The Instigator
LoveRichardDawkins
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
asta
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Death Penalty should be Abolished

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 116004
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

I propose simply that the governments of countries should take measures to abolish the death penalty for all people and for all crimes. That means that instead, for especially hoeneous crimes they should pursue top gun alternatives such as genuine life improsenment (literally until they die). This is suitable because they will not be a threat to the public and because they will be deprived of most freedoms and live the rest of their lives in a tough and unpleasant way thus punishing them as well as giving a sense of justice to their victims.

So, now on to why I believe we should do this after defining my policy statement. I will propose three simple and logical arguments for why the death rate penalty is bad and thus why it follows that we should pursue its abolition.

Firstly, the death penalty is wrong because it allows for innocent people to be murdered by the state. No matter how strong the burden of proof is as claimed by opponents of my position, countless numbers of times innocent people are wrongly convicted of serious crime and in certain countries are then murdered by the state for those false crimes. Let's be clear - our criminal justice systems, like any institution, have flaws and thus make mistakes or are corrupted. Juries are mostly very good at rightly judging evidence but ultimately they, like even experienced judges, are human beings who are subject to bias and opinion and make mistakes. In the case of death penalty cases, mistakes are very serious because they can kill people and thus mistakes cannot be corrected and so much more pain and suffering can be endured by both the wrongly accused and their families and friends. In these cases it only creates more victims. Now, often our institutions have inherent flaws. A good example would be institutional racism. We know this exists for sure within the police force. As can be shown by many examples of biases and acts of violence upon black men in custody. Furthermore, considering African Americans make up almost 50% of the American prison population despite being only 13% of the population and that Black people are 7 times more likely to be convicted wrongly of murder than white people this suggests that racism is a major factor causing injustices in legal systems. As a result, these obvious biases do mean that people are wrongly convicted and murdered on the grounds of racism and other forms of bigotry. Therefore, considering that my claim is true, in order to prevent innocent life from being snatched by the state we must abolish the death penalty as I propose.

Secondly, the act of state sponsored murder is wrong and thus the death penalty must be abolished. When a state kills somebody for committing a crime what does that actually achieve? It can be an emotional reassurance to some victims of crime but what use does that actually provide to society in general. Cannot victims feel a sense of justice when a criminal faces a life of punishment and deprivation? There is no evidence that killing even guilty people actually acts as a deterrent to further support my claim that it achieves nothing. Isn't it surely more useful when a murder for instance spends their life in prison with the possibility of realising the immortality of their crime and thus feeling remorse and real guilt and sorrow.

Not only is the death penalty useless but it is cruel. Many victims of the death penalty take hours to die. Recently a case emerged where a murderer was executed and the third poison injected into him was the wrong one. When this was given (instead of potassium chloride) it took the victim a much longer and painful time to die. This is wrong because human suffering is universally wrong. As humans we should aspire to progress morally and thus we suffering for suffering's sake is contradictory to this principle therefore rendering it defunct and thus the execution of criminals immoral. Finally, the death penalty is immoral because not only does it now victimise the families of the convicted criminals but because it diminishes the morality of society. As a civilised society we believe generally that the killing of human life is wrong except in exceptional circumstances whereby someone is about to kill someone else for instance. We believe that a civilised society is one that is not barbaric and does not kill people when there is no actual measurable use of killing them. Furthermore, human life is in sacred and special and killing is cruel mainly because it extinguishes that individual's ability to contribute to society after they have been reformed in prison. Many prisoners convicted of crimes such as murder in countries where there is no death penalty often show huge remorse and end up changing their lives, becoming reformed people and thus setting about to lead a moral life. This is not possible under the death penalty. People's contribution to the universe is destroyed by a society which deems itself to oppose the removal of life unless it is essential to the betterment of that society. And, appeasing the fiery emotions of traumatised victims is not essential to the betterment of society. For these reasons, the death penalty is both useless, actively cruel, victimising and limiting of the potential for positive contribution to our society.

My final argument is that the death penalty is wrong because it brutalises us as human beings. Capital punishment provides a tangible and yet unacceptable link between justice served by the law and violence. Let's be clear. Violence is wrong in all cases. Even when we do justify violence it is when we are trying to stop more violence and so it's not a contradiction since my claim is that we should pursue the path of least violence and since the death penalty is not a deterrent then it, by my premise is immoral. Moreover, it perverts the notion of justice served by the law and ultimately by our societal notion of universal morality. Statistics show that the death penalty leads to a brutalisation of society and an increase in murder rate. In the USA, more murders take place in states where capital punishment is allowed. In 2010, the murder rate in states where the death penalty has been abolished was 4.01 per cent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was 5.00 per cent. These calculations are based on figures from the FBI. The gap between death penalty states and non-death penalty states rose considerably from 4 per cent difference in 1990 to 25 per cent in 2010. Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, from Death Penalty Information Center

Disturbed individuals are often angered or believe that violence is more acceptable since the most fundamental form of authority (the state) leads by example in murdering criminals and thus these people are more likely to commit murder. It is also linked to increased number of police officers murdered. For the reason that the death penalty brutalises and lowers our societal goals of moral progression, we should abolish the death penalty.

In conclusion, the death penalty represents everything that really is immoral. It murders innocent people, it unnecessarily deletes lives in often horrendously painful ways and worst of all, it underpins a notion of acceptable brutality which, as has been shown, perverts our society and corrupts our justice system. Before Keith Tharpe was sentenced to death one juror called him "a nig**r". This injustice is symbolised, embodied and perpetuated by the status quo. So, let us be brave, exercise deep and bold moral courage and say firmly that even the worst people should never be murdered by a society to which they pose no threat.

I urge voters to support the Abolition of this brutal and barbaric system of state-sponsored cruelty and degradation.
asta

Con

I propose simply that the governments of countries should take measures to keep the death penalty for some crimes. This is not limited to murder but that's potentially for a different round. A life sentence is not the correct punishment to pursue because prision is not even a bad place for prisoners, so it's not much of a punishment. Many people commit crimes just because they enjoy prisons so much. Why wouldn’t they?


Some perks of being a prisoner:


-They get 3 meals a day. If they don't like the food, then they often make their own. This applies to poor people who would otherwise not necessarily have enough to eat.

-This kindof goes with the one above. They get to participate in the Ramen trade(https://www.npr.org......)

