Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Formal Challenge to Roy on Death penalty

Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 8:59:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is something in the making for a long time. Me and Roy have been discussing a death penalty debate for ages, and it has never happened. After Bluesteel read my recent debate, he has requested to team up with me in a death penalty debate. Only if we can get some good people to put the effort into this with.

So this is a formal challenge to Roy and someone of his choosing to go up against me and bluesteel in this topic. I think both me and blue are aware this site has been lacking some good debates, and would enjoy this.

Roy and someone of his choosing will be pro death penalty

Me and blue would be against the death penalty

I look forward to this if it happens. I am not posting this as a public call out thread, but as a way for people whom may want to debate this with Roy to post their interest. He has the right to pick whomever he desires for this.

The debate format will be discussed later.
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
XLAV
Posts: 13,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:03:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

Why are you Pro death penalty? I thought you're GCL!
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:05:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...

http://www.debate.org...

just one study but it goes both ways. Read both my debates and some of roys debates on it. It will explain it better
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:15:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:03:46 PM, XLAV wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

Why are you Pro death penalty? I thought you're GCL!

I kinda was expecting someone to ask me that, but not you.

Ummm, I actually still indecisive on my take with it even though my profile says I am Pro.. I used to have it at Con, but changed it because of a convo I had with my dad and a friend, but still kinda iffy about it.. Maybe I need to put undecided so there is not confusion.. I used to be strongly strongly against it for the longest time.. BUt after that convo I had with my dad and friend I figured maybe its okay?.. But again, still not fully decided..
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:18:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:05:05 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...

http://www.debate.org...


just one study but it goes both ways. Read both my debates and some of roys debates on it. It will explain it better

I'm still kinda iffy myself even though in my mind I think it may be okay.. But then I try to look at it from the Biblical perspective.. That's usually how I base all of my beliefs.. If I'm Pro it would be because I would be saying I demand justice, but if I say Con I would be saying I'm okay with crime/killing.. So either is confusing..
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:21:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...

(1) Ineffective deterrent

Studies show that the death penalty does not decrease crime. Most criminals don't think before they act.

(2) Failure of due process

The criminal justice system is not perfect. We have put people to death only to find later through DNA evidence that they didn't do it. Had they not been executed, they would have been set free. Even if the death penalty deters (e.g. five murders prevented for each person put to death), you could achieve the same deterrent by killing innocent people. We don't do deterrence just for it's own sake.

(3) Cost

It costs way more to put someone to death than to keep them in jail forever because of all the appeals that people get in capital cases. We already spend way too much on our criminal justice system (in California, we spend five times more per prisoner than per student). Stop the madness.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:31:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:18:29 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:05:05 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...

http://www.debate.org...


just one study but it goes both ways. Read both my debates and some of roys debates on it. It will explain it better

I'm still kinda iffy myself even though in my mind I think it may be okay.. But then I try to look at it from the Biblical perspective.. That's usually how I base all of my beliefs.. If I'm Pro it would be because I would be saying I demand justice, but if I say Con I would be saying I'm okay with crime/killing.. So either is confusing..

Well, the Bible approved of the death penalty, such as stoning disobedient children to death. But then again, you have to decide whether you really believe in the Old Testament justice. Jesus did not appear to endorse killing people as morally permissible. In fact, his preachings on love and forgiveness would militate more towards a reformist style of imprisoning people, such as in Sweden, which isolates all its reformed murderers on an island but otherwise gives them a chance at a normal life.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:39:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:31:14 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:18:29 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:05:05 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...

http://www.debate.org...


just one study but it goes both ways. Read both my debates and some of roys debates on it. It will explain it better

I'm still kinda iffy myself even though in my mind I think it may be okay.. But then I try to look at it from the Biblical perspective.. That's usually how I base all of my beliefs.. If I'm Pro it would be because I would be saying I demand justice, but if I say Con I would be saying I'm okay with crime/killing.. So either is confusing..

Well, the Bible approved of the death penalty, such as stoning disobedient children to death. But then again, you have to decide whether you really believe in the Old Testament justice. Jesus did not appear to endorse killing people as morally permissible. In fact, his preachings on love and forgiveness would militate more towards a reformist style of imprisoning people, such as in Sweden, which isolates all its reformed murderers on an island but otherwise gives them a chance at a normal life.

hmmmmmmm?.....
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:41:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:31:14 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:18:29 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:05:05 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...

http://www.debate.org...


just one study but it goes both ways. Read both my debates and some of roys debates on it. It will explain it better

I'm still kinda iffy myself even though in my mind I think it may be okay.. But then I try to look at it from the Biblical perspective.. That's usually how I base all of my beliefs.. If I'm Pro it would be because I would be saying I demand justice, but if I say Con I would be saying I'm okay with crime/killing.. So either is confusing..

