The Instigator
LD_and_Congress_Debater
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

The Death Penalty should be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2017 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,605 times Debate No: 100330
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

LD_and_Congress_Debater

Con

"I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives." George Walker Bush. The death penalty should be preserved because it prevents future crimes, eliminating the death penalty would be counterproductive, and the death penalty benefits the economy.

Now, to my first point, it deters would-be criminals to commit felonies. "The Washington Post" states, "Recent studies have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives." As well as, "Green Garage" states, "According to a study conducted" fewer crimes were committed with the increase in number of inmates on death row." Michael Summers, PhD, states, "Our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year" In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders." The death penalty scares future criminals, reducing crime. Therefore, leading to society being a safer place to live, for not only adults but children as well.

My second and final point, the death penalty benefits taxpayers and the economy. If the death penalty was eliminated, the next punishment would be life in prison. According to statistics provided by the office of California's Legislative Analyst, the current annual cost for maintaining an inmate in a state prison is greater than 47,000 dollars. With the death penalty, it would majorly benefit the taxpayers of American, in which wouldn"t have to pay the 47,000 dollars per year. "California's Legislative Analyst" continues with, a 34-year cost of housing, feeding, and keeping a prisoner secure would amount to over 1 million dollars. The death penalty is a better alternative to taxpayers than life in prison.

Many people are trying to give these murderers a second chance, however what about the second chance of the victims? The people who were murdered did not get a second chance. So, it is for these reasons why I stand in negation. Thank you.
kasmic

Pro

C1: The right to life

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”

As quoted above, The general consensus in the U.S. is that the primary function of government is to secure people’s rights. Some of which are unalienable. In the United States, life is considered an unalienable right. This is evident by the quote above taken from the Declaration of Independence.

How is it that the State can function as a securer of the individual right to life while simultaneously taking a person’s life? Simply put, it cannot. The State does have the right to remove those who violate other’s rights from society. However, the State has no legitimate cause to take away one’s unalienable right to life. This is true even for the worst individuals imaginable. For the State to take one’s life via capital punishment is for the State to function contrary to its primary purpose. Life as a right should remain unalienable.

C2: Innocents

At least 18 people have been wrongly executed. 18 people have had their unalienable right to life taken from them unjustly. (1) What cost is my opponent willing to pay for so called justice that she is willing to endorse the unjust action of the state taking people’s lives.

C3: Cost

Trying a death penalty case and the process of carrying it out cost significantly more than life in prison. (2)

“the enhanced cost of trying a death penalty case is at least $1.25 million more than trying a comparable murder case resulting in a sentence of life in prison without parole.” (3)

C4: A reasonable alternative

“In every state that retains the death penalty, jurors have the option of sentencing convicted capital murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The sentence is cheaper to tax-payers and keeps violent offenders off the streets for good. Unlike the death penalty, a sentence of Life Without Parole also allows mistakes to be corrected.” (4)

Overview:

The Death Penalty is more expensive than the alternative. Innocent people have been and likely will be executed. The States involvement in the death penalty is contrary to the purpose of government and infringes on unalienable rights. Life in prison without parole is a reasonable, cost effective alternative to the death penalty that gives the desired result without the potential harm the Death Penalty does.

Due to the inherent harm of the death penalty and reasonable alternatives, the Death penalty should be abolished.

Sources

(1) http://deathpenalty.org...;
(2) https://www.forbes.com...
(3) http://deathpenalty.org...
(4)http://deathpenalty.org...
Debate Round No. 1
LD_and_Congress_Debater

Con

First, I will address my opponent's attacks then turn to reinforcing my own case.

My opponent's C2 was along the lines of the innocent people are being given capital punishment. However, a few of these people would have gotten life in prison anyways. As well as, it is not the fault of the death penalty, it is the fault of the investigators, meaning the simple way to solve this is to have hard evidence that the person actually committed the crime.

My opponent's C3 was of how the cost of the death penalty was greater than the cost of life in prison. However, "According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the cost for the drugs used in lethal injection is $86.08." As well as what my opponent fails to inform is that the $1.26M is a study from California alone.