-Clean clothes

-Getting paid for stuff


http://dailycaller.com......(A right wing source)

https://www.thrillist.com......(I don't know, but an extra site)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com......(A left wing source)


So, now on to why I believe we should keep the Death penalty (DP) this after defining my policy statement. I will propose three simple and logical rebuttals for why the death rate penalty is good and thus why it follows that we should pursue it's continuance.


Firstly, the death penalty is right because it allows for very few innocent people to be murdered by the state. Only 4.1% of convicts for murder are actually innocent. (This is religious) If your executed innocent, since atheist criminals tend to convert out of fear of hell, once they get executed innocently, they would go to heaven. Even if your secular, the innocent inmates would probably be thinking hopeful thoughts at the deathbed. I say this as an atheist, so it's not like I have religious bias.

http://www.newsweek.com.........


No matter how strong the burden of proof is as claimed by opponents of my position, it is very rare when innocent people are wrongly convicted of serious crime and in certain countries are then murdered by the state for those false crimes. Let's be clear - our criminal justice systems improve every year. If pain and suffering can be endured by both the wrongly accused and their families and friends, then simply don't tell them and they will think that their accused relative was guilty.


"Furthermore, considering African Americans make up almost 50% of the American prison population despite being only 13% of the population and that Black people are 7 times more likely to be convicted wrongly of murder than white people this suggests that racism is a major factor causing injustices in legal systems." The reason why Black people tend to be more likely to end up in prison than Caucasians is the same reason why males are more likely to end up in the prison system than females. It is because they are more likely to commit crime and when they do, it tends to be more intense on average.


When a state kills somebody for committing a crime, it provides justice for the murderer and prevents him from killing other prisoners, since lifetime imprisonment would make him angry enough to potentially kill someone since he has had practice. Victims feel more of a sense of justice when a criminal faces DP, after all, getting killed is more painful than being in prison for life. To live anyhow is better than to not live at all(with exceptions). There is evidence that killing even guilty people actually acts as a deterrent to further support my claim that it achieves nothing. Japan has the death penalty, South Africa does not and Japan has a far lower homicide rate. There is no guarantee that the murderer would feel sorrow. Dylan Roof wouldn't have felt sorrow when he killed 9 people in a Baptist Church. He hated the people in there. Many murderers want to be known and famous, even if it's famous in a bad way.


The death penalty should be justifyingly cruel, and murderers should die by the formula D=PL^3. D means Death method, P means amount of pain caused, and L is the number of lives killed. I would like to point some quotes from my opponent


“This is wrong because human suffering is universally wrong.”


“This is suitable because they will not be a threat to the public and because they will be deprived of most freedoms and live the rest of their lives in a tough and unpleasant way”


Which is it? Do you want criminals to suffer or not?


The convict's family won’t be victimized by the execution. Instead they would support it. Adam Lanza’s Dad wished he was never born. Parents tend to hate the murderer as much as society.


“human life is in sacred” Apply this to a fetus, and you will be more ideologically consistent.


“it extinguishes that individual's ability to contribute to society after they have been reformed in prison.” You want life imprisonment. This makes it impossible for the to do this. Not all murderers become reformed and even if they have a change of heart, they still must endure their punishment.


“And, appeasing the fiery emotions of traumatised victims is not essential to the betterment of society.” Really, the pro DP people are the emotional ones. You guys are the ones who cry out for the murderers that you call human beings. That sounds pretty emotional to me. Also, keep in mind that they go through a rational jury and judge before getting executed. These people don’t base their punishments off of feelings. They ase it off of logic and ethics.

“Violence is wrong in all cases.” You once again contradicted yourself because above you said it was okay in self defense, but not execution. Violence is sometimes wrong, sometimes right.


Moreover, it perverts the notion of justice served by the law and ultimately by our societal notion of universal morality. The reason why non DP states tend to have a lower homicide rate is because they tend to be richer due to urbanization and therefore less likely to have it’s individuals commit crime.


“Disturbed individuals are often angered or believe that violence is more acceptable since the most fundamental form of authority (the state) leads by example in murdering criminals and thus these people are more likely to commit murder.” That is not true. The reason why they murder iss because they are sick in the head, because society treated them badly, because they want to make a murderer list, or a combination of the previous reasons.


“It is also linked to increased number of police officers murdered.” I will need a citation.


In conclusion, the death penalty represents everything that really is justice. It kills only a few innocent people, all on accident, it necessarily deletes lives in rarely horrendously painful ways and worst of all, it does not underpins a notion of acceptable brutality since it punishes murderers justifyingly harshly.


“Before Keith Tharpe was sentenced to death one juror called him "a nig**r".” This is an extreme situation that should be cited. This is not mainstream.


Debate Round No. 1
LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

Thank you with engaging with my arguments although I think that you need to provide some arguments against as well as rebutting my position. I will use this round to support my position by responding to your rebuttal. Clearly, the first main point of contention is the nature of prison. I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously when you argued that prison was "not even a bad place for prisoners". Now, I don't know what kind of prisons that you are talking about but to say that prison is not tough is completely laughable. As you even admitted, there is a risk of violence in prison and therefore there must be some element of toughness in prison. Furthermore, you are completely deprived of so much freedom. You seem to consider prison to be some kind of homogeneous institution that doesn't even punish prisoners. This is completely false. There is immense variation in prison and those convicted of especially horrible crimes would likely be in secure units which are even more tough and unpleasant places. Don't tell me prison is a nice place. It is not. Nobody leaves prison without a sense of happiness or relief. Prison is gruelling and tough. Prison is a tough punishment and therefore is suitable for dealing with horrible crimes.

Secondly, you provided me with the response that says that it doesn't matter if a few innocent people die. I believe that if a civilised state kills innocent people then that is a serious offence that should concern everybody very much. Secondly, in order to justify a few innocents dying you have to show me that the benefits of the death penalty are so overwhelming that a few innocents dying are acceptable. You then provided a logically fallacious statistic that only 4.1% of convicts for murder are innocent. I'm not sure how that one is worked out. But surely there must be more since the reason they are convicts is that people think they are guilty so surely those that are innocent are not recorded? Furthermore, 4.1% is unacceptable and considering the incarceration rate of countries like the USA that is a lot of wrongly convicted people (many of whom are probably Black Americans). Furthermore, since the death penalty exists in many states that would mean a lot of those innocents would die. That is absolutely abhorrent and should make any advocate of the death penalty consider their beliefs especially considering that those convicts have families and loved ones too. Our criminal justice systems also do not improve necessarily year upon year. In the UK for instance, a scandal has emerged recently of evidence in rape and murder trials being withheld from the defence and thus resulting in some wrong convictions. In the USA, those people could now be dead. Also, the idea of us lying to families of wrongly executed people is completely immoral and hard to uphold.

