The Instigator
Kylie.Cunningham
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Death penalty should be allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Capitalistslave
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/10/2017 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,291 times Debate No: 100813
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Kylie.Cunningham

Pro

People who are threats to the innocent should be stopped but putting them into prison doesn't really solve what they did to the innocent not only that but it cost, 760,000 a year . They shouldn't be allowed to live if they killed someone. They should get what they deserve. It's just like the golden rule . " treat others the way you want to be treated". If you kill someone, then you should get punished for your actions.
Capitalistslave

Con

Rebuttals to opponent's arguments:
It seems my opponent advocates the "eye for an eye" morality. What makes this morality superior? While they stated the golden rule, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. You wouldn't want to be killed if you murdered someone, right? So why should the murderer be killed when you, yourself, wouldn't want to be killed? Unless you're suicidal, you wouldn't want to be killed, so the golden rule would actually be reason against the death penalty.

Now, as I said, what my opponent actually seems to advocate is the eye for an eye morality. To quote Gandhi "An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind". We would be no better than the murderer by killing them.

My main arguments:

1) The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison sentences.
No matter what state you look at, lawsuits where the death penalty is the goal, are a lot more expensive, as much asmillions of dollars more expensive in some cases[1]. Over all, capital punishment is much more expensive than life imrisonment without the possibility of parole[2]
2) The death penalty is making us less safe.
"The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, but its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country. " [2] So, since resources and money is being spent on the death penalty instead of in other areas, it is actually making America less safe, not more safe.
3) There are people who are innocent who get the death penalty
I consider it much worse to end the life of someone who is innocent of the crime. We don't have a perfect justice system, so we shouldn't be using extreme punishments such as ending the life of someone. It's estimated that 4.1% of those sentenced to the death penalty are innocent[3], but only 1.9% are ever discovered to be innocent after that they are convicted. How is the death penalty justifiable at all, when there is a chance for innocent people being killed? At least with life in prison without the chance of parole, there is a longer amount of time for us to discover new evidence that would make the person innocent. Once a person is dead, it wouldn't matter if new evidence arose that proved their innocent: you can't undo the death of that person.

Sources:
[1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[3] http://www.pnas.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Kylie.Cunningham

Pro

https://www.biblebelievers.com...
http://time.com...
Yes I would would want to get the death penalty because I would deserve it and I wouldn't live with myself
These are reasons that the death penalty should be allowed

1).The death penalty was first instituted by God Himself in Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Man didn't invent the death penalty, so man has no right to abandon it. We live in an age when everyone is far too concerned with "human rights", and God has been practically ignored, as if He had no rights at all. Killers are to be killed, and God's will has not been fulfilled until our governing bodies have executed wrath upon those who have killed others.
2).God has actually promised to bless us if we follow His plan of using the death penalty? Notice Deuteronomy 19:11-13.
The death Penalty also brings closure for the people who got seriously injured or loved ones who got killed, their families will get closure. "Many in the survivor community feel like the death penalty offers a sense of justice being done. And that's what his sentence felt like to me. I hope it also brings closure to those who lost loved ones that day. There are, of course, many in the survivor community who feel that he should spend his life in prison and sit in a cell and think about what he did. I don't speak for everybody".
Anyways, it also stops from the person from committing another murder/crime. And they deserve what they get and it pleases the Lord.

Thanks for debating me:)
Capitalistslave

Con

My opponent has decided to use the bible as justification for the death penalty. I will point out 2 problems with this:

1) The Bible is not trustworthy or reliable
There are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible, even the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 don't match up. For a list of contradictions in the Bible, here is a source for that: [4]

I will point out just two of the many contradictions:

, Genesis 1:25-27 reads:
"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
While Genesis 2 reads:
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

As you can see, the order in which God created animals differs from when he created mankind in these accounts. In Genesis 1, the animals were created first. In Genesis 2, Adam and Eve(who are believed to be the first humans by most Christians) were created first.

A second contradiction is here:
In Mathew 18:3, Mathew 19:14, Mark 10:15, and Luke 18:17, it is suggested that to enter heaven you should like a child. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 13:11. 1 Corinthians 14:20, and Ephesians 4:14, we are told we should not be like Children.

There exists many more contradictions which you can look at in the source I provided.

Thus, with this many contradictions, it should be clear that the Bible is not a trustworthy source of information.

