The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

We should redo the death penalty.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Amphia has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 477 times Debate No: 110384
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




What I'm proposing here is this. We should only focus on mass murdered, serial killers, and persons who torture children. We should have one trail for these individuals who commit these crimes. The death penalty is reach on unanimous 12-member jury finds "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they were met. Given the carnage in the Florida Parkland shooter here and the callous manner in which the shooter went about causing it, the prosecution would not have much difficulty meeting the burden. So once the jury find this person guilty of these crimes. The death penalty then should be in place immediately. After a week or two he should be sentenced to death by lethal injection.

One. It will diminish the cost of the trail dramatically.

Second. It will save the taxpayer millions, on the trail and incarnating that person.

Third. These cases would be special. Meaning it will only be for these mass murders and persons who torture children.

Fourth. It would be a universal law. Meaning the federal government will be hearing it. It would be for all 50 states.

Fifth. "Prosecutors can identify at least three such factors here, where Cruz: 1) created a grave risk of death to many people; 2) acted in a way that was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and 3) committed the act in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner."(1)

Sixth. If the government can start a war and stop a war. Then why can't they step in on serious heinous crimes. Such as mass shooters?

Seventh. Why should these mass shooters, or serial killers stay alive? What is the point for them to stay in jail for the rest of their lives?

Eighth. Other countries has a more affected way of handling big crime. Like "China has the largest population on Earth with 1.3 billion people; 5,000 executions would mean one in every 260,000 residents."(2) they also use lethal injection.

Ninth. "EYE for an EYE" "mean we can punish, or even take revenge upon, someone in the exact same manner they used to harm us" "There are only FOUR places in the King James Bible where the phrase "eye for eye" (or slight variation) occurs (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Matthew 5:38)" (3.) Why does the bible get it right?






QUESTION: With your system, would you allow prisoners to appeal to jury convictions?

My opponent offers a new system.I think it is problematic:

1.Juries are not always right, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is still up to opinion. If I think you did something, that's beyond my reasonable doubt. One person might say "Guilty!" and another might say "Not guilty!" Both feel like they know the answer. This shows that beyond a reasonable doubt is quite subjective.

2.The death penalty is biased against black people.

"The death penalty is racist and has been applied in racially-discriminatory ways. African American men are disproportionately sentenced to death. Prosecutors, juries, and judges are much more likely to apply the death penalty when the victim is white and the defendant is black."

Black people are more likely to be convicted of crimes they did not commit:

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in "group exonerations." We see this racial disparity for all major crime categories, but we examine it in this report in the context of the three types of crime that produce the largest numbers of exonerations in the Registry: murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes. I. Murder : Judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people."


"Execution of wrongfully sentenced individuals is obviously unacceptable, yet between 1973 and 2004 in the US, 118 prisoners who had been sentenced to death were later released on grounds of innocence [8]. Of 197 convictions in the US that were subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence, 14 were at one time sentenced to death or served time on death row [9]. Racial bias in sentencing likely accounts for much of this error; more than half of the exonerees were African Americans, and the rate of death sentences in the US among those convicted of killing a white victim is considerably higher than for murderers of blacks. Given this potential for fatal error, how can any objective person support the death penalty, which allows for no correction?

If there is even a small possibility that someone innocent could die, we should not use such a system.

3.It's expensive to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to Common Dreams: "The death penalty is quite expensive and life imprisonment can be cheaper. Over the lifetime of a case, executing prisoners can be three times as expensive as life in prison, primarily due to the higher costs of capital punishment trials, automatic appeals, and the heightened security on death row with lower staff-to-prisoner ratios. Commuting all death sentences to life in prison would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the U.S. and many billions over the coming decades."


"According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel...

...citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have "uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole."

Death penalty = more $$

4.Lethal injections are not humane. There is evidence that people feel pain as they are dying. One specific example is the botched execution in Oklahoma.