Next, you provided a very generalising and a verging on the racist argument against my assertion of racial bias in the prison system. I provided you with two accurate stats which suggest bias. Your response was that black people commit more crime. I find this idea of blackness causing more violent crimes completely ridiculous and offensive. There is no evidence that skin colour causes people to commit more violent crimes. It is true that black people are often caught up in more crime but this is to do with socio-economics and certainly not race. Also, considering the vast extent to which black people are more likely to be wrongly convicted literally proves that racism is a genuine cause of overrepresentation of oppressed groups on death row and in prison in general. Of course, the black community has crime problems but the criminal justice system has a race problems too undeniably so. As I explained last time, there are cases of jurors being openly racist during death penalty trials. Racism is a problem and the reality is that Black people face vast injustices which do lead, tragically, to them being murdered at greater rates by the state. Let's not let our racial problems manifest themselves in cases as serious as capital punishment.

You then explain that prisoners of such crimes are a risk to others. This is absolutely true. However, we can control them to an extent. We can put them in solitary confinement and protect others instead of taking the lazy option and murdering them. While I argue that we should keep many people alive with the slight risk of them potentially killing others in prison, you argue that we should guarantee killing lots of people in the hope that some people may survive which could be achieved anyway. Your response just doesn't stack up. Also, thanks for admitting that being killed is more painful than life in prison. This reveals that my second argument against the death penalty still stands. Victims may or may not feel more satisfaction when the criminal dies but this is not always what we should base the DP on. You then made a very dubious claim that Japan having the death penalty means it has a lower homicide rate than SA. SA is a much poorer country with immense social and racial problems whereas Japan is richer and has a much more cohesive and safe society. These examples are utterly ridiculous to use to justify your argument of a deterrent. Also although some murderers may never feel sorrow, that doesn't mean that some do. Not everyone on death row is Hannibal Lecter and therefore there will be many who do feel remorse. We can spare their lives and give them the opportunity to apologise to the victim's family and make positive changes. I also believe that they should have opportunities to leave prison if they are no longer a threat and have served a sufficient punishment but obviously not in the cases of really evil criminals (although these are not the majority).

Now onto the minor points of clash. Let me clarify my stance: I believe that human suffering in terms of painful suffering is universally wrong. However, causing suffering in order to alleviate more suffering is moral because ultimately less overall suffering would be endured and therefore fits under my stance. Also, I believe that prisoners should not physically suffer rather they should experience boredom and mental suffering within reason because this will actually allow them to change and become reformed people who have the chance to give to the world. My stance is not contradictory and still works.

Next, I don't doubt that some families of criminals want them to die. But also many don't and especially considering some are wrongly convicted it makes more sense for the families to not have their loved-ones murdered by the state. Many, unsurprisingly, would rather have their child spend time in prison than be murdered in a painful way.

Also, fetuses are absolutely not sentient human beings. This is a separate issue and that is my opinion so let's not bring it in. Apart from that, individuals can have the opportunity to reform. I believe that some will be let out after they have served their time and furthermore, progress can be made in prison. You can learn in prison, you can also confront the victim's family and you can lead a good life in prison. If you kill them, all this is completely extinguished.

Moreover, fiery and often political stances and emotion do play a part in convictions. The religion of judges does have an impact on who dies. Furthermore, being sick in the head is often caused by the carrying out of violence just like violence in video games leads to violence in real life. This is still a cause of higher murder rates. And considering the plethora of states this study was done on it is far more reliable for instance certain states which have the death penalty are richer and yet still have higher murder rates. There is a tangible and real link between brutality from an authority leading towards ordinary citizens thinking its okay to be brutal in the same way a holy book encourages violence. I am also an atheist too by the way.

Yes, in some cases it can be very extreme but racism exists in many cases and even if it is a minority, considering the severity of the punishment this matters greatly and our racism should not allow us to murder people.

So in conclusion, I have shown that our criminal justice system has inherent flaws which still persist and that therefore innocent people die. I have also shown that many innocent people die and this is a serious moral problem for advocates of DP. I have also bolstered my stance that prisons are a real and tough alternative and that threats can be managed. I have further demonstrated that the majority of criminals on death row can change and should have that opportunity to benefit themselves and society and therefore we should not condemn them to a life whose only mantra was crime. Finally, I have supported my claim that brutality at a higher level perverts and corrupts society. For these reasons, my main arguments still stand strong whilst no opposition arguments have yet been made and therefore I continue to urge the voters to say yes to abolishing the DP.

Taking a life when an innocent life has already been taking is not justice - it's revenge.
asta

Con

“Thank you with engaging with my arguments although I think that you need to provide some arguments against as well as rebutting my position.” I work best with rebuttals. Using rebuttals, I can eliminate all of my opponent's points so I can say, “You have nothing”.


“I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously when you argued that prison was "not even a bad place for prisoners".” Really, I provided 3 links for it and Huffpost says that Prisoners make really good food. Although prison is not sunshine and flowers, it’s not a dystopia either. Fights are often mutually consensual between the prisoners.


“Furthermore, you are completely deprived of so much freedom.” Given that many prisoners are poor, they wouldn’t care as long as they have a place to sleep and 3 meals a day. I believe prisons punish people, but there are perks to being a prisoner.


“it doesn't matter if a few innocent people die.” I did not say that. I meant that if a few innocent people die, then it’s not okay, but it necessary to save more lives down the road and to make eye for an eye justice. There are times when a true method of eye for an eye would actually be less conventional then the current punishment. The punishment for kidnapping 3 children for a week according to an eye for an eye would be 3 weeks in jail, since jail is like punishment based kidnapping. But our current justice system has arbitrary punishments for this such as years in jail for the same crime.


“You then provided a logically fallacious statistic that only 4.1% of convicts for murder are innocent. I'm not sure how that one is worked out.” How is this falicitical? If the rate of innocents dying was over 10%, then I would be against the DP for murder, but it’s not.


“But surely there must be more since the reason they are convicts is that people think they are guilty so surely those that are innocent are not recorded?” This does not make much sense.


Furthermore, 4.1% is imperfect, but still not too bad.


“Considering the incarceration rate of countries like the USA that is a lot of wrongly convicted people (many of whom are probably Black Americans)”. I imagine most of them are male too. But saying that DP is racist is like saying it is sexist.