It should also be noted that there are thousands of Christian denominations: this is likely because of the many contradictions in the Bible: some Christians choose to believe one thing, while others choose to believe something else the Bible says. Neither are exactly wrong, because for the most part, what almost every sect believes in is likely supported by the bible, but what they believe in is also contradicted by the bible elsewhere. If the Bible was not contradictory, I'm sure there would be fewer Christian denominations and interpretations of the Bible.

2) The new Testament tells us the old testament laws were fulfilled, and contradicts what my opponent suggests
In Mathew 5:17, it is stated by Jesus himself that the old testament laws are going to be fulfilled by him. Now, I grew up as a Mormon and while in this sect, I was taught that this meant that the punishment for these laws are fulfilled by Christ, and people no longer need to be punished for breaking these laws, if they seek Jesus in their lives. I feel like this is a common view of most Chrisian sects: that you no longer need to be punished for not following Old Testament laws so long as you rely on Christ.

Next, there are many examples where Jesus tells people not to punish people for breaking old testament law, such as with the adulteress woman in John 8. He says "Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". In old testament law, a person who commits adultery would be stoned to death. Well, Jesus essentially told them that they can't and shouldn't stone the woman. If there was a murderer in the New Testament that was brought to Jesus in the same Fashion, just based off of what we know about the Biblican Jesus, he would have likely said the same thing.


Thus, I believe my opponent has not offered a strong argument in this round in favor of the death penalty. Additionally, it would only appeal to those who are Christian or Jewish. And probably not even those who are Christian since they believe in the New Testament in a way usually of what I said about it.


Sources:
[4] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Kylie.Cunningham

Pro

Yes people don't believe it but you have to have faith but that's besides the point. I
My next claim | this is what you would say.
\/

There are more pros to the death penalty than cons. Yes people can get wrongly executed One of the arguments of opponents of death penalty is the inevitability of sending innocent people who are wrongly accused to death row and eventually execution.

In relation to free will, some criminals are suffering from mental illness or are having clouded judgment at the time of the crime.Opponents contend that there are instances where people commit pre-meditated crimes and are aware of what they are doing. However, it does not discount the fact that crimes can also be committed out of passion or extreme anger triggered by a situation which makes an offender act on impulse. There are also those who are suffering from mental illnesses and are not taking medication which can lead to them committing offenses they have no control of.

It is an added cost to the government and taxpayers" money, With the argument that life imprisonment with no parole is more expensive, opponents say that in general, the government spends more taxpayers" money in handling cases of death row inmates. This is due to the length and complexity of trials, the number or defenders to be hired and the overall process. They contend that there are two trials the state will spend for. One is for the verdict and another for the sentencing, not including the number of appeals that will be submitted while keeping the convicted prisoner inside maximum security.

Death penalty is a form of revenge, While proponents say that imposing capital punishment is a form of retribution, that is, to punish who has committed a crime, opponents argue that it is revenge. For the latter, to avenge a crime committed to another individual may be understandable but killing someone for murdering another person is also unconstitutional. It is crime in itself that is only masked by the term capital punishment and in truth, only continues the series of violence.

It is a platform that is anti-poor and discriminatoryand Those who are death row inmates and sentenced to death are mostly based on racial discrimination as evidenced by a high percentage of inmates being African-American and members of the minority. Moreover, accused individuals who are poor are mostly the ones who get the death penalty for the reason that they lack the finances to seek for great and powerful defense attorneys. They don"t have the money to pay for good defense.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is my info

-Death penalty costs the government less as opposed to life imprisonment without parole.Proponents say despite expenses incurred by the government from imposing capital punishment, death penalty is still cheaper compared to the costs of life without parole. Although there is no contention that the cost of the former is high, life imprisonment is accumulatively higher given the expenses for food, health care and other costs of sustaining the lives of incarcerated individuals serving life.

-It deters would-be criminals to commit felonies and Advocates of death penalty cite examples on how imposing the death sentence or abolishing it have affected crime rate. According to a study conducted in the late 1960"s, there was a 7% crime rate increase on the years when this law was abolished. On the other hand, fewer crimes were committed with the increase in number of inmates in the death row who were executed each year. Proponents say that these figures clearly indicate the efficacy of capital punishment on deterring crimes.

- The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increase.As reported by time magazine, an estimated 2,000,000 people in the United States have been victims of crimes, from assault to murder. With insufficient laws to address this problem or the lack of teeth in these laws, criminals become careless and bolder to commit heinous crimes because of the leniency in punishments and loop holes in the justice system. For these reason, there is a need for death penalty.