"The current article by Koniaris and colleagues gives further cause for concern by questioning whether, even if "perfectly" administered, the protocols would achieve their stated aim of causing death without inflicting inhumane punishment...

These lethal injection protocols use the barbiturate thiopental (intended to sedate and to suppress breathing), the neuromuscular blocker pancuronium (which paralyzes, causing respiratory arrest but also preventing agonal movements that might indicate suffering), and the electrolyte potassium (intended to cause cardiac arrest). Such protocols are intended to provide redundancy, such that each drug is given at a dose that would by itself cause death.

However, in analyzing data from actual executions, Koniaris and colleagues report that thiopental and potassium do not consistently result in death.

In fact, individuals undergoing execution have continued to breathe after the injection of thiopental, and their hearts have continued to beat following injection of potassium; in these cases, the authors conclude, it is quite likely that those being executed have experienced asphyxiation while conscious and unable to move, and possibly an intense burning pain throughout the body from the potassium injection."

1 & 2: No, it won"t. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty requires a long trial. Not every case is as clear as the Parkland Shooting. ADeciding to use the death penalty in a case can cost more than jailing the person.

3, 4, & 5: The incidents you specify are horrendous but that doesn"t make the death penalty O.K. This is utter hypocrisy. How can we say "Don"t murder!" and then say "But we"re going to murder you."

"6" Stepping in means jailing. It means cutting people off from society temporarily or permanently should the need arise. NOT murder.

"7" That sort of thinking is abhorrent. Yes, they"re evil, but who are we to decide what to do with somebody else"s life? I"d rather nobody died but at the end of the day, if the person wanted to die they could do it themselves"they certainly don"t need the state. Saying we have the right to kill ANYBODY is absurd.

"8" Are you saying this is population control? Murder is not the way we control population.

"9" Alright, if you"re going to bring religion into this"fine.

1.The Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy quotes are from the Old Testament. Back then, times were very different. If you stole, they cut your hand off. This is because people believed harsh punishments deterred crime. Then Jesus came and he preached forgiveness. Your Matthew quote is taken out of context. If you read the whole thing it says:

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Jesus says that we should love each other, not hate. He said don't do "An Eye for an Eye", instead we need to forgive. The Bible seems to understand that murder is not okay. How did they get it so right?

2.Bible says thou shalt not kill so how is murdering people acceptable by Christian standards?

We shouldn't redo the death penalty. We should kill it. Did you like my pun there?
Debate Round No. 1


"With your system, would you allow prisoners to appeal to jury convictions"? No. I have a few reasons why. One this system will only be going to be focused on the Mass shooters, Mass Murdered, and people who torture children. My second reason is this, it will lower the cost of trials.

Now I will clarify my stand on this proposal. The Death Penalty is only for those who commit mass murder, and torture children. Nothing else. The Death Penalty will still be rare in cases. I don't see how much of a Problematic like you do. Because a lot of the information you posted doesn't translate to this new proposal. I will break that down soon.

"Juries are not always right" In cases, I'm talking about it will be 100% certainly with
"beyond a reasonable doubt" Such as Colorado theater gunman James Holmes, Florida High School shooter, Nikolas Cruz, the Sandy Hook Perpetrator, Adam Lanza, "Mother's boyfriend guilty of murder in torture death of 8-year-old Palmdale boy" (4)
There are no questions there did the crimes, there no doubt they did these crimes. So, no innocent individuals are wrongfully convicted, in this system. This System again only for the mass murderer, not everybody.

"The death penalty is biased against black people" This may be true in the old system of the Death Penalty. But it will not be true if they re-do the Death Penalty in my proposed system. So, this part of your argument is Irreverent in this debate.

"Execution of wrongfully sentenced individuals is obviously unacceptable" Yes you are corrected. But in my Proposal, there will not be any wrongfully sentenced. They will only be the 100% certainly. The Death Penalty is only for the Mass Murdered and people who torture children. Not some random act of violence against someone, Again my Proposal is only in special events like mass shooting, Not everything like you want to make it out to be. The Death Penalty is not for everyone. Like you want to make my claim to be. So, again this piece you have is Irreverent to this Debate.