Ideally, if the reason why innocents are wrongfully executed is because of lack of evidence, then there should be stricter laws on willingly withholding evidence. This way, less evidence is withheld and less innocents get executed.


We wouldn’t lie to families of innocent convicts. We simply don’t tell them that they were innocently executed.


“Next, you provided a very generalising and a verging on the racist argument against my assertion of racial bias in the prison system.” I was being factual. Also, like I said previously, more males are executed than females. Does this make the prison system sexist? No. Males are more likely to commit crime and Blacks are more likely to commit crime if the stats say so.


Maybe the reason why they are 7x more likely to be killed innocently might be because they are 7x more likely to end up on death row. Since Blacks tend to be more likely to be criminals due to them being poor, it only makes sense that they tend to do more intense crimes as well due to poverty. This may be why they are 4x more likely to commit crime and 7x more likely to be on death row. Also, many Blacks tend to live in the South, where the death penalty is more prominent than in the North, where there are less blacks.


Although http://www.law.umich.edu... states that innocent Africans are 7x more likely to be innocently convicted than innocent Caucasions, this could be because Africans are more likely to be in the wrong place in the wrong time. As you explained last time, there are cases of jurors being openly racist during death penalty trials but this is extremely rare and not the cause of the problem at hand.


“We can put them in solitary confinement and protect others instead of taking the lazy option and murdering them.” If you put murderers into solitary confinement, this is harsher than what they deserve. An eye for an eye demands equal retribution of punishment, nothing more, nothing less. I also don’t support solitary confinement for prisoners unless they did something bad enough to endure it. They probably would use the boredom to do something bad instead of something good.


“you argue that we should guarantee killing lots of people in the hope that some people may survive which could be achieved anyway.” I don’t believe in killing all prisoners. Just some of them.


“Also, thanks for admitting that being killed is more painful than life in prison.” It’s kindof true. I would rather be in prison for life than being killed.


“This reveals that my second argument against the death penalty still stands. Victims may or may not feel more satisfaction when the criminal dies but this is not always what we should base the DP on.” I wasn't. You were. I base my stance on eye for an eye and countries with the death penalty tend to have lower homicide rates when factoring out other things. I may have other reasons.


“You then made a very dubious claim that Japan having the death penalty means it has a lower homicide rate than SA.” It’s a correct claim. SA is poorer than Japan, but does this alone explain the huge discrepancy in homicide rates? https://en.wikipedia.org... and https://en.wikipedia.org... state that the DRC has alower homicide rate while having DP. This is when the DRC is poorer than SA by GDP per capita (https://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)_per_capita). Sorry about the Wikis. Since my computer has GOogle and Bing blocked on it, I can only use frontier which makes it hard to get more reliable sources. They are all .org s though, and I think they are right on this.


“SA is a much poorer country with immense social and racial problems whereas Japan is richer and has a much more cohesive and safe society.” Always bringing race into this. Ignoring that, South Africa is more racially diverse than Japan and Japan treats the minorities it does have (South Koreans) pretty badly, so it seems Japan is more racist than SA.


“These examples are utterly ridiculous to use to justify your argument of a deterrent. Also although some murderers may never feel sorrow, that doesn't mean that some do.” Most would not want to die. If they did, they might have committed suicide.


“give them the opportunity to apologise to the victim's family and make positive changes.” Dylan Roof would not apologize to the people he killed and neither would Adam Lanza. This would not help out most victims. I believe that murderers should get killed and other criminals should serve their sentence.


“Next, I don't doubt that some families of criminals want them to die.” Adam Lanza’s parents wished he had never been born(https://www.today.com...)


“Many, unsurprisingly, would rather have their child spend time in prison than be murdered in a painful way.” Because it’s less of a punishment, but that doesn’t make it right.


This is a separate issue, but I was trying to apply a consistency test. A sleeping person can barely feel pain too. Is it okay to kill them? But I digress.


“You can learn in prison, you can also confront the victim's family and you can lead a good life in prison.” Or you might want to kill them too. It’s not like the dead person can be brought back. Since he murdered, he should know what it’s like. If you kill them, then the criminal gets what they deserved. Murder is unforgivable. They don’t deserve to learn, that’s too dangerous. They deserve to die.


“Moreover, fiery and often political stances and emotion do play a part in convictions. The religion of judges does have an impact on who dies.” This applies to both sides.


“Furthermore, being sick in the head is often caused by the carrying out of violence” As someone who has autism, people who are sick in the head should control themselves.


“just like violence in video games leads to violence in real life.” THis is a digression just like my abortion claim.


“And considering the plethora of states this study was done on it is far more reliable for instance certain states which have the death penalty are richer and yet still have higher murder rates.” It’s an unfair study to an extent because the non DP states tend to have richer and this could be the cause for the homicide decrease. It’s a similar situation for Japan vs South Africa however, the difference in homicide is so much that wealth alone was not responsible for the decrease.


“There is a tangible and real link between brutality from an authority leading towards ordinary citizens” Prove it.


“thinking its okay to be brutal in the same way a holy book encourages violence. I am also an atheist too by the way.” I’m an atheist because the bible contradicts itself a lot. However, I like a lot of biblical morality. However, the bible encourages the DP, this encourages conservatives to support the DP as well. Liberals discourage DP and this causes supporters to be against it. It goes both ways.


I think that although the DP is more expensive than life in prison, this cost can be eliminated by the obvious murderers(like Dylan roof and Adam Lanza, they obviously committed homicide) getting executed publicly in a stadium with ticket prices raising money to pay for the execution and to fund more expensive trials which can save more innocent convicts.



It’s revenge when the person affected does it. It is not revenge when the state kills. Otherwise, soldiers would be murderers, which with few exceptions is not true.


P.S. In the future, can you make the amount of time to argue 72 hours? Then I can construct better arguments because I’m rushed because of the debate.

Debate Round No. 2
LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

I accept your style however typically in debating the opposition also needs to provide actual arguments against in order to have a more legitimate case.