My opponent's C4 was that life in prison was a reasonable alternative. My opponent stated that, "Keeps violent offenders off the streets for good." However, the death penalty, not life in prison, keeps people like Lisa M. Montgomery off of the streets for good. Lisa M. Montgomery murdered a pregnant woman, then proceeded to cut the unborn baby out of the womb, claiming it was hers. My opponent is trying to argue we should keep people like Lisa M. Montgomery in prison, where there's a chance for them to escape. As well as, prisoners want death rather than life in prison considering life in prison drives one to insanity.

I will now turn to reinforcing my own case.

My first contention was that it deters would-be criminals to commit felonies. This means there will be less crime, therefore ensuring public safety. As I had stated earlier, "recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year." Now, I ask you, would you rather have these criminals, who murdered and raped, behind bars, or for them to be rid from the Earth?

My second contention was the death penalty benefits taxpayers and the economy; directly conflicting with my opponent's C3. As I had stated, a lethal injection, in reality, only costs $86.08, whilst life in prison costs over $1M.

These murderers, rapists, etc. should not be able to continue living in jail cells with the slight chance that one day they may be released or they may even escape. The US should not take that chance. Thank you.
kasmic

Pro

My Case

My opponent drops my first contention. This is devastating to his case as if a governemtn ought to repect the right to life then the Death Penalty ought to be abolished soley on those grounds.

In response to my second contention, Con claims that people are put in prison for life falsly as well. While I grant that people are sometimes wrongly convicted, at least if we find evidence later that proves innocence a life sentence can be ended and the innocent can go free. Not so with the death penatly due to the lack of ability to give back a life that is already gone. Here again this contention stands as you cannot make a restitution for putting someone to death who was innocent as you can for life in prison.

The third contention is largley untouched. Con cites what the cost of a lethal injection is but this widely misses the mark. This is due to the fact that the costs incurred in death penalty cases is not just the injection, it is the legal fees and process that must be gone through to get a death penalty conviction. She dismess my source as it is only from California, though she offers no counter examples. Thus the only example we have is mine. Thus, cost is still on the side of abolishing the death penalty.

Con argues against my final contention by stating that life in prison allows oppertunity for people to escape. Firstly, escapes from prions are extrememly rare, further even if you buy this counter arguement it is outweighed by the risk of putting someone innocent to death. It is ammusing that my opponenet at this point argues that prisoners ought to be put to death to prevent them from going insane due to life in prison. I say amusing as the negative phychological effects to those on death row and those who have to put a prisoner to death are well documented. Besides, the overuling right to life outweighs the unproven and uncited chance that prisoners go insane from life in prison.

Thus far, all four of my contentions stand.

Con's Case

My opponent claims that the death penalty acts as a detterent though has offered no source to back this claim, or show that the same detterence is not acheived by life in prison. She provides a quote with no source. As this stands it is merely an unsupported claim rather than an arguement.


Con again tries to argue cost though misses the mark. Here is another source that shows that life in Prison in cheaper to the tax payer than a death penalty. (1)

Overview

It is clear that the death penalty costs more than life in prison. It is clear that life in prison is a reasonable alternative. In the case of somone wrongly convicted, a life in prison sentence can be reversed, the same is obviously not true when the death penalty is applied. Rember at least 18 innocent people have been killed by the state. Most importantly, the death penalty is a violation of a persons most basic right. The right to life.


Clearly the death penalty ought to be abolished

Sources


(1) http://www.nbcrightnow.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
LD_and_Congress_Debater

Con

I will provide the voting issues for this round, and why you should cast a con ballot.

The first voting issue is the issue of the dropped contention. Now, my opponent completely dropped my first contention of: the death penalty deters would-be criminals. Now, let me explain why this was such a big argument. My opponent continually states throughout their case and arguments of how life should be upheld. Now, with my first contention, the death penalty prevents the death penalty, meaning the death penalty prevents crimes that would have been committed if there was not a death penalty. For example, a criminal hears of someone getting the death penalty, then that criminal is scared of what may happen to them if they murder someone. My opponent wants to uphold the lives of innocent people, correct? Well, the best way to uphold the lives of the innocent is through a death penalty, that way citizens won't be murdered, raped, etc. because these would-be criminals are afraid of the death penalty. Since my opponent dropped this argument, it still stands untouched.

