The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Death Sentence Should be Banned

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,442 times Debate No: 40716
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)





Should the death penalty be banned? I think so. The death penalty does much more harm than good.

Argument One: High Cost [1]
I'm going to start out this debate with something pretty straightforward: The high cost of the excecution. The death penalty has literally costed us MILLIONS of dollars, which could've gone to roads, schools, saftey, etc. In North Carolina, they have put down 43 people since 1976, and each has costed 2.16 million [2], making a total of over 90 million dollars spent on the death row. But that is a very mild example. In California, each excecution costs 250 MILLION [2], and 13 people have been put down since 1976. That's 4 billion dollars spent on excecutions. Considering we are chest-high in debt, the death row is doing nothing to help us. Just stick them in jail for life, they will feel the wrath.

Argument Two: Innocence [3]
1,264 people have been excecuted in America since 1976 [4]. Thats a thousand families casted into misery. But even worse, what if the culprit was proved innocent... after the excecution? My first prime example is Carlos DeLuna, who was excecuted in 1989. But in 2006, evedince arose that we excecuted an innocent man. Larry Griffin was excecuted in 1995, but evidence has come close to proving that he was innocent of his crime. There is no way to tell how many of the 1,200+ people that we convicted were innocent, but hopefully not more than ten of them.

Argument Three: Death Row is Doing Nothing to Stop Crimes
I looked all over the web and I could not find anything that proved the death row is good because it stops crimes. If it doesn't stop crimes, then why do we even do it? Just stick them in jail for life. That's a far worse punishment (I think anyway.)

Good luck to anyone who accepts this debate!



Attack against Argument One: Life actually cost money too
Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA [Justice for All] estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million-$3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases. There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive... than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP.

Attack against Argument Two: We have the Innocence Project. This helps with the problem of have accusing innocent people. Innocence Project has saved thousands upon thousands of lives. Also, No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976... The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal

Attack against Argument three: In Texas, a state that supports death row fully, actually has less crime rate than those states without the death penalty. Making the death penalty a threat to all criminals and warning, making an example out of the convicted. Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death... life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder.

My Case:
Argument One: Retribution
Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good... Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such... Rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution.

Argument Two: Morality
The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apoplectic [indisputably true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense.

Argument three: It's a jury trial. The Criminals' peers want them dead.
Defense attorneys... routinely file all manner of motions and objections to protect their clients from conviction. Attorneys know their trial tactics will be thoroughly scrutinized on appeal, so every effort is made to avoid error, ensuring yet another level of protection for the defendant. They [death penalty opponents]... have painted a picture of incompetent defense lawyers, sleeping throughout the trial, or innocent men being executed. Their accusations receive wide media coverage, resulting in a near-daily onslaught on the death penalty. Yet, through all the hysteria, jurors continue to perform their responsibilities and return death sentences. In addition, Tax payers are tired of wasting money on keeping people in prison. Jail can actually be better than most retirement homes and be appealing to the criminals rather than a punishment. 56% of the public say yes to death penalty. Majority of people would rather have the criminal dead than to keep them in life sentencing.
Debate Round No. 1


"LWOP cases are much more expensive"
North Carolina was just a very mild example. What about in California? It costs 250 million per execution and only 1 million for jailed for life. I will also point out that you have no link to prove that. So how am I supposed to know if the link is credible or not? Therefore, your attack on my debate becomes useless.

"Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP."
I have a LINK that says that, so it is proved. I can also find many other links if you are still not satisfied. Think twice before you speak. Also, not to be mean or anything, but can you speak more fluent English? It's kind of hard for me to read.

"No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. "
So therefore, we also aren't 100% sure if the guy was guilty? We should not have the ability to execute one unless we have UNDISPUTABLE evidence, while one should be kept in jail if we are not sure he is guilty.

"Actually has less crime rate than those states without the death penalty."
Yet we have no SCIENTIFIC evidence that the death row helps. And I've got a link to back it up. [1] How can we know if it's not just a fluke. So one of the many states has a lower crime rate. Maybe people in Texas don't commit as many crimes as Californians do. I live in California, so I should know.
Now it's time for me to attack some of your arguments.

On your argument, retribution, is correct. They do deserve to die, but they would in fifty years anyway. When you're on death row, you die quicker than LWOP, and therefore have no chance to either learn and/or show that they learned a lesson, while life in jail gives them plenty of time to see their wrongdoings. Therefore, it would be easier to just stick 'em in jail, and good would come out of it, also.

On your second argument, the innocence project, you left a ton of flaws. First off, you only said that is HELPS. It doesn't confirm, does it? Even one innocent kill makes a huge difference. Everyone reading this, pretend your most closely loved relative was falsely killed. You would be casted into deep depression you never should've had to feel. Second off, even if the risk of making a terrible mistake is very small, you just said that THERE IS STILL A CHANCE. Did you know that 146 people have been released from death row since 1976 [3]? That's 146 lives that could've been wrongly convicted due to a bias system that shouldn't exist. Way to go, death row just killed a father or a son. If there is no credible evidence that we have never killed an innocent person, there is no evidence against it. In fact, there is more evidence that says we did kill a guy (see link in first debate) that we actually DID! Also, a fatal wreck and death penalty are not comparable at in any way.

And on your last argument, you also left me a spot to dig in. The people are obviously mad in rage and do not realize the consequences. Families should see the pros and cons. Because if they did, I have a feeling that many would choose life in jail compared to death sentence. And tax payers are "tired of wasting money on jail." IT COSTS MORE FOR TAXPAYERS FOR A DEATH ROW [2]!!!! Consider that, and that whole argument just proves my point even further. It costs people in California 114 MILLION per year [2]!

All of that and I haven't even started on my arguments yet? Kind of hard to believe. So I will only be doing a few arguments because I've already listed three very strong ones in the first round of this debate.

Argument One: Death Row Does Nothing to Stop Crimes [3]
I'm going to come right out and say it: this argument is unarguable. In the south, 80% of death row and executions happen. Yet the south has the highest crime rate in all of America. The death row did nothing to stop that. I will say this again: scientific tests have been run and proves nothing besides people are not influenced to not commit crimes because of the death row.

Argument Two: Human Rights
The Human Rights Law specifies that all humans, even criminals, have some freedom. Tell me how sticking them in the electric chair is any form of freedom. At least in jail you get the freedom to live, but live terribly. Even though it is inhumane to commit a crime, it is more inhumane to murder via electric chair or hanging. It's less manlike than a criminal murder, even! The electric chair does two things: commit murders and take money out of our wallets! It should be banned at all costs!

It's been very fun debating with you so far!




JaneDoe_7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has forefited the last round, so I can't post a rebuttal. It has been a nice debate, though.


JaneDoe_7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3




JaneDoe_7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by albert_the_great 5 years ago
Also, it is inevitable.
Posted by albert_the_great 5 years ago
You may regret sinnery (In which, the government does not condone), but they are not reversable. And if you impose death penalty to someone who has commited a crime, you put them to death, thus not learning a lesson nor making any changes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 19debater19 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CON FF'D