-It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight Amendment which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments, including torture.
Advocates of death penalty say that the pain associated with the execution of a death row inmate is not improbable. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Eight Amendment challenge which stated that the drug used to render the criminal coma-like unconscious before injecting the lethal drug is not capable to do so completely. The Supreme Court was firm on its stand that any method of execution definitely will inflict some pain and states with capital punishment have already adopted more humane methods to carry out executions.

-Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes committed against the rights to life, freedom and safety of victims. It is the right of an individual to live peacefully and be free from harm. Unfortunately, crimes like murder, rape and assault are committed by perpetrators who have no regard for life and property of others. Since they violate other people"s lives, it is but fair that they are brought to justice and suffer the fate they rightfully deserve. People who are for capital punishment also talk about free will wherein an individual is given the right to do things in his or her own volition and he or she is responsible for his or her own fate. All of this shows that it is constitutional, and it would make the victim get peace or have freedom.
What would you want the judge to say if you or a loved one got killed, or maybe your whole family except for you that no has to suffer from what happened? Please answer.
Capitalistslave

Con

I'll offer rebuttals to my opponent again: I will quote parts of their argument at times, which will be italicized, and then if the part I want to rebut is too lengthy, I'll just summarize it in bold.

Now, I notice my opponent offered potential arguments that opponents of the death penalty would have in the first half of this round, and I see no need to rebut them, as they didn't really rebut them themselves. So, I will move onto the points that support the death penalty that my opponent offered.


Death penalty costs the government less as opposed to life imprisonment without parole.
This is a claim that needs evidence back it up. I claimed the exact opposite above, and offered a source. Here are two more sources that show the death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison without parole[5][6]

The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increase
Again, this is something that needs facts to support it. While in the next sentence you do provide facts, it doesn't support the idea that without the death penalty, there would be less crime. It merely talked about the crime rate over all. It doesn't show, for example, that crime is low or high because of the death penalty. In fact, statistics seem to suggest the opposite. States that don't have the death penalty have fewer murders occur in them than states with the death penalty[7]. Now, I admit that this doesn't suggest that the reason for the murder rate being lower is because of the death penalty. Correlation doesn't equal causation. For example, there could be other reasons why the states without the death penalty had lower rates of murder. Perhaps it is actually the other way around: maybe they chose to have the death penalty removed because they had such a low murder rate and saw it as unnecessary. Or perhaps there is some other cause of the murders being lower. Who knows? Nonetheless, a logical conclusion that can be made from the evidence is that life in prison without parole might seem to be a worse punishment than death. I mean, life in prison might actually be a worse punishment. Who wants to spend the rest of their life in prison? You'd probably want to commit suicide if you were sentenced to that, so death would be a relief. Now, that is a logical conclusion, what you offered is not a logical conclusion because you offered no data that showed correlation between the death penalty and amount of crime.

It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight Amendment which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments, including torture.
This appears to be a non sequitur. which is when the conclusion doesn't follow the premise. You can read about it here and determine for yourself if it was a non sequitur[8]. The reason this is a non-sequitur is because my opponent is using this as a reason for the death penalty, but it doesn't seem to support why the death penalty should be done. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you should do it. Lying is also legal, but should you lie to your loved ones? Actually, thinking about it, this might be more of a circular reasoning. We're more or less saying whether the death penalty should be allowed(legal) and my opponent brout up the fact that it is legal as reason for why it should be legal. That's circular reasoning. Again, you can read about it here and determine for yourself if this is circular reasoning[9]. This might actually be considered both fallacies.

Re: death penalty is justice because you're killing someone who killed
I suppose I can't refute this one, but I believe the cons that I've outlined in my arguments so far: how there is a chance for an innocent person to be killed, how life in prison seems to deter crime better than the death penalty, and how the death penalty is more expensive to keep the life in prison outweigh this argument.

What would you want the judge to say if you or a loved one got killed, or maybe your whole family except for you that no has to suffer from what happened? Please answer.
You're asking the wrong person this lol. You're talking to someone who was sexually mollested as a child but protects the perpetrator and is good friends with the perpetrator now(weird I know, but I swear I don't have stockholm syndrome). I am a strong believer in forgiving people for what they've done and letting them go. To be honest, if I was president, I'd probably pardon most criminals out there. So, my answer should be obvious: I wouldn't want the judge to give them the death penalty if they killed all of my family. Rather, I'd require that they be given some sort of rehabilitation, perhaps therapy, and other techniques used on them to make them a productive member of society who would no longer have a desire to kill anyone.