Prison is undoubtedly a tough place. Cherry-picked articles which investigate some cases in some prisons are not at all representative of the overall fact that prisons are very tough and unpleasant places. If in your opinion they are not tough enough then governments can pursue policies to make them tougher rather than bringing in the death penalty in order to satisfying the baying crowds of emotional citizens. However, killing them, as I have established, is not only painful but removes any possibility of redemption as well as leaving it open for murdering innocent people. Furthermore, since we are discussing people who have committed crimes which are serious enough to warrant a death penalty then your links are even more unrepresentative since, having read them, they talk about prisoners in B and C class prisons who are not necessarily in secure or solitary confinement. You made the strange claim that because somehow typically poorer criminals don't have nice lives they therefore won't resent being stripped of freedom. Prisoners are stripped of very basic autonomy and freedom of movement and therefore prisoners really do resent these constraints which, if you spend 10 years or more with, really do lead to immense mental illness (60% of male prisoners experience mental illness in the US). You were right to admit that "prison is not sunshine and flowers". I am also admitting that it isn't "dystopia" as well. But prison is undoubtedly a tough and unpleasant place which as you said yourself, "punish people". Therefore, prison is a workable and satisfactory alternative to DP.

Concerning the murder of innocent people, I apologise if you think I was trying to argue that you didn't care about innocents dying - that is not what I mean. However, whereas I am explaining that currently many innocent people are murdered by the state you are arguing that this is unfortunate but not a strong reason for ending capital punishment as we can "save more lives down the road". I'm not sure which lives you think you are going to be saving. If a criminal for a truly abhorrent crime is too dangerous then the Criminal Justice System must make sure they never get out and that they are kept in a secure unit in prison. We can thus control them and prevent them from causing harm. However, what is certain is that under the status quo it is guaranteed people will die whereas you have suggested that this is justifiable since you have a dubious belief that more people will survive in the long run. I find this claim very unconvincing.

We can disagree over the validity of each statistic concerning its proof of a certain point but one thing is for sure - innocent people are put to death and this is a serious problem which should make you reconsider DP.

I suppose that withholding critical information isn't lying but it is certainly immoral and disingenuous. I think families would want to know. This proposal would be disastrous for the image of the Criminal Justice System.

Now, I really don't think it is helpful to get this debate bogged down over a racial discussion. The reason I brought up racism is that it is a very good example of bias within the Criminal Justice System and thus further illuminates the reality that the system has flaws and injustice is served, in some cases, to a literally deadly extent. As a matter of fact, there is a actually an element of sexism in courts. Men tend to actually get much harsher sentences. The same is true for black people having committed the same crime: Black people are 7 times more likely to be convicted wrongly of murder. Actually, think about that statistic - it takes proportion into account. Furthermore, whilst there is a convincing link between masculinity and violence there is no link between ethnicity and violence and yet there is a link between racial bias and injustice. Now, absolutely this is partly to do with poverty (which by the way is more evidence of historical and current racism) but to claim that racism has absolutely no place in institutions is false. I gave you an example of blatantly racist jurors. Racism plays a part and thus our criminal justice system is in many ways fundamentally flawed. Thus it makes even more sense to get rid of a punishment, so severe, that those same flaws in the system lead to such disastrous consequences.

Countries with lower homicide rates do not have DP. I have seen no convincing evidence of this. One thing is for sure, most European states do not have the death penalty and also have much lower crime and homicide rates than the US for example (since these countries have are more socio-economically similar, this is a fairer comparison to make). I really don't think comparing the case of SA and Japan is helpful to the actual debate. However, they are not fair comparisons to make. Your DRC example is more reasonable but I almost laughed when you brought it up as an example of a less brutal state. The DRC is one of the most violent and dangerous places in the world. There is a huge amount of rape and violence and many unreported homicides. According to GPI studies, the DRC is the 8th most violent country in the world (SA is 39th).

Look, I don't deny some cases where criminals are truly evil to the end. But this policy is not about them. It's about all kinds of people who end up on death row. Many of these are genuinely remorseful. While we may be able to kill some people who seem to actually deserve it the reality is that many others are deprived of their ability to make positive changes. Furthermore, the victims' families are unable to get closure from the perpetrators of crime. An eye for an eye is an animalistic and deeply emotional stand point. I understand why people feel this way. If one of my family was murdered I would probably want to see the murderer dead in a ditch but that is not a rational stand point. An eye for an eye is revenge and not justice. Justice is what we want and not anger and bitterness.

Murderers do not deserve to die. Why? Because they don't want to die in most cases. Because execution is extremely painful. Because in most cases they do show remorse and can change their ways. And because execution achieves nothing except perpetuating a cycle of the normalisation of violence. Just saying murder is unforgivable is not good enough. If an abused wife shot dead her abusive husband and showed genuine guilt and sorrow for having to do that then - I would forgive her. Even if a gang criminal murdered an innocent civilian if they changed their ways and showed remorse - I would forgive them. From a religious stand point (although I'm not religious) forgiveness is a key aspect and clearly serves some purpose. Hate and anger is not useful what is is finding ways to make sure that it never happens again and gaining true retribution for a crime.

I don't personally have a disability however to an extent people with mental disabilities have diminished responsibility. Furthermore, locking up people with autism or other disabilities does not in any way help, since is cases where disabilities are severe, criminals are often not emotional able to appreciate the nature of crime but this is certainly not the case for all people with disabilities.

Furthermore, if citizens see that a state is willing to exercise violence, since that state is an authority often respected and followed by citizens, those citizens can then believe that violence is acceptable in the same way that kids who grow up in abusive households also often have a perverted notions of violence.

Although obviously you are not legislating for the world government (and thank god you're not considering your plans for some kind of stalinist "show execution"), you seem to have conceded that executions are absolutely horrible ordeals. I'm glad you believe this; so do I. This is further supportive of my proposal to abolish DP since it is cruel, painful and thus inhumane. What does causing suffering achieve? People on their death bed aren't going to renounce their crimes because you'll kill them anyway. It achieves absolutely nothing. I want prisoners to apologise to victims and to lead a better life after having been punished in prison.

It is revenge on behalf of the victims when the state murders criminals. This is still hateful revenge which serves no purpose except to give a false sense of justice to the victims. True justice is a criminal turning to the victims and apologising to them for their actions. And no, most soldiers are not murderers. As explained, under my model those who kill to directly stop more killing and suffering are not guilty of murder but have engaged in reasonable killing as ultimately they will have caused less suffering. Let's be rule utilitarianist here.

So, ultimately not only is prison a suitable and workable alternative, the death penalty is cruel and achieves nothing as well as brutalising society. Furthermore, the current system murders a lot of innocent people which is terrible and unacceptable. This combined should make any advocate of the DP think twice.

I deeply regret making it such short amount of time. In future I'll change it.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com...

Here is a touching example of how people are flawed but not condemned to death. The man in this case should certainly not die.
asta

Con

I have some original points, but my rebuttal is my strong skill.