Well, the Bible approved of the death penalty, such as stoning disobedient children to death. But then again, you have to decide whether you really believe in the Old Testament justice. Jesus did not appear to endorse killing people as morally permissible. In fact, his preachings on love and forgiveness would militate more towards a reformist style of imprisoning people, such as in Sweden, which isolates all its reformed murderers on an island but otherwise gives them a chance at a normal life.
Sweden? The region(Finland, Norway, Sweden) is incomparable in many respects to the United States. Sweden's culture has never produced criminals of any significance compared to the United States historically. If you want to compare, at least use countries where crime has been significant and has drastically been reduced(for example Japan). The prisons that exist in Norway and Sweden would not work in any major country that has crime(I.E Brazil, Russia, United States).
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:48:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:41:58 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:31:14 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:18:29 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:05:05 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...

http://www.debate.org...


just one study but it goes both ways. Read both my debates and some of roys debates on it. It will explain it better

I'm still kinda iffy myself even though in my mind I think it may be okay.. But then I try to look at it from the Biblical perspective.. That's usually how I base all of my beliefs.. If I'm Pro it would be because I would be saying I demand justice, but if I say Con I would be saying I'm okay with crime/killing.. So either is confusing..

Well, the Bible approved of the death penalty, such as stoning disobedient children to death. But then again, you have to decide whether you really believe in the Old Testament justice. Jesus did not appear to endorse killing people as morally permissible. In fact, his preachings on love and forgiveness would militate more towards a reformist style of imprisoning people, such as in Sweden, which isolates all its reformed murderers on an island but otherwise gives them a chance at a normal life.
Sweden? The region(Finland, Norway, Sweden) is incomparable in many respects to the United States. Sweden's culture has never produced criminals of any significance compared to the United States historically. If you want to compare, at least use countries where crime has been significant and has drastically been reduced(for example Japan). The prisons that exist in Norway and Sweden would not work in any major country that has crime(I.E Brazil, Russia, United States).

How is that relevant if we establish that the death penalty isn't a good deterrent? Moreover, more crime -- and thus more executions -- is an argument against the death penalty, because it's been proven to cost more than life in prison.

And you guys call yourselves fiscal hawks....DDO Congress will be fun.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 10:00:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:48:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:41:58 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:31:14 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:18:29 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:05:05 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...

http://www.debate.org...


just one study but it goes both ways. Read both my debates and some of roys debates on it. It will explain it better

I'm still kinda iffy myself even though in my mind I think it may be okay.. But then I try to look at it from the Biblical perspective.. That's usually how I base all of my beliefs.. If I'm Pro it would be because I would be saying I demand justice, but if I say Con I would be saying I'm okay with crime/killing.. So either is confusing..

Well, the Bible approved of the death penalty, such as stoning disobedient children to death. But then again, you have to decide whether you really believe in the Old Testament justice. Jesus did not appear to endorse killing people as morally permissible. In fact, his preachings on love and forgiveness would militate more towards a reformist style of imprisoning people, such as in Sweden, which isolates all its reformed murderers on an island but otherwise gives them a chance at a normal life.
Sweden? The region(Finland, Norway, Sweden) is incomparable in many respects to the United States. Sweden's culture has never produced criminals of any significance compared to the United States historically. If you want to compare, at least use countries where crime has been significant and has drastically been reduced(for example Japan). The prisons that exist in Norway and Sweden would not work in any major country that has crime(I.E Brazil, Russia, United States).

How is that relevant if we establish that the death penalty isn't a good deterrent? Moreover, more crime -- and thus more executions -- is an argument against the death penalty, because it's been proven to cost more than life in prison.

Did you read before you typed? It does not seem like it. I was responding to this comment:

In fact, his preachings on love and forgiveness would militate more towards a reformist style of imprisoning people, such as in Sweden, which isolates all its reformed murderers on an island but otherwise gives them a chance at a normal life.