Sources:
[5] https://www.forbes.com...
[6] http://www.nbcrightnow.com...
[7] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Kylie.Cunningham

Pro

I'm sorry to hear that and I was too sexually mollested. Any ways, how could you forgive someone that killed your family meme before with reason or cause?

So you said , "The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increase
Again, this is something that needs facts to support it. While in the next sentence you do provide facts, it doesn't support the idea that without the death penalty, there would be less crime. It merely talked about the crime rate over all. It doesn't show, for example, that crime is low or high because of the death penalty. In fact, statistics seem to suggest the opposite. States that don't have the death penalty have fewer murders occur in them than states with the death penalty[7]. Now, I admit that this doesn't suggest that the reason for the murder rate being lower is because of the death penalty. Correlation doesn't equal causation. For example, there could be other reasons why the states without the death penalty had lower rates of murder. Perhaps it is actually the other way around: maybe they chose to have the death penalty removed because they had such a low murder rate and saw it as unnecessary. Or perhaps there is some other cause of the murders being lower. Who knows? Nonetheless, a logical conclusion that can be made from the evidence is that life in prison without parole might seem to be a worse punishment than death. I mean, life in prison might actually be a worse punishment. Who wants to spend the rest of their life in prison? You'd probably want to commit suicide if you were sentenced to that, so death would be a relief. Now, that is a logical conclusion, what you offered is not a logical conclusion because you offered no data that showed correlation between the death penalty and amount of crime." Death penalty does lower crime rates and here is a quote. " A more recent study by Kenneth Land of Duke University and others concluded that, from 1994 through 2005, each execution in Texas was associated with "modest, short-term reductions" in homicides, a decrease of up to 2.5 murders. And in 2009, researchers found that adopting state laws allowing defendants in child murder cases to be eligible for the death penalty was associated with an almost 20 percent reduction in rates of these crimes."(http://dailysignal.com...) This shows that it did in fact decrease and almost 20 percent reduction of crime rates.
Yes lying is bad but the death penalty is a bigger issue than your personal life.
Yes I must agree that it does cost more to use the death penalty than to hold them in prison . That's all I have to say for this round.
Capitalistslave

Con

My opponent stated "A more recent study by Kenneth Land of Duke University and others concluded that, from 1994 through 2005, each execution in Texas was associated with "modest, short-term reductions" in homicides, a decrease of up to 2.5 murders."
The issue with this statistic is that it is looking at only one state. Over all, when you compare all states without the death penalty, and those with it, those without the death penalty, on average, have a lower murder rate. There of course can be exceptions to this rule, such as Texas. Next my opponent used an article from daily signal. As you can read about here[10], they are known to have a strong right wing bias as well as having a "mixed" reporting record. Meaning, that some of the things they report on are simply not even true. Given that the article doesn't even cite the study they claim that they got the information from, it is very suspect.

I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish them luck in future debates. To conclude, I believe that the reasons I mentioned above, how there can be innocent people who are given the death penalty, how the death penalty is more expensive(as my opponent conceded) and that life in prison without parole seems to be a better deterrent to murder than the death penalty, I believe it makes sense not to allow the death penalty.

Sources:
[10] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: kgbisafterme// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Capitalistslave, I'm sorry but you did more of quoting directly from the passages than actually voicing your opinion.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. Merely stating that one side quoted too much in the voter"s estimation is not sufficient " it must be clear why those arguments are inferior to those given by the opponent.
***********************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SkySky16 1 year ago
SkySky16
Kylie.CunninghamCapitalistslave
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con definitely won the debate, there was no grounds that Pro had left to stand on. Con disputed every argument with supporting articles and information, meanwhile Pro didn't introduce citations until late in the debate. This is not only harmful to Pro's arguments, as they are now claims by an anonymous individual, but also hurts the debate as a whole. If pro had used citations from the start a more meaningful debate would have taken place. The three main arguments are left standing at the end on Con's side. Pro conceded one (death penalty is more financially rigorous) and completely ignored another (Innocent people are executed.) Even if Pro had won the argument that it makes us less safe, which they didn't due to faulty and lack of citations, Con would still be my choice in this debate. Notes for Pro Don't bring the bible into something that is about law, separation of church and state is a thing. For con I apologize for your childhood trauma but I felt it got a little too person