“Cherry-picked articles” How is what I picked cherry picked? I had a right wing source, a relatively objective source and a left wing source all being used in my argument. Near the end of your argument, you're the one who cherry picked an article because it was an emotional left biased site about a rare example that they labeled as an epitome.


“If in your opinion they are not tough enough then governments can pursue policies to make them tougher rather than bringing in the death penalty in order to satisfying the baying crowds of emotional citizens.” I want the government to enslave prisoners for their sentence, even if the sentence is shorter as a result of it so they can rebuild the houses after hurricane Maria and so they can make our phones instead of innocent Chinese children. I don’t support this for murderers because they might kill more prisoners while they are enslaved.


“You made the strange claim that because somehow typically poorer criminals don't have nice lives they therefore won't resent being stripped of freedom.” They get 3 meals a day. They get to participate in the Ramen trade. Being a prisoner is not as bad as many think.


“60% of male prisoners experience mental illness in the US.” Show me the cite because I searched through relevant reliable sources and I didn’t find that statistic. You can cite in the comments.


“I'm not sure which lives you think you are going to be saving.” The lives that get saved from less murders because more people would be scared of the death sentence than life imprisonment, even if it is solitary confinement. Saving their lives also means upsetting less families.


“If a criminal for a truly abhorrent crime is too dangerous then the Criminal Justice System must make sure they never get out and that they are kept in a secure unit in prison.” Many people consider solitary confinement cruel and unusual punishment and I don’t advocate it for any prisoner. Some prisoners I want killed, others enslaved for their sentence.


“Innocent people are put to death and this is a serious problem which should make you reconsider DP.” I have told you multiple times, for every 1 innocent person that dies from DP, there are many more that get saved from the lack of murders due to less people willing to commit murder.


“I suppose that withholding critical information isn't lying but it is certainly immoral and disingenuous. I think families would want to know.” If you knew someone got executed innocently, it would hurt you. The question is ignorant bliss or acknowledging pain and this is a different debate, and one where I’m not so sure of my position. I would want to know, but I wouldn’t know about other people.


“Black people are 7 times more likely to be convicted wrongly of murder.” It’s due to them being poor, murders tending to happen in poor areas and black people being more likely to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.


“Now, absolutely this is partly to do with poverty (which by the way is more evidence of historical and current racism)” No. Bill Gates said, “If you born poor, it’s not your mistake. If you die poor, it’s your mistake”. This means that Black people and other people can cease to be poor. It will be hard, and will take lots of work and dedication to things that are good, but it is entirely feasible. You gave me an example of an extremist, and it wasn't jurors, but a single person.


Racism plays a small or non existent part affecting only a few cases. That person might have told the black convict the N word just to get the convict angry before his death; more pain.


“Countries with lower homicide rates do not have DP. I have seen no convincing evidence of this. One thing is for sure, most European states do not have the death penalty and also have much lower crime and homicide rates than the US for example (since these countries have are more socio-economically similar, this is a fairer comparison to make).” I think that the reason why Europe has a much lower homicide rate than the US is because people in the US tend to be more aggressive than Europeans.


After all, members of big countries tend to feel subcounsciously more powerful and this power can be abused. It’s why Brazil has a higher homicide rate than all other South American Countries except for Venezuela. Brazilians tend to feel more powerful than their neighbors simply because their country is bigger.


“Your DRC example is more reasonable but I almost laughed when you brought it up as an example of a less brutal state.” I said the DRC has a lower homicide rate than SA. All other forms of violence have nothing to do with the DP.


“Look, I don't deny some cases where criminals are truly evil to the end. But this policy is not about them. It's about all kinds of people who end up on death row.” They sometimes and maybe are often the same people.


“While we may be able to kill some people who seem to actually deserve it the reality is that many others are deprived of their ability to make positive changes.” The 1st part of the quote, you support the DP. The 2nd part, you say that some other people can make positive changes to their society. I understand that they are sorry, but even if they are sorry, they still should provide their punishment. If someone is sorry for cutting class, that’s okay, and they should be, hopefully they don’t do it again, but they are still serving ISS.


An eye for an eye is a proportional stand point.


“I understand why people feel this way. If one of my family was murdered I would probably want to see the murderer dead in a ditch but that is not a rational standpoint.” Given that you pity murderers, pity is an emotion just like wrath is.


An eye for an eye when carried out by the state is justice. Revenge is when it is vigilanticaly done.


Murderers deserve to die. Why? Because they murdered to get there. Execution should be as painful as justified. Also, my stance is not based off of anger, but on logic. I want murderers killed by the formula D=PL^3.


“Because in most cases they do show remorse and can change their ways.” Some do, some don’t. All commited the crime, irrespective of their remorse. And because execution achieves punishment, it does not present a “perpetual cycle of the normalisation of violence.” People don’t murder in retaliation of the DP.


“If an abused wife shot dead her abusive husband and showed genuine guilt and sorrow for having to do that then” It depends. If it was in self defense, I wouldn’t care. If it was when she was safe, than she deserves to die.


From a religious standpoint the bible supports an eye for an eye(https://www.gotquestions.org...). Jesus says to the turn the other cheek if someone hits you, but that if someone attacks YOU. If someone attacks SOMEONE ELSE, then it would be anarchic to turn the other cheek.


“Since is cases where disabilities are severe, criminals are often not emotional able to appreciate the nature of crime but this is certainly not the case for all people with disabilities.” If they don’t understand that murder is wrong, then why should they object to an execution?


“Furthermore, if citizens see that a state is willing to exercise violence, since that state is an authority often respected and followed by citizens, those citizens can then believe that violence is acceptable in the same way that kids who grow up in abusive households also often have a perverted notions of violence.” This varies from person to person. Some people react violent in society that won’t kill them and some people, some people enjoy jail.


I know someone who’s name is Ilona Furey. She grew up with a dad who was a drunk. He was addicted to alcohol. Does she emulate her Dad? No. She knows what bad alcohol does and she will probably never drink alcohol. If one’s parent is abusive, then someone may see how bad that is and therefore would not want to emulate it in their life.


What is a show execution?


“You seem to have conceded that executions are absolutely horrible ordeals. I'm glad you believe this; so do I.” If they get executed publicly, then it would raise money without taxes to produce more through trials where less innocent people get executed.


“This is further supportive of my proposal to abolish DP since it is cruel, painful and thus inhumane.” Most executions are lethal injections, which are designed to be painless.


