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

Should there be a 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  
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: 11/28/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,038 times Debate No: 41377
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




First round acceptance only


I accept the debate and my position on the subject matter.

I look forward to an insightful and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas.

Let's do this!
Debate Round No. 1


Contention 1: Death Penalty increases crime
Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States, wrote in his Apr. 25, 2012 article "Show Death Penalty the Door" on the website of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
"One argument for the death penalty is that it is a strong deterrent to murder and other violent crimes. In fact, evidence shows just the opposite. The homicide rate is at least five times greater in the United States than in any Western European country, all without the death penalty.

Southern states carry out more than 80 percent of the executions but have a higher murder rate than any other region. Texas has by far the most executions, but its homicide rate is twice that of Wisconsin, the first state to abolish the death penalty. Look at similar adjacent states: There are more capital crimes in South Dakota, Connecticut and Virginia (with death sentences) than neighboring North Dakota, Massachusetts and west Virginia (without death penalties). Furthermore, there has never been any evidence that the death penalty reduces capital crimes or that crimes increased when executions stopped. The death penalty just increases crime and does not actually decease crime.

Contention 2: The Death Penalty kills innocent people
During the death penalty, 87 people have been freed from death row because they were later proven innocent. That is a demonstrated error rate of 1 innocent person for every 7 persons executed. When the consequences are life and death, we need to demand the same standard for our system of justice as we would for our airlines. This creaky shows that the Death Penalty is not doing its job correctly and in fact has started to kill innocent people. And here shows that: Death penalty opponents claim that 'Since 1973, 102 (now 114) people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence,'

Contention 3: Death Penalty too expensive.
The author clearly states that:
The death penalty is a waste of taxpayer funds and has no public safety benefit. The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime. They ranked increasing the number of police officers, reducing drug abuse, and creating a better economy with more jobs higher than the death penalty as the best ways to reduce violence. The FBI has found the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates.

This clear states that the Death Penalty is a waste of tax dollars that could be used for good purposes like helping fund schools. This also cleary states that the law enforcement proffesionsl says that the death penalty is useless and does not deter crime. Even the police chiefs say that it is the worst way and most ineffective way.

This is why you should got for me.


All of my opponent's arguments actually support the Con side of this debate. I have already devoted time toward researching and arguing my point of this case, and frankly I do not think it is fair to attempt to make up for my opponent's mistake in this debate. He instigated the debate and should have taken more consideration in ensuring that he chose the correct position.

My opponent also lacks several source citations. He makes references in his arguments that are unsubstantiated. I know he has gathered some of his information from the Death Penalty Information Center, but he has elected not to cite some of his statistics/statements of observation.

If my opponent wishes to continue the debate, he ought to provide arguments that support his official position as "Pro" in this debate. As of now, the only arguments that have been made relate to my side. I will wait for my opponent's decision. Regardless I will post some sort of argumentation in the final round, but as of now, there is no reason to do so.
Debate Round No. 2



I though i clicked con for this debate. SIgh* Sorry for my mistake now going on to the Pro case...

But you can't use my arguments and have to create your own.

Contention 1: Death Penalty decreases crime
This site says that murder rates have gone down because of Death Penalties. Death Penalties have actually decreases crime. Think of that you were a criminal.. Well, if you knew that you would get killed if you did a crime, BOOM, you immeditialy tell yourself to rethink and later stop your crime plan. Done, Death Penalty clearly shows you how it stops crime!

Hers what the site says:
The U.S. Department of Justice recently released its annual FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2012. The national murder rate remained approximately the same in 2012 as in 2011. The Northeast, the region with the fewest executions, had the lowest murder rate of any region, and its murder rate decreased 3.4% from the previous year. The South, which carries out the most executions of any region, again had the highest murder rate in 2012. The murder rate in the West remained about the same, while the rate in the Midwest increased slightly. Six of the nine states with the lowest murder rates are states without the death penalty. The average murder rate of death penalty states was 4.7, while the average murder rate of states without the death penalty was 3.7 (not weighted by population).

Contention 2: Death Penalty is Consitutional

This clear shows that the Death Penalty actually is allowed and the supreme court actually allows it. So the government knows that it is useful and let it be used. It is Consituional and here is what the site says:
"The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance both in the United States and in England. . . ."

"It is apparent from the text of the Constitution itself that the existence of capital punishment was accepted by the Framers. At the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified, capital punishment was a common sanction in every State. Indeed, the First Congress of the United States enacted legislation providing death as the penalty for specified crimes. The Fifth Amendment, adopted at the same time as the Eighth, contemplated the continued existence of the capital sanction by imposing certain limits on the prosecution of capital cases:"

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . ."

"And the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted over three-quarters of a century later, similarly contemplates the existence of the capital sanction in providing that no State shall deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law."


studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by chlo_arrand 5 years ago
I think that there should be a death penalty. I believe that if someone takes away someone else's life then why should they be able to keep living theirs? As soon as you go against someone else's human rights yours should also be taken away. The punishment should fit the crime.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 5 years ago
You should have taken Con on this question ... All your arguments support my side.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheGhostOfFreedom 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued the wrong side of the argument, then required con to "not use any of his arguments".