Could you please inform me where I mentioned the death penalty and deterrence? I only mentioned Sweden is not an adequate comparison due to the conditions that exist in that region. My comment reflected the idea that reformed murderers would return to normal life which would not be true in most countries.

And you guys call yourselves fiscal hawks....DDO Congress will be fun.
Where did I call myself this?
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 10:05:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 10:00:31 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:48:50 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:41:58 PM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:31:14 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:18:29 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:05:05 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...

http://www.debate.org...


just one study but it goes both ways. Read both my debates and some of roys debates on it. It will explain it better

I'm still kinda iffy myself even though in my mind I think it may be okay.. But then I try to look at it from the Biblical perspective.. That's usually how I base all of my beliefs.. If I'm Pro it would be because I would be saying I demand justice, but if I say Con I would be saying I'm okay with crime/killing.. So either is confusing..

Well, the Bible approved of the death penalty, such as stoning disobedient children to death. But then again, you have to decide whether you really believe in the Old Testament justice. Jesus did not appear to endorse killing people as morally permissible. In fact, his preachings on love and forgiveness would militate more towards a reformist style of imprisoning people, such as in Sweden, which isolates all its reformed murderers on an island but otherwise gives them a chance at a normal life.
Sweden? The region(Finland, Norway, Sweden) is incomparable in many respects to the United States. Sweden's culture has never produced criminals of any significance compared to the United States historically. If you want to compare, at least use countries where crime has been significant and has drastically been reduced(for example Japan). The prisons that exist in Norway and Sweden would not work in any major country that has crime(I.E Brazil, Russia, United States).

How is that relevant if we establish that the death penalty isn't a good deterrent? Moreover, more crime -- and thus more executions -- is an argument against the death penalty, because it's been proven to cost more than life in prison.

Did you read before you typed? It does not seem like it. I was responding to this comment:

In fact, his preachings on love and forgiveness would militate more towards a reformist style of imprisoning people, such as in Sweden, which isolates all its reformed murderers on an island but otherwise gives them a chance at a normal life.

Could you please inform me where I mentioned the death penalty and deterrence? I only mentioned Sweden is not an adequate comparison due to the conditions that exist in that region. My comment reflected the idea that reformed murderers would return to normal life which would not be true in most countries.

And you guys call yourselves fiscal hawks....DDO Congress will be fun.
Where did I call myself this?

Yeah, I think I misinterpreted your post -- that, or I confused you with someone else. My bad.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 10:06:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't like team debates, so I'll decline that opportunity. Team debates seem to me to end up with a patchwork of arguments, including weak ones that dilute the debate.

People have asked what the Pro arguments are, so at the risk of derailing the thread I'll outline the Pro case. My starting point is that the death penalty should be reserved for horrific crimes.

1. The death penalty is required to maintain a sense of justice in the society. If doing something horrific gets you room and board for life, it conveys the message that the legal system is a game unrelated to justice. To deter crime, society must be serious about justice.

2. The death penalty deters murder. The only correct way to study this is to observe what happens when the death penalty is added or removed from a jurisdiction, and those studies show deterrence. Studies that compare states with death penalties to those without are confusing cause and effect. A high murder rate tends to cause a death penalty being enacted.

3. It's not true that crimes of passion are not subject to deterrence. No one wakes up in the morning with a plan to overstay their parking meter, but a high fine on overstaying the meter, duly enforced, nonetheless deters violation. The penalty is considered at the time of the act.

4. The death penalty provides a tool for plea bargaining. There are many cases of serial killers pleading guilty and revealing their list of crimes in return for taking the death penalty off the table. This provides closure to victims families, and it saves a great deal in trial expense. People who count the cost of death penalty trials never count these cost savings.

5. Lack of a death penalty gives convicted killers a free pass to kill guards, fellow inmates, and citizens who end up in the way of an escape. Killers cannot be kept forever in solitary; that's cruel and unusual punishment.

6. Modern forensics and automatic appeal procedures have effectively eliminated the possibility of a false conviction both happening and withstanding scrutiny. The CSI effect has conditioned jurors to want extremely solid forensic evidence to impose a death penalty. There is no convincing evidence of a false conviction being carried out in the past two decades.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 10:18:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:03:46 PM, XLAV wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

Why are you Pro death penalty? I thought you're GCL!

Criminal =/= unborn baby.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 10:27:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 10:06:47 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I don't like team debates, so I'll decline that opportunity. Team debates seem to me to end up with a patchwork of arguments, including weak ones that dilute the debate.