The Second voting issue is the impacts of the pro, meaning the future of the pro if the US were to abolish the death penalty. We would see a rise in crime, leading to prisons overcrowding; and it is evident that prisons are already overcrowding. Adrian Moore from, "Reason Public Policy Institute" "Today many state and federal prisons are holding over 20 percent more prisoners than their capacity, and a great number of [those] facilities- are under court order to limit or reduce their inmate populations." So, as I stated earlier, these criminals will either be released or they may escape. In conclusion, if the death penalty was abolished, it was cause hundreds of lives to be lost due to criminals remaining on the streets and in the community. Now, I ask you, would you want yourself or your children to be put in a world full of crime and chaos?

The Third and final voting issue is the impacts of the con, meaning the future if the US were to continue using the death penalty. There would not be a rise in crime that the pro offers. As well as, criminals such as Lisa M. Montgomery will not be released or escape. The death penalty overall provides a safer community for the current generation and the future.

It is for these reasons why I urge you to cast a con ballot, thank you.

Note: I had a pleasure debating with you as you have helped me grasp a better understanding on my current topic for my debate team. Thanks.
kasmic

Pro

Con's Case

Con made two contentions. The first was detterence. She says I dropped the arguement, though I did not. I pointed out that it was unsupported by evidence leaving it as an unsupported claim rather than an arguement. Further, I pointed out that con has not shown detterence to be different when applied to life in prison as the death penalty. Thus this contention is soundly negated. In her final round she claims that the death penalty keeps citizens from being "murdered, raped, etc." Again, no support for this claim is given and thus it has no weight.

Second, con argued that the death penalty would save money. I have soundly reffuted this.

Con does offer new arguements in the final round which is bad form but easily handled. She claims that the death penalty would help overcrowded prisons. While Prisons may be over crowded, con does nothing to show that the death penalty would impact this at all. This is important as most federal prisoners commit crimes that even qualify for a death penalty. Thus the change would be virtually nill. Further, it can easily be shown that overcrowding is the result of mandatory minimums for drug crimes etc. Surely, if my opponent were serious about this contention then there would be a debate about how to adress prison system issues. The Death penalty has no impact on this contention. Con claims again that life in prison leads to escapes but does not provide any reason for us to believe that. Again, a unsupported assertion rather than an arguement.

My Case

All four of my contentions stand. Life in prison is a reasonable alternative to the death penalty. It offers the same detterence at a cheaper price and avoids killing inoccent people as has been a impact of the death penalty. Finally, my primary contention was the right to life which underpins this whole debate. As con did not object to this right this contention by itself wins me this debate.


Overview

All four of my contentions stand. My opponents two contentions are mitigated or unsubstantiated. Thus, it is only reasonable to vote pro.

Thanks for debating.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
In my opinion, yes. The dropped first contention outweighs con offense.
Posted by LD_and_Congress_Debater 1 year ago
LD_and_Congress_Debater
Paintballvet18
So all in all, Pro (my opponent) won, correct?
Posted by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
To the voting issues.

Pro wants me to vote on the fact that her opponent drops her first contention. However, I as a judge have already thrown out her first contention, and the fact that she just asks, "Would you rather have criminals behind bars of rid from the Earth?" to re-strengthen is not enough of a voting issue for me to take seriously, therefore the voter is dropped.

The second voting issue is the impacts of the pro, where she claims that the abolishment of the death penalty will only increase crime. This may be true, but I simply can't buy this argument as its based on the Con's first contention that was already weak to begin with. I'll accord a semi-voting issue here...

The third voting issue is the impacts of the con, where she claims a better world than the Pro's. I appreciate the world clash, but the Pro can just perm this, saying that life in prison will simply keep the same people out of society that capital punishment would. So...

-
To the Con.
-

I'll disregard a few glaring mis-spellings in this round, and show that the Pro's 1st and 4th contentions continue through the flow and therefore both serve as solid footing for Pro's offense in the debate.

THEREFORE

I vote Pro for arguments for all the reasons explained in the RFDs.
Posted by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
Looking towards the Pro.

His 4 contention case has a few issues.

First, the right to life contention. It is hard to buy the Pro's argument that a person that takes someone else's unalienable rights should never have theirs taken away as well. The Pro stands on a slippery slope saying this, but gains MUCH traction when the argument goes completely untouched throughout Round 2.

The second contention in regards to innocents has nothing to do with the debate. Con is correct when saying that innocent people being executed has more to do with bad investigation than the death penalty. So I can, as a judge, drop this argument.

