would commit murder. furthermore, is the victim not dead? is the victim's families and frends not traumatized? did they do anything wrong? no they did not. Furthermore, to use such a case would be appeal to pity in the court systems. the fact is that some crimes deserve death, and if we are to consider the family's feelings of the murderer, the just look at the family of the victim to see more devistation.
ane92

Con

ane92 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jackleripper

Pro

i repeat. (this debat thing is screwy and keeps sending me outdated emails that i need to update.)
the Bill of Rights, inspired by John Locke, has given all people of the United states the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The key aspect here is that everyone has been given the right to life. Everyone deserves to live."

the right to life is definitely in dispute. As i adressed in my case, there is a social contract which provides for a reciprical relationship between the citizens and the government. while the governments holds the obligation to provide life, liberty, and the right to property, and the bill of rights even defends this, the constitution does not protect these rights if the person breaks the social contract. in this case the person would commit murder and thus break the social contract. thus, the governemnt, upon convictions, is no longer obligated to adhear to that person's rights. so for this reason they do not have the right to life anymore. Since, after all, why should the government be obligated to a person's rights if they are interfering with the rights of another and so blatantly disregard them?

"People have been acquitted after their deaths due to their innocence in the case that they died because of. Innocent people can be considered guilty when they really are not due to problems with DNA testing or other evidence and even because of slanted juries. Neither of these a excusable reason for the death of an innocent human being who was tortured with the prospect of their unnecessary death in the last period of their life."

my opponent is likely referring to this list. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......

However, the very problem with the use of this argument is that this is an issue with the justice system, not the death penalty. The justice system requires that the jury convict "without a shadow of a doubt" and considering there is already a deterence for juries to agree to the death penalty, it is not as if the justice system weilds capital punishment lightly. I'd also like to bring into question the list itself. If you view the list, few enough people were acquitted due to DNA evidence. furthermore, the proportionality does not make sense. It would be no worse for a person to die by the death penalty before proof of innocence appears than if a person died after life in prison and were acquitted after they died.

"A New York Times study showed that over the last 20 years states with the death penalty had a 48% homicide rate compared to 23% in the states without the death penalty. Punishments for crime should also be made for the committer and not the rest of their family. The death penalty is so absolute that it affects the family members of the recipient by traumatizing them when they did nothing wrong but be related to the recipient."

The point of hate crimes is not to provide a deterence in society, for who would be deterred if they are crazy enough to kill someone, but rather to provide for proportionality in the criminal law system. To rebut the note about hte families, first of all the family could also be traumatized that a member would commit murder. furthermore, is the victim not dead? is the victim's families and frends not traumatized? did they do anything wrong? no they did not. Furthermore, to use such a case would be appeal to pity in the court systems. the fact is that some crimes deserve death, and if we are to consider the family's feelings of the murderer, the just look at the family of the victim to see more devistation.

Also, if to reaffirm my own points, there can be no reciprical relationship between the state and its individual populations when they are the ones who broke the social contract in the first place. Since they broke this social contract they apparently do not have any regard to that social contract.
ane92

Con

ane92 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
life in isolated prison is no life at all...put them out of their misery.
give the family closer
Posted by XsamacadoX 8 years ago
XsamacadoX
ohh... now i have to make the winning choice.
Posted by skiies23 8 years ago
skiies23
HossierPapi, it isn't about which position you agree with! The point of debating (hence the website, debate.org) is to see which can bring a stronger argument, not choosing the more popular position...

Why do you think some people end up trying BOTH sides of an issue?

Since ane92 didn't even attempt to debate in 2/3 of the rounds, this should automatically disqualify her (unless of course an excellent first round was presented, which is not the case).

And what's up with her "I like her red outfit?" LOL, I think you should be banned (well not really) from voting on this site, henceforth!
Posted by HoosierPapi 8 years ago
HoosierPapi
Gotta go with Ane on this one; I agree with her position, like her red outfit, and like her homepage's Bobby Kennedy quote from the day of MLK's death. Nice work!

Where you from??
Posted by skiies23 8 years ago
skiies23
Pro wins, why should Con get a vote?

I don't care if you've never debated before, ane92... you need to at least POST SOMETHING!
Posted by ane92 8 years ago
ane92
and just for the record... i've never debated at all ever... so don't laugh at me. well you can laugh but not in a mean way :)
Posted by jackleripper 8 years ago
jackleripper
for reference, my argument is a copy/paste of my own design from last november. i swear i'm better at LD than i was when i wrote this.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by genaro9311 8 years ago
genaro9311
jackleripperane92Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
jackleripperane92Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
jackleripperane92Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
jackleripperane92Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Gao 8 years ago
Gao
jackleripperane92Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by HoosierPapi 8 years ago
HoosierPapi
jackleripperane92Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
jackleripperane92Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
jackleripperane92Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by marketing08 8 years ago
marketing08
jackleripperane92Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by CP 8 years ago
CP
jackleripperane92Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30