People have asked what the Pro arguments are, so at the risk of derailing the thread I'll outline the Pro case. My starting point is that the death penalty should be reserved for horrific crimes.

1. The death penalty is required to maintain a sense of justice in the society. If doing something horrific gets you room and board for life, it conveys the message that the legal system is a game unrelated to justice. To deter crime, society must be serious about justice.

At least to me, the perception of prison is that you get constantly gang-raped, not free room and board. I don't think anyone argues that the justice system has lost its legitimacy in non-death penalty states.

2. The death penalty deters murder. The only correct way to study this is to observe what happens when the death penalty is added or removed from a jurisdiction, and those studies show deterrence. Studies that compare states with death penalties to those without are confusing cause and effect. A high murder rate tends to cause a death penalty being enacted.

I'd like to debate you on this at some point.

3. It's not true that crimes of passion are not subject to deterrence. No one wakes up in the morning with a plan to overstay their parking meter, but a high fine on overstaying the meter, duly enforced, nonetheless deters violation. The penalty is considered at the time of the act.

Imagine a guy that just walked in on his wife sleeping with another man. He pulls out his gun, ready to shoot. I doubt that in his mind, he's thinking "risk of apprehension: 80%, magnitude of punishment, death penalty. No wait, we abolished. Okay, f&ck yea, I'm doing this." Humans are predictably irrational.

4. The death penalty provides a tool for plea bargaining. There are many cases of serial killers pleading guilty and revealing their list of crimes in return for taking the death penalty off the table. This provides closure to victims families, and it saves a great deal in trial expense. People who count the cost of death penalty trials never count these cost savings.

You take out your own "legitimacy of the justice system" argument to argue that the death penalty is important, but we should only use it as a plea bargaining tool. The cost still nets out to the death penalty being more expensive.

5. Lack of a death penalty gives convicted killers a free pass to kill guards, fellow inmates, and citizens who end up in the way of an escape. Killers cannot be kept forever in solitary; that's cruel and unusual punishment.

Loss of prison privileges and placement on a special "high-violence' ward is usually enough to deter criminals from killing guards and other inmates. We don't see rampant prison murders in abolition states or in Europe.

6. Modern forensics and automatic appeal procedures have effectively eliminated the possibility of a false conviction both happening and withstanding scrutiny. The CSI effect has conditioned jurors to want extremely solid forensic evidence to impose a death penalty. There is no convincing evidence of a false conviction being carried out in the past two decades.

Abolishing applies retroactively. There are still plenty of false convictions where there was no DNA evidence period (and therefore none to exonerate) because eyewitness testimony is horribly biased and inaccurate. It's just hard to list something as a false conviction if it's overturned on appeal unless there was firm DNA evidence absolutely establishing proof of innocence. But convictions do get overturned on appeal all the time still.

Good points though Roy. Some are much stronger than others, but it would make an interesting debate. I wish you'd debate Mikal and I together. I'm kind of busy and don't want to do a whole debate myself at the current moment, and it would be nice for the site to have a good team debate. If you've read bad ones, I assume that had more to do with the debaters in it than the format. But it's ultimately your choice.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 9:18:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 10:27:29 PM, bluesteel wrote:

At least to me, the perception of prison is that you get constantly gang-raped, not free room and board. I don't think anyone argues that the justice system has lost its legitimacy in non-death penalty states.

It's argued often, even in death penalty states. The impression is that one can get off on a technicality. There is more to that than the death penalty, but that's part of it.

Imagine a guy that just walked in on his wife sleeping with another man. He pulls out his gun, ready to shoot. I doubt that in his mind, he's thinking "risk of apprehension: 80%, magnitude of punishment, death penalty. No wait, we abolished. Okay, f&ck yea, I'm doing this." Humans are predictably irrational.

The death penalty is applied mainly to first degree murder. That's generally murder that is planned, even though legally the planning may occur in what amounts to just a few moments of contemplation. "Jealous husband" is a special case -- Texas had to give equal shooting rights to women to make it's law acceptable. The death penalty is about serial killers, gang slayings, mob hits, kidnap victims, and the torture of children.

You take out your own "legitimacy of the justice system" argument to argue that the death penalty is important, but we should only use it as a plea bargaining tool. The cost still nets out to the death penalty being more expensive.