The third contention, as I've already pointed out, can also be dropped. We are looking at the death penalty, not its innate legal processes. The costs for legal processes for life in prison and capital punishment are the same, therefore Pro's statistics can be thrown out.

To the fourth contention, the alternative provided by the Pro does seem appealing. Furthermore, the attacks made the Con, saying that Prison causes insanity and that the death penalty is better at keeping people off the street for good are completely baseless, so I can disregard the attacks.

All in all, Con has two contentions left standing.
Posted by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
Alright RFD Time

First, conduct and S&G are tied, so no points will be awarded for those.

Arguments:

First, we must look towards to the Instigator's case. She brings two arguments to the table , first that the death penalty is correlated with decrease in crime, and that the death penalty benefits the economy. The first contention, in my opinion, has sources to back it, but fails to show links. Correlation doesn't mean causation, and the fact that Con fails to elaborate on the internal links within her case means that it is hard for the judge to buy this argument.

The second point, however, goes unrefuted throughout the debate. Allow me to explain. The debate at hand is, "The Death Penalty should be abolished." In my eyes, that means the actual act of putting a person to death. I disregard all the previous legal processes for two reasons. First, fiat. Second, the cost difference in legal processes between life in prison and the death penalty are not only negligible, but not explained in the round.

So all in all, Con has one extremely weak contention and one extremely strong one.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: paintballvet18// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con drops Pro's C1 in Round 2. Extend impacts and therefore Con has no offense. Arg points therefore flow Pro. Sources also won by Pro (see Round 1 Pro sources). I vote 0-5.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources are insufficiently explained. Pointing to a single round in the debate is not sufficient. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Merely stating that there"s an argument from Pro that went unaddressed and therefore somehow won the debate is not a sufficient assessment of either side"s arguments.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Capitalistslave// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets arguments: All of con's points were unsubstantiated, as they provided no evidence of their claims that the death penalty deters criminals from committing crime. While they provided a quote, they provided no source for it. She also provided no evidence for how the death penalty reduces cost. Con, on the other hand, provided evidence of their claims that there is a right to life, which pro never argued against, that innocent people die from the death penalty, and that the death penalty is actually more costly than life in prison. Sources goes to pro, as they provided sources such as deathpenalty.org which is fairly reputable for providing factual information on the death penalty. Con did not provide any sources.

[*Reason for removal*] While sources are sufficiently explained, arguments are not. The voter appears to couch their entire decision in how well each side supported their arguments with sources, and while that may play a significant role in the strength of those arguments, the voter is still required to assess the arguments themselves specifically. Merely stating that Con didn"t support an argument is not an assessment of that argument, nor is merely listing off arguments made by Pro assessment of those points.
************************************************************************
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
It would make sense if we only executed nigs.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
For those interested, here is a more comprehensive debate on the death penalty.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
On closer review, Pro has cited the Declaration of Independence as a source to establish life as an unalienable Right. Not He and he is now asking to be joined, even after the declaration reads. "We hold these truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.

Pro asks how a State can function as a securer of Right to life while at the same time taking a person"s life. The answer to the question is a process that is described as the Separation of Church and State, which provides this authority by the undertaking of a common defense for a general welfare of tranquility. At this point Pro is moving away from the topic of Death Penalty and making a direct run on the United States Constitution and Capital Punishment. Switching the bate set on public display of Death Penalty.

I am compelled to call this debate even, as Con instantly admits bias based on revenge making it unclear if the debate is in fact represented correctly. Con does not address the issue that the judicial process is a separation process not a justice system. Meaning that if a criminal can stall, slow, or stop the basic separation process the cost paid by separation is not money it is in evidence, witness, and even human life.

It would have been easier if the source Con used had been cited more clearly, but as the position of Con is played as defensive one, on a legal matter in which the rules of the debate are not specified as formal. I will not use the informal citing against her.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
LD_and_Congress_DebaterkasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by DboPoint 1 year ago
DboPoint
LD_and_Congress_DebaterkasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate and great points from both sides. Great job. I vote for the con. I question the quoted cost of death penatly being more than life in prison. Our prisons are overcrowded and life in prison is not an effective use of our prison system. Frankly, life in prison without parole maybe more inhumane than a quick lethal injection.