“True justice is a criminal turning to the victims and apologising to them for their actions.” True justice is punishment and reward. People should get rewarded for good things and punished for bad things.


“Let's be rule utilitarianist here.” The definition of unitarianism is, “an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it.” https://www.utilitarianism.com.... In here, the victim will tend to feel happier if the murderers are put to death. Our tax dollars should not go towards keeping murderers alive. Although the DP costs more, the cost can be offset by public executions where ticket prices instead of tax dollars can fund the executions and more through trials to not have as many innocent people die.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com......


Here, you accuse me of cherry picking examples yet you cherry picked an example from a left biased source. Also, this is not mainstream amongst murder convicts.

Debate Round No. 3
LoveRichardDawkins

Pro

What has become clear in this debate is that your style has lead to huge amount of side tracking. I'm afraid that during this debate you have created a lot of red-herrings. Unfortunately for you, since I have been the only one who has provided arguments, this debate rests on those arguments and not on any content you have provided. In this way, I only actually need to prove 1 of those arguments (in the unlikely case that you nullify the other two). As a matter of fact, I am confident that my side has proven all three of my original arguments and thus shown that DP is wrong and therefore that it should be abolished.

I have three points of contention:

1) Whether innocent people dying matters enough to concern advocates of DP
2) Whether Prison is a valid alternative
3) What society's moral outlook should be

Since my second argument (that the execution is cruel and brutal) has not been tackled, you have automatically conceded that argument. In fact, you actually argued yourself that DP is deliberately painful and cruel. Thus I already meet the criteria for winning this debate.

Contentious point 1:

I have shown that innocent people do die. You agreed this was the case. Furthermore, I have explained that racism exists within the criminal justice system. Whether racism has a significant influence on it is a different debate. However, one or two racist incidents alone are enough to prove the claim that there is racism and other forms of prejudice. With that in mind, it follows that bias and thus injustice on the grounds of race exists. I provided you with 2 statistics reflecting a racial imbalance. What is for sure is that there are a number of influential factors that lead to that imbalance however since we know that racism exists in our society it follows that in some way shape or form and however small, racism will be a cause of that imbalance. Therefore, innocent people do die based on racial and other forms of bias. To deny this is utterly ridiculous. It is a kin to denying plain facts. Society is undoubtedly racist to an extent and therefore injustice exists. I don't understand how this is so hard to grasp.

So, to an extent, DP is a manifestation of prejudice and therefore toxifies and exacerbates racial inequality to such extremes that the state literally kills on the grounds of race. This murder of innocents is a cause for concern. Next, not only did you give up your position that prisoners would cause violence, but you provided us with the argument of deterrent. There is absolutely no evidence that DP provides any deterrent whatsoever. No convincing multi-variable controlled studies have shown a tangible link between DP and deterring criminals. Rather, deprivation and prejudice are arguably much greater causes of high crime rates. By the same token, a tough prison sentence, which you even admitted to being awful (I think you have now contradicted yourself 3 times), should also act as a deterrent. You can't pick and choose. Based upon this analysis, you have no proof of a deterrent and so your hypothetical idea of ending up saving more lives is exactly that - a hypothetical idea. What we do know is that lots of people already die unfairly. You can't justify that. Therefore, my first argument passes. Innocents dying matters enough to end DP.

Contentious point 2:

You have contradicted yourself so many times concerning the nature of prison. You told us that prison had "perks" and that it really wasn't that bad. You then told us that prison was tough and that solitary confinement is cruel. However, you still argued the death penalty was worse. Now, my stance has been consistent. I have argued throughout that prisons are tough and therefore they are a punishment. We can adjust the sentence length and nature of the sentence to make it even tougher. I personally don't agree that prisoners should have forced servitude however that is not relevant. What is relevant is that prisons can be controlled by governments in order to meet the satisfaction of the public. If prison is not tough enough then you can make it even tougher. Yet, murdering criminals with the risk of killing innocents is not preferable as we can easily mitigate such a risk. For me, prison has more functions one of those is crime prevention as well. Ultimately, rehabilitation must be a part of prison life. Killing people removes a state's ability to create productive members of society. It takes time and effort but rehabilitating people can really help to fix social problems. People can change. Prison is a valid alternative and in a sense prison does have perks rather because it can help to improve the prisoners as people. Therefore, DP's faults are sufficient that the alternative of prison is more reasonable and viable such that we can abolish DP.

Contentious point 3:

I want to focus on probably the most important point in this debate and that is the notion of justice. What is justice? What makes a just society. I, like most people, consider justice to be a sense of moral righteousness. Thus in order to rationalise justice, we need to decide what kind of purpose justice would serve and what kind of future does society want. Justice serves a purpose. That purpose is to provide us with a moral and peaceful society in which human kind succeeds to its best possible standard as well as enjoying the most happiness. Thus we need to mitigate suffering. I ask how do we remove suffering from society. Not killing people in a painful way would be a good start. Furthermore, we in the place of government need to think about what message we pass on to people. State's are responsible to an extent for the authority it has and thus for the legacy that its actions have. Right now the state is a murderer - it kills people. What difference does the state have to a murderer if it is the biggest murderer of all? The message sent to citizens is that violence is acceptable. We brutalise society by having the death penalty. Furthermore, we remove the ability to fix the problems. We cannot save people by killing them but we can by rehabilitating them. DP removes the ability of the state to ever fix our society and to set an example. As a result, we condemn our future to one of violence. Abolishing DP is a step towards creating a moral and peaceful society and thus this is justice. If society thus considers justice in this way it is logical to abolish DP in order to build this society - a just society.

In conclusion I have won this debate because I have provided 3 arguments as to why we should abolish the death penalty. I have shown that bias and other flaws in our system lead to innocent people dying and secondly why this is bad enough to abolish DP. I have also shown that the death penalty is cruel and painful and thus inhumane and thereof considering its further uselessness should be abolished. Finally, I have proven a tangible link between state murder and violence and why justice states that abolishing DP is a logical step to create a society we can all be truly proud of.

You never addressed my second point and so automatically concede it. My other points are logical and are evidence based furthermore they are reflections on plain reality. You have provided no new content. Your argument was that DP is good because an eye for an eye. Just stating an eye for an eye is not an argument. Please explain why an eye for an eye is a moral standpoint rather than just making catchy sound-bites

We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere.

Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes " sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under 18 years old when the crime was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities and several others apply the death penalty after unfair trials " in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. I oppose the death penalty in all cases without exception - regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

The death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it.