I didn't say it was only used for plea bargaining; when it's used is a matter of judgement. It must be used sometimes. California has a death penalty that's never enforced, but there are still plea bargains based upon the theory that it might be used.

Loss of prison privileges and placement on a special "high-violence' ward is usually enough to deter criminals from killing guards and other inmates. We don't see rampant prison murders in abolition states or in Europe.

An argument against the death penalty is that there are false convictions, even though they are rare. Killings in prison are not rampant, but they occur much more often than false convictions.

Good points though Roy. Some are much stronger than others, but it would make an interesting debate. I wish you'd debate Mikal and I together. I'm kind of busy and don't want to do a whole debate myself at the current moment, and it would be nice for the site to have a good team debate. If you've read bad ones, I assume that had more to do with the debaters in it than the format. But it's ultimately your choice.

I discovered that when it comes to debate I don't like having to yield to a consensus strategy formed by the team. I'm planning to debate Mikal one-on-one on the death penalty as soon as I get my present backlog of challenges cleared.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 9:36:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 10:06:47 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I don't like team debates, so I'll decline that opportunity. Team debates seem to me to end up with a patchwork of arguments, including weak ones that dilute the debate.

People have asked what the Pro arguments are, so at the risk of derailing the thread I'll outline the Pro case. My starting point is that the death penalty should be reserved for horrific crimes.

1. The death penalty is required to maintain a sense of justice in the society. If doing something horrific gets you room and board for life, it conveys the message that the legal system is a game unrelated to justice. To deter crime, society must be serious about justice.

2. The death penalty deters murder. The only correct way to study this is to observe what happens when the death penalty is added or removed from a jurisdiction, and those studies show deterrence. Studies that compare states with death penalties to those without are confusing cause and effect. A high murder rate tends to cause a death penalty being enacted.

...This is factually wrong. In fact, it actually bothers me that you openly deny evidence en-light of expert opinion .. which overwhelmingly favors abolishing CP. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

88% of them all claim that no deterrence effect comes when CP is put in place.

3. It's not true that crimes of passion are not subject to deterrence. No one wakes up in the morning with a plan to overstay their parking meter, but a high fine on overstaying the meter, duly enforced, nonetheless deters violation. The penalty is considered at the time of the act.

So then what happens to the person mentally ill?

4. The death penalty provides a tool for plea bargaining. There are many cases of serial killers pleading guilty and revealing their list of crimes in return for taking the death penalty off the table. This provides closure to victims families, and it saves a great deal in trial expense. People who count the cost of death penalty trials never count these cost savings.

...at the expense of due process of law....awesome! I thought you were a libertarian?

5. Lack of a death penalty gives convicted killers a free pass to kill guards, fellow inmates, and citizens who end up in the way of an escape. Killers cannot be kept forever in solitary; that's cruel and unusual punishment.

Okay ... have you SEEN what actually happens during someone being killed for CP?

(see video)


6. Modern forensics and automatic appeal procedures have effectively eliminated the possibility of a false conviction both happening and withstanding scrutiny. The CSI effect has conditioned jurors to want extremely solid forensic evidence to impose a death penalty. There is no convincing evidence of a false conviction being carried out in the past two decades.
Thank you for voting!
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 10:21:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 9:18:00 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 2/15/2014 10:27:29 PM, bluesteel wrote:

At least to me, the perception of prison is that you get constantly gang-raped, not free room and board. I don't think anyone argues that the justice system has lost its legitimacy in non-death penalty states.

It's argued often, even in death penalty states. The impression is that one can get off on a technicality. There is more to that than the death penalty, but that's part of it.


Imagine a guy that just walked in on his wife sleeping with another man. He pulls out his gun, ready to shoot. I doubt that in his mind, he's thinking "risk of apprehension: 80%, magnitude of punishment, death penalty. No wait, we abolished. Okay, f&ck yea, I'm doing this." Humans are predictably irrational.

The death penalty is applied mainly to first degree murder. That's generally murder that is planned, even though legally the planning may occur in what amounts to just a few moments of contemplation. "Jealous husband" is a special case -- Texas had to give equal shooting rights to women to make it's law acceptable. The death penalty is about serial killers, gang slayings, mob hits, kidnap victims, and the torture of children.

You take out your own "legitimacy of the justice system" argument to argue that the death penalty is important, but we should only use it as a plea bargaining tool. The cost still nets out to the death penalty being more expensive.