"small possibility that someone innocent could die" Again what I'm saying is this. It only for the pure criminal, With all 12 jurors have found that person guilty, then he will be convicted of the Death Penalty. They will not be a Small Possibility that they are innocent in cases of a mass shooter. the ones I have already mentioned.

"It's expensive to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". That is true.
"The criminal court case against Colorado theater gunman James Holmes has already absorbed at least $5.5 million in public monies, according to records obtained by Yahoo News". (5) And that was just in the first few months of the trial. "Other top expenses so far include $463,000 on additional security, Experts hired by the prosecution have received more than $220,000 to date. More than $90,000 was used to install a closed-circuit television system in the courtroom. It cost $20,000 to print 9,000 juror notices and questionnaires". (6) This is very stupid how the court is spending this kind of money for a person that committed mass murder. The other figure here has "Aurora Mass Shooting Cost More Than $100 Million" (7) That's just crazy. Why a person that killed so many people neede to cost so much for the court system and on the taxpayer? In my system, it would dramatically drop these prices. With just one trial and the processing would be a low less. Instead of lasting months to years, it would only last couple of weeks. "The New York City paid $167,731 to feed, house and guard each inmate last year, according to a study the Independent Budget Office released this week". (8&9) And that just an Average Inmate. " The annual average taxpayer cost in these states was $31,286 per inmate". (9) That just doesn't make sense to me. Why are we paying these Mass Murder, to stay alive? We'll it cost so much. The poor or a homeless person could never see this kind of money. And yet a person who commented these murders get so much attention to house and feed them. Again just doesn't make sense to me.

Could you Image what else we could do with that type of money being spent on these Murderers? I will get to that in round 3.

"Death penalty = more $$" You are correct. In the system we are under right now it does cost more. But the system I'm Proposing it would cost a lot less. Because it would only be one trial and it would be two weeks. No reason to have these court trails cost so much for these murderers.

"Lethal injections are not humane" So, what is Humane keeping these individuals in jail for the rest of their lives? And have them go crazier. Would you rather have these individuals shoot in the head instead? Plus Show What, if some of these individuals "feel pain". They did kill multiple people and yet had no remorse or guilt. But we should for them. That also doesn't make sense to me. Most Lethal injections are safe. You only pointed one case that was a very rare instance.

"Not every case is as clear as the Parkland Shooting" But that what I'm talking about. I only talking about the serious crime like Parkland Shooting.

Regards to your "Don"t murder!" comment. I will say this. They give up there right when they started killing people in the Masses. You think it right for them to stay in Jail for the rest of their lives when it cost the taxpayer. Actually, they get three meals a day when some people struggle to get there own food in the streets, and they get housing and get medicals for free. That doesn't sound right to me at all.

Jailing them doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help society when we the taxpayer having to pay for them get food and medicals. Helping these poor senseless people stay alive just doesn't add up in my book.

"instead we need to forgive" Let me ask you something. Would you forgive that shooter if they shoot your mother and brother to death? And even if you do, It doesn't make it right that society still has to feed these worthless murderers and give them medical for free. When most people have to struggle to get food or medical.

"Bible says thou shalt not kill" We'll these individuals who committed these murders didn't follow the Bible rule nor society rules. So, why should we keep them alive? and help them stay alive as long as possible. Sorry, this just doesn't add up to me...

"We shouldn't redo the death penalty. We should kill it. Did you like my pun there"? Yeah, that'ts was a nice touch to it. But unfortunately, the Death Penalty does need to be Re-done. Because the current system we have in place does not work. And my does make sense.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by unknown777 3 years ago
Don't count inmates by color. Don't even think they're oppressed.
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
I'm so sorry for forfeiting, can we redo this debate? Like we repost our arguments and continue from there?
Posted by TPPDJT 3 years ago
Con ftw
Posted by TPPDJT 3 years ago
Con ftw
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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