I urge the voters to make a fair decision. What kind of society do you want to live in? I want a society when the state is fair and just, where it punishes people humanely on behalf of all citizens and helps those punished to become better people. I don't want a society where the state murders on behalf of raw and emotional hatred behind this medical mantra of "an eye for an eye".

Vote for what you know is right. Vote for a society that considers human life as valuable as it is redeemable.

Vote Yes to Abolish the Death Penalty.
asta

Con

"Unfortunately for you, since I have been the only one who has provided arguments, this debate rests on those arguments and not on any content you have provided." You want me to make original arguments? Fine.

1)The death penelty is good for society because it forces murderers to expierience what they have done to others. Since a murderer destroyed not only the life of the person killed but also affected the family of the victim, the murderer has done irreversable harm to the family. Since they have committed irreversable harm to society, they must have irreversable harm put on them.

2)Life imprisionment is not as feisible because it is less painful than death. To live anyhow is better than to not live at all. My opponent thinks that I don't value life. However, given that I place someone's life as more important to them than time in prision, while my opponent doesn't, it seems that I reletively place life as higher than my prisioner does since I believe that having life, even if your inprisioned is better than not having it at all.

3)Innocents getting executed is rare and outnumbered by the homicide rate decrease that is made up. Given that 4% of executions are on an innocent person, it would just mean that the homicide rate would have to decrease by .04 per 100,000 in order to save more innocent life. Has this been done though? Yes.

South Africa does not have the DP, Ethipia does and Ethiopia's homicide rate is much lower, despite SA being richer and less power hungry than Ethiopia. In fact, SA has the highest homicide rate in Africa, dispite it being so rich. This could be due to SA not having the DP.

Anti DP Angola has a higher homicide rate than Pro DP Chad.


Anti DP Columbia has a higher homicide rate than Pro DP Peru, GDP per capitas similar.


Anti Death Penelty Greenland has a higher homicide rate than Pro DP USA. You thought the USA had a high homicide rate? WHat about Greenlands? This is when the US has an urbinization disadvantage.


Anti DP Mongolia out murders Pro DP Kazikstan.


I have provided 5 examples, 5 epitomes from a majority of the contenents of times where the DP saves more lives than it kills. I know Wikipedia isin't the most reliable source, but 3 wiki links are more reliable than a Left wing Canadian site that is my opponent's only source.




https://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)_per_capita


https://en.wikipedia.org...


https://en.wikipedia.org...





My reasons for supporting DP are:


1) It forces murderers to expierience what they have done to others.


2)Life imprisionment is not as feisible because it is less painful than death.


3)The DP saves lives by reducing homicide.




Time for what I do best in arguments, rebuttles:




Next, my opponent claims that I did not rebuttal about the pain of DP. I said that the DP was carried out by lethal injection, which is painless, but I support more painful teqnicks since it is deserved. I argued, not why it's is painful, but why I think it should be. This is a different debate. This debate is about whether or not murderers should get executed at all.




"Society is undoubtedly racist to an extent and therefore injustice exists. I don't understand how this is so hard to grasp." Black people could be killed innocently because they could be more likely to be convicted innocently because they could be at the wrong place at the wrong time due to the poverty that I hope they get out of on their own.





"Next, not only did you give up your position that prisoners would cause violence, but you provided us with the argument of deterrent." If they are in solitary confinement, then they would not cause violence. However, solitary confinement is often cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, most wouldn’t exist, not even for murderers. However, if prisoners are allowed contact with other inmates, which inevitably happens, then violence could occur.




Racism exists, but it only exists to a small and fringe extent within the justice system. It has way more to do with other factors then how much melanin is in your skin.




Also, my opponent’s first claim was that innocent people are dying, but then made it mostly about race. If you had a race argument, save it for a different bullet point.




I was saying that it was bad, but not as bad as many think. It’s like saying a job at McDonalds has perks (I don’t know if that’s true). If someone said that they aren’t inherently saying that it is a good place to work, they may believe the opposite, but they may think that it is a bad job with perks.




You said something that would hurt your argument though. You said, “What is relevant is that prisons can be controlled by governments in order to meet the satisfaction of the public.” Most Americans support the death penalty for murder. According to this quote, it is saying that murderers should be killed since that’s how most of the public wants them to be treated.




We need to mitigate some suffering, not all suffering. If we were to aim to eliminate suffering, even amongst criminals, then they would get sent to a paradise island away from everyone else. They would have cops watching them to prevent fights. However, this is ridiculous because some suffering is good. You suffer when you study for a test. You suffer as a punishment so you won’t compete the same bad task multiple times. You suffer restitution fees if you eliminate something that’s not yours. You should pay restitution with your life if you eliminate a human life that is not yours.




“I have shown that bias and other flaws in our system lead to innocent people dying and secondly why this is bad enough to abolish DP.” Your argument is mostly biased. If is very emotional. Although I have some emotion in mine, I try to put facts that are objective. You only cited once in your 4 arguments, and it was to a biased source. I cited 13 times to an eclectic amount of relevant sources. I ironically cite my debate as proof of that(http://www.debate.org...).




“Please explain why an eye for an eye is a moral standpoint rather than just making catchy sound-bites” My opponent accuses me of just rebuttling, but now they ask me to rebuttle. So be it. An eye for an eye is a just way of measuring punishment because it is proportional. If I break someone’s IPAD deliberatly, it would be great if I apologized, but An eye for an eye would say that I would have to buy a new IPAD, not even pay the money for an IPAD, but to buy a new IPAD, since buying something requires work. This translates to murder. If one murders, then they must pay it back with their life since that is what they took. You reap what you sow. If you reap murder, then you sow execution.




“In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder.” Drug offenses are not worthy of the death sentence. Murder (including murder from terrorism) is worthy of the DP.




“Some countries execute people who were under 18 years old when the crime was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities” Age and disability status should not be relevant as to whether or not the person receives the death sentence. If Osama Bin Laden was a 10 year old kid who did the terrorism he did at that age, I would still want him killed. Just because your mind is not fully developed does not excuse you from the consequences of your actions.




“People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.” This is good because it gives the court system time to seperate the guilty from the innocent. THis saves innocent lives.




“What kind of society do you want to live in? I want a society when the state is fair and just, where it punishes people humanely on behalf of all citizens and helps those punished to become better people. I don't want a society where the state murders on behalf of raw and emotional hatred behind this medical mantra of "an eye for an eye".” You are being more emotional than I am.

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
This will probably end in a tie.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.