I didn't say it was only used for plea bargaining; when it's used is a matter of judgement. It must be used sometimes. California has a death penalty that's never enforced, but there are still plea bargains based upon the theory that it might be used.

Is there actually some way to quantify the cost savings from plea bargaining versus the addition cost to litigate a death penalty case all the way to execution? If someone could prove to me that the death penalty, on balance, was a cost saver then I would probably be convinced to change my position on this issue.

The plea bargaining thing is a really valid point. In my mind, the ideal system would use the death penalty merely as a plea bargaining chip and to deter prisoners, but judges would never actually sentence to death because of the unwieldy appeals process.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:08:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll take either side in this team debate. I don't have an official position but I'll team with Roy of he changes his mind.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:53:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:15:24 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:46 PM, XLAV wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

Why are you Pro death penalty? I thought you're GCL!

I kinda was expecting someone to ask me that, but not you.

Ummm, I actually still indecisive on my take with it even though my profile says I am Pro.. I used to have it at Con, but changed it because of a convo I had with my dad and a friend, but still kinda iffy about it.. Maybe I need to put undecided so there is not confusion.. I used to be strongly strongly against it for the longest time.. BUt after that convo I had with my dad and friend I figured maybe its okay?.. But again, still not fully decided..

But... but...
If god chooses life, then why choose death?
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:58:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 9:18:29 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:05:05 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:43 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:02:35 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

ineffective deterrent, failure to due process, etc and so forth lol

Elaborate better please.. Tryna get a feel (idea) of what your saying here ^ ...

http://www.debate.org...


just one study but it goes both ways. Read both my debates and some of roys debates on it. It will explain it better

I'm still kinda iffy myself even though in my mind I think it may be okay.. But then I try to look at it from the Biblical perspective.. That's usually how I base all of my beliefs.. If I'm Pro it would be because I would be saying I demand justice, but if I say Con I would be saying I'm okay with crime/killing.. So either is confusing..

A common misconception of "Christian" is to be a believer in the Bible. This is not strictly true.

To be Christian means to be a follower of Christ (Jesus). Therefore, whatever Jesus said should take priority over all else. If the OT says one thing and Jesus said another, a Christian would, by definition, go with Jesus over the OT. Consequently, Jesus seemed to be against unnecessary death, so should Christians.

But that's just me.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:13:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 10:06:47 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I don't like team debates, so I'll decline that opportunity. Team debates seem to me to end up with a patchwork of arguments, including weak ones that dilute the debate.

People have asked what the Pro arguments are, so at the risk of derailing the thread I'll outline the Pro case. My starting point is that the death penalty should be reserved for horrific crimes.

1. The death penalty is required to maintain a sense of justice in the society. If doing something horrific gets you room and board for life, it conveys the message that the legal system is a game unrelated to justice. To deter crime, society must be serious about justice.

So many subjective terms, there.


2. The death penalty deters murder. The only correct way to study this is to observe what happens when the death penalty is added or removed from a jurisdiction, and those studies show deterrence. Studies that compare states with death penalties to those without are confusing cause and effect. A high murder rate tends to cause a death penalty being enacted.

I'll hold my judgement on this one. An interesting way of proposing it, though.


3. It's not true that crimes of passion are not subject to deterrence. No one wakes up in the morning with a plan to overstay their parking meter, but a high fine on overstaying the meter, duly enforced, nonetheless deters violation. The penalty is considered at the time of the act.

Fair enough, but this responds as a counter-argument, not a point in and of itself.


4. The death penalty provides a tool for plea bargaining. There are many cases of serial killers pleading guilty and revealing their list of crimes in return for taking the death penalty off the table. This provides closure to victims families, and it saves a great deal in trial expense. People who count the cost of death penalty trials never count these cost savings.

Perhaps, but it's an empty threat, really. "Tell me or you die" is cruel and unusual, me thinks.


5. Lack of a death penalty gives convicted killers a free pass to kill guards, fellow inmates, and citizens who end up in the way of an escape. Killers cannot be kept forever in solitary; that's cruel and unusual punishment.

It does, but highly unlikely, unless they're insane. In which case, they shouldn't be in a standard prison, which demonstrates flaws in the justice system, which, in turn, does not support the position of Pro-DP

ON the bold: They're not kept in solitary. You're stating they can kill fellows in solitary, are you? :D


6. Modern forensics and automatic appeal procedures have effectively eliminated the possibility of a false conviction both happening and withstanding scrutiny. The CSI effect has conditioned jurors to want extremely solid forensic evidence to impose a death penalty. There is no convincing evidence of a false conviction being carried out in the past two decades.

I'll agree with this, for most crimes.

Some good points, though.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:38:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:53:07 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:15:24 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:46 PM, XLAV wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

Why are you Pro death penalty? I thought you're GCL!

I kinda was expecting someone to ask me that, but not you.

Ummm, I actually still indecisive on my take with it even though my profile says I am Pro.. I used to have it at Con, but changed it because of a convo I had with my dad and a friend, but still kinda iffy about it.. Maybe I need to put undecided so there is not confusion.. I used to be strongly strongly against it for the longest time.. BUt after that convo I had with my dad and friend I figured maybe its okay?.. But again, still not fully decided..

But... but...
If god chooses life, then why choose death?

Because, f*** criminals who rape, cook and eat women for fun, that's why.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:41:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 11:38:26 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:53:07 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:15:24 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:03:46 PM, XLAV wrote:
At 2/15/2014 9:01:13 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
Why are you against the death penalty? Just curious.

Why are you Pro death penalty? I thought you're GCL!

I kinda was expecting someone to ask me that, but not you.

Ummm, I actually still indecisive on my take with it even though my profile says I am Pro.. I used to have it at Con, but changed it because of a convo I had with my dad and a friend, but still kinda iffy about it.. Maybe I need to put undecided so there is not confusion.. I used to be strongly strongly against it for the longest time.. BUt after that convo I had with my dad and friend I figured maybe its okay?.. But again, still not fully decided..

But... but...
If god chooses life, then why choose death?

Because, f*** criminals who rape, cook and eat women for fun, that's why.

Fair point.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:27:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 9:36:57 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:

2. The death penalty deters murder. The only correct way to study this is to observe what happens when the death penalty is added or removed from a jurisdiction, ...

...This is factually wrong. In fact, it actually bothers me that you openly deny evidence en-light of expert opinion .. which overwhelmingly favors abolishing CP. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

It bothers me that you contend that expert consensus determines truth. When expert opinion determined that homosexuality was a form of mental illness, as they did until a few decades ago, everyone should have just agreed and shut up, right? I don't think so. The problem is especially common in the social sciences: judgements are formed based upon statistics, and correctly deriving the statistics is beyond the ability of most social scientists. That allows confirmation bias to hold sway.

I'll give one other example. Experts in the social sciences contend that violent media leads to violent behavior in society. They point to evidence that watching violent media decreases sensitivity to violence. The error was point out by a skeptical psychologist. The experiments are short term and amount to noting that violent media is momentarily exciting. However, there is no confirming evidence in long term studies.

88% of them all claim that no deterrence effect comes when CP is put in place.

Suppose the question were put to the experts: Has there ever been a case of the death penalty deterring a crime? It seems impossible to answer "no." If the answer is "yes" then we are talking about the magnitude of the deterrent effect, not whether it exists. I doubt the death penalty would deter serial killers, but it defies common sense to suppose that it never provides deterrence. I'll leave the statistics for a future debate, but the claim that experts determine truth is false.

So then what happens to the person mentally ill?

He's not deterred, and he is also not guilt by reason of insanity.

...at the expense of due process of law....awesome! I thought you were a libertarian?

No, I am not a guaranteed libertarian, but in any case the argument of cost saving by eliminating capital punishment starts by assuming that due process ought to be compromised solely for money. In that context, plea bargaining is a gain for little or no cost. The cost savings are difficult to quantify, but the plea bargain for serial killers has yielded long lists of victims that would otherwise have consumed law enforcement effort as crimes to be solved. Getting closure for victim's families is not a violation of due process.

Okay ... have you SEEN what actually happens during someone being killed for CP?

Have you seen a child being tortured to death by a criminal? Arguing based upon the most revolting idea is false. Animals are regularly put down painlessly with a single injection. Places that permit euthanasia to end human suffering use painless methods of death. Death penalty opponents have rigged laws to prevent simple painless execution. Death by firing squad and hanging, correctly performed, are instantaneous.

I think our forum chat shows that a death penalty debate ought to be broken into subject areas. It seems too much to argue everything in one debate.
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:54:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm undecided on the death penalty at this point..
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad