The Death Penalty- Right or Wrong?

[AztecInca]

Debate Topic: The death penalty, is it right to punish a criminal by death or not?

Paranoid Android will be debating that it is not right to use the death penalty as a form of punishment while et's daddy will be debating that it is right to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

This will be a 1v1 formal debate.

An Introduction, 5 bodily posts and a conclusion from each participant. No Flaming, bad manners or profantities will be tolerated.

There is a point deduction for debaters who fail to make a post within the 7 day time frame. The deductions will be 2 points for every day the participant fails to post after the 7 days.

This is to ensure that debates continue in a timely fashion. If for any reason you cannot post within the 7 days, please ensure that you let myself, Lottie or Tiddlyjen know to avoid having the points taken off your debate.

If, however the participant does not then attempt to make a post for up to 2 weeks after the 7 day rule has started an immediate disqualification will occur.

Good luck!

Aztec.

Edited May 6, 2006 by AztecInca

[+Paranoid Android]

Introduction

Do we have the right to take another human life? That is the question at stake in this debate. While punishing a murderer by committing murder ourselves may appeal to some aspects of our morality or justice, what it really is, is advocating an eye for an eye. Revenge! Though a topic such as this can never be fully resolved, I will thorughout this debate endeavour to show that capital punishment is an unjust Law that cannot be carried out with any sense of impartiality or objectivity. It's an entirely imperfect Law, the result of an entirely imperfect judicial system, based on an entirely imperfect sense of human morality.

In addition to countering my opponent's argument's, the issues I shall be discussing in this debate are:

• - the jailed innocent: the jails within our societies are full of the falsely accused.

- ethics and morality: how morals affect our ideology - how does one decide a particular crime is "worthy" of capital punishment.

- the criminal: what crimes should come under the death penalty?

- the victim: justice vs revenge

- the cost of rehabilitation: Are criminals beyond help? Does the cost outweigh the gain.

As I've mentioned, there is no clear cut, easy answer that can be given. What I will do though is attempt to convince you, the reader, of the inadequacy of capital punishment as a valid sentence for criminals.

Good luck.

Edit by Lottie: Just a little one to remove old opponents name. Note to organisers, I have allowed PA to edit this post as the circumstances have changed now.

Edited April 10, 2006 by Paranoid Android

[et's daddy]

Introduction

The death penalty has been around, in one form or another, since the dawn of time. There is a reason for this and the reason is a general agreement on the fate of individuals committing such heinous acts.

In this debate I will prove to you that the death penalty has become a nesecary evil of our society.

The topics i will cover include, but are not restricted to:

....recividism....how likely are such criminals to become repeat offenders

....vitims rights.....do the victims of such crimes and their families deserve an eye for an eye retribution

....cost......is the death penalty cost effective compared to housing a felon for life

....political.....how do the people of our nation and the world view the death penalty

....the past....should our views and actions on the subject over the past 2000 years weigh on our decisions now

I will present my case in such a manner as to show you that the death penalty is not only a nesecary evil, but actually a needed device to maintain our current way of life.

Good Luck to you PA

[AztecInca]

Paranoid Android, your reply please!

[+Paranoid Android]

Post 1 - the jailed innocent

Note: To keep this particular post from being too disjointed, I am focusing it on just the United Kingdom. Suffice it to say that similar stories can be found in every country that has had the death penalty!

February 27, 1947: Walter Rowland is hanged at Manchester for the murder of Olive Balchin after consistently maintaining his innocence. While he had been awaiting execution, another man had confessed to the crime. A Home Office report dismissed his confession as a fake, but in 1951 this man attacked another woman and was found guilty but insane.

March 9, 1950: Timothy Evans is hanged at Pentonville for the murder of his baby daughter. John Christie, an inhabitant at the same address, was later found to be a sexual serial killer (he gave key evidence against Evans). Christie was executed in 1953 for the murder of his own wife. Evans received a posthumous pardon in 1966.

March 28, 1950: George Kelly, hung for murder. Conviction overturned in June 2003.

September 3, 1952: Mahmood Hussein Mattan, a Somali seaman, is hanged for murder. The Court of Appeal quashes his conviction in 1998 when it is revealed that evidence absolving Mattan was withheld at trial.

January 28, 1953: Derek Bentley, executed. Conviction overturned July 30, 1998.

Source

I guess I can fill this page with more examples - my point should be made by now though. Case after case of convictions. Case after case overturned. For those individual's whom I listed, it's too late for them. A government apology is hardly sufficient for a senseless loss of life. But with a death penalty, an apology is the best that can be offered. The list I provided grows exponentially longer when it includes those who did not receive a death penalty for their wrongful imprisonment. Lucky for those people, they were still alive to receive their pardon's.

The death penalty in Egland has been abolished (the only reason the list at the beginning of this post isn't longer), thanks in no small part to the case of Timothy Evans. In 1950, he turned himself into the police and confessed to murdering his wife. He first claimed to have given her some abortion pills, after which she died. Then he claimed his neighbour, John Christie, had offered to help give an abortion, after which his wife died. The body (and his baby daughter's body) was found after a search - they had both been strangled. The story changed again, and he claimed he strangled them both after arguing over some debts. Though only officially ever charged with the murder of his daughter, during the trial, he again reverted to the original story that Christie was the killer.

Naturally, it seemed obvious that Evans was guilty, and so was convicted and hanged.

Three years later, a new tenent finds the bodies of three prostitutes, and after a police search, yet three more are found, including Christie's wife. During the interrogation, Christie admits to the murder that Evans was convicted of. For the full story, click here.

It has been suggested that Evans was of below-average intelligence, possibly even mentally handicapped. It has also been suggested that Christie had somehow coerced Evans into his confession. Regardless, Evans was wrongfully executed. Without the death penalty, Evans woud have been imprisoned and shortly after released when Christie was found to be the true killer.

If this case shows anything, it's that the death penalty is NEVER a viable option, even in the most extreme cases, where guilt seems beyond any doubt.

Though some little good did come from the Evans case - as I mentioned, the outrage at this case paved the way for the abolishment of capital punishment in the United Kingdom. Still, the death penalty is alive and well (pardon the sarcasm) in other parts of our world, though there are also many countries and states that have abolished it. I hope that one day every country and state abolishes the barbarity of such a needless punishment. But I very much fear it will take another Timothy Evans for us to sit up and take notice.

[et's daddy]

Post - 1

First I'll post a small rebuttal

I guess I can fill this page with more examples - my point should be made by now though.

Actually I would say you're point has been made, that mistakes were made in the past. Problem is your examples are all from before the 60's. That doesn't prove the death penalty itself is flawed, it just proves that in the past mistakes, as regrettable as they are, were made.

If people gave up due to failure we wouldn't have flight today.

With todays technology such mistakes can be avoided. With eye-witnesses, DNA, and confessions the death penalty can be carried out with 100% accuracy.

Now for my 1st topic: Recidivism

Recidivism plagues our nation. Many criminals released after serving their time commit new, even more violent crimes and are returned to prison.

Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

source

It is often said that murderers are the criminals least likely to repeat their crimes.

Does that statistic matter if you become the victim of one who bucks the trend?

source

this site lists dozens of released murderers that killed again

it's ironic that my opponent mentioned the word apology, I would hate to be the person that had to call the next of kin for these released criminals new victims.

The numbers speak for themselves, many released murderers will kill again, and the death penalty with the aid of DNA, eye-witness testimony and confessions is the best possible option.

[+Paranoid Android]

Post 2 - ethics and morality

Just to quickly address a couple of points in et's post:

Actually I would say you're point has been made, that mistakes were made in the past. Problem is your examples are all from before the 60's.

That's because (fortunately) the death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1965 - no one has been executed since then. I concentrated on that region mainly because the case study I was using came from there. Other countries that retained the death penalty have much more recent mistakes. Regardless, does the date matter? As you state, we have new technologies, DNA evidence and the like, yet our knowledge is not infinite, mistakes are less likely to happen, but they still happen.

It is often said that murderers are the criminals least likely to repeat their crimes.

Does that statistic matter if you become the victim of one who bucks the trend?

Perhaps, the statistics might not matter then. But to use this as a reason to execute someone, you are advocating murdering them for a crime they MIGHT commit. It is not part of any current judicial system to punish someone for something they might do, even with 99.9% certainty. Innocent until proven guilty - it's annoying at times, but that rule was made for a reason. Incarcerated for a crime does not automatically point to guilt in another crime, especially for one that may not even happen.

To my main point now... Our morals and ethics permeate every level of our society. While these morals provide a framework for individual's to interact with each other in a "socially acceptable" way, it also locks us into a specific way of thinking, and of understanding crime and punishment. There are countries that still carry the death penalty for engaging in same-sex relations - those countries are listed here.

Similarly, various countries have laws aimed only at specific people - race, religion and sex being the most common. Take women, for example:

In Iran, she must cover her head at all times and may not wear makeup or do anything to display her femininity in public. She may not drink alcohol or associate with boys and if she gets caught, she will be flogged. If she gets caught having sex or gets pregnant outside marriage, she can be sentenced to death for adultery or moral crimes. If she commits murder or is involved in drug trafficking, she can expect to feel the hangman’s noose, perhaps in public.

Source

Myself and others sitting in front of our computer monitor's reading this will stand up and say "well that's wrong!", or some might say "fair enough". I'm not bringing this up to make a judgement call on it, but to discuss the principles behind such beliefs. For these societies, these laws are quite acceptable and reasonable. Our morals, the structure of our society, they impact on our opinions of what may warrant the death penalty. In earlier societies, blasphemy against their God/s was punishable by death. Today, especially in the wake of 9/11, treason against your country has again come to the fore as a crime possibly worthy of death. What does the future hold? How does one decide that a crime should be dealt with as a capital offense?

So far, both of us have focused primarily on the death penalty for murderers. In my next post, I shall be discussing other crimes that may be applicable to the death penalty in our Western society.

[et's daddy]

quick rebuttal

That's because (fortunately) the death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1965

actually the death penalty was not completely abolished in the UK in 1965. treason and piracy with violence remained punishable by death.

Part 2: victims rights.............an eye for an eye

the concept of an eye for an eye is not a new one

do victims and their survivors deserve the ultimate retribution, according to the majority of the populace in America, yes they do.

the criminals committing these crimes have given up their rights to life. as the crimes have resulted in the death of innocents on most cases, and in the crimes where death is not the result many times they leave their victims in a living hell, the death penalty is almost too good for the criminals. some see it as unfortunate we cant do worse to those that perpotrait such crimes.

obviously most of the victims of these crimes are unable to speak for themselves, therefore we must speak for them. the death penalty is on the books in America for a reason, because We The People want it there. it's the culture we live in. we have deemed as a society that some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty

An Eye For An Eye

[+Paranoid Android]

Post 3 - the criminal

do victims and their survivors deserve the ultimate retribution, according to the majority of the populace in America, yes they do.

that's a very American statement, et's daddy. But it ignores the rest of the world. Australia has no current death penalty. The UK has no current death penalty. According to the populace of these countries, the criminals do not deserve death.

the criminals committing these crimes have given up their rights to life.

The individual's involved have indeed commited atrocities, quite often resulting in death or a fate worse than. But nowhere did they "give up their rights". You are making a judgement call on the life of a human being. As Gandalf says to Frodo in the first installment of Lord of the Rings: "Many who live deserve death but some who die deserve life. Can you give that to them?" This is of course assuming the individual isn't one of the plethora of cases where they were wrongly imprisoned.

the death penalty is on the books in America for a reason, because We The People want it there. it's the culture we live in. we have deemed as a society that some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty

Again, a very American-centric comment. The world is bigger than the United States of America. To run with your reasoning though, the homosexual living in the Sudan who has a same-sex relationship deserves death, because the Sudanese people want that law. It is ok to execute the Iranian woman who has extra-marital sex because the Iranian population deemed it appropriate (the Iranian population also deems it ok for men to engage in such acts without worry).

As I mentioned in my last post, this post here shall be dealing with which crimes might be considered under the death penalty.

Historically speaking, the reasons for capital punishment have been many and varied. Murder, treason, piracy (not such a big deal nowadays), rape, torture, being gay, being a Jew, being a woman, being black. Most today will agree that the last few on the list are unacceptable. Yet as I said earlier, being gay can be punishable by death in many countries. Being a woman increases the likelihood of a death sentence in some countries. But I'm repeating myself now. Moving on then....

Using our current, Western values and morals, what crimes should be considered a capital offense?

Single murder?

Multiple murders?

Rape?

Multiple rape?

Gang rape?

Paedophillia?

Treason?

Once we start categorizing crimes as worthy of death, we run into problems. Take murder, for example. Is one murder sufficient for a death penalty? What if it's an accidental murder, or a crime of passion, or momentary insanity? (who decides if the criminal was in fact "insane"?) These are taken into account, and often a sentence is given in part due to the persuasiveness of the lawyer's speech.

Another difficult decision is when dealing with rape cases. When is rape deemed a capital offense? Is it judged by the brutality, the frequency, the sheer number, the age of the victim? It would seem a death sentence is justified in some cases. But who decides which cases? Unless we make the sentence for any rape to be death then, which is a fair alternative, except that for many reasons, throughout the years, people have cried rape falsely. I'm not saying here that every person who cries rape is a liar, or even a significant portion. I understand it's only a small minority of cases that aren't genuine. But the fact is that it happens. And in those cases it often because one person's word against another.

I hope you see my point. We could make exceptions and only administer capital punishment in cases that are beyond any possible doubt, with witnesses, confessions, evidence, no remorse. However, once exceptions are made, it doesn't become an objective law, but a law based on the subjectivity of a jury, the subjectivity of a lawyer's arguments, the subjectivity of the judge. Where is fairness and impartiality, if two people charged with the same crime are sentenced differently, one to prison for a length of time, possibly to be released, and one to be sentenced to immediate execution.

There is no impartiality in such a decision. No one on this earth is capable of making a fair and objective decison, when the crimes are always so subjective, the cases so different. Therefore, to conclude this post, the only fair and equitable stance to take is to leave the death penalty out of society altogether. It is an entirely unfair punishment.

[et's daddy]

that's a very American statement, et's daddy. But it ignores the rest of the world. Australia has no current death penalty. The UK has no current death penalty.

the death penalty is hardly an American concept

the following countries currently employ the death penalty:

Afghanistan

Antigua and Barbuda

Bahamas

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belarus

Belize

Botswana

Burundi

Cameroon

Chad

China (People's Republic)

Comoros

Congo (Democratic Republic)

Cuba

Dominica

Egypt

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Gabon

Ghana

Guatemala

Guinea

Guyana

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Jamaica

Japan

Jordan

Kazakhstan

Korea, North

Korea, South

Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan

Laos

Lebanon

Lesotho

Liberia

Libya

Malawi

Malaysia

Mongolia

Nigeria

Oman

Pakistan

Palestinian Authority

Philippines

Qatar

Rwanda

St. Kitts and Nevis

St. Lucia

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Saudi Arabia

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Somalia

Sudan

Swaziland

Syria

Taiwan

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Thailand

Trinidad and Tobago

Uganda

United Arab Emirates

United States

Uzbekistan

Vietnam

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

To run with your reasoning though, the homosexual living in the Sudan who has a same-sex relationship deserves death, because the Sudanese people want that law. It is ok to execute the Iranian woman who has extra-marital sex because the Iranian population deemed it appropriate (the Iranian population also deems it ok for men to engage in such acts without worry).

i will address the politics of the death penalty later in the debate, but for now to address your statements, let me just ask, who are we to decide for these countries which crimes may and which may not be punishable by death ? seems you consider yourself more wise and knowledgable then the majority of the people in all the countries i listed above.

piracy (not such a big deal nowadays)

for the love of God please do a little research

"Pirate attacks tripled between 1993 and 2003. The first half of 2003 was the worst 6-month period on record, with 234 pirate attacks, 16 deaths, and 52 people injured worldwide. There were also 193 crew members held hostage during this period.

182 cases of piracy were reported worldwide in the first 6 months of 2004"

source

on to my next topic

Post - 3

Cost.......is the cost of the death penalty equal to or less then that of life imprisonment ?

its a known fact that a capitol murder trial where the death penalty is a possible outcome is more costly then when it is not. however, how about after the trial ? this is indeed simple math.

the cost to keep a single criminal in a maximum security prison is approx. $68,000 per year. if you try such a criminal when they are 25 and they happen to live until they are 75, the cost to the state for housing this individual would be approx. $3,400,000. of course you may get lucky and the individual may get shanked as soon as he/she reaches lock-up

as for the cost of an individual sentenced to death. the average stay on death row is 10 years in a maximum security prison translating to approx. $680,000. add in the cost of the wood and rope to build a gallows to swing them from and youre still less the 1/3 the cost of life imprisonment.

as shown the cost of the death penalty in thelong run is much cheaper and you have rid the world of a person we are better off without.

[+Paranoid Android]

Post 4 - the victim

the death penalty is hardly an American concept

I never claimed it was only an American penalty. Obviously not, since I discussed in no small detail other countries that also had the death penalty. I was addressing the statements that you made:

- according to the majority of the populace in America, yes they do.

- the death penalty is on the books in America for a reason, because We The People want it there.

No offense, but it sounded like you were trying to play the 'Patriotic American' card.

let me just ask, who are we to decide for these countries which crimes may and which may not be punishable by death ? seems you consider yourself more wise and knowledgable then the majority of the people in all the countries i listed above.

It is not my intention in this debate to impose my values on the legal system of any country. I'm discussing the views that various other countries hold in relation to capital punishment, based on their own moralistic and ethical views. Thus, people who live in two different countries can commit the same "crime" and be treated differently. In the case of homosexual expression, one country will put you to death, another country won't even remark on it. As I said, I'm not imposing my own views on different societies, just highlighting the unfairness of capital punishment.

for the love of God please do a little research.....

source

Fair enough. I was thinking of pirates as in Captain Hook, Pirates of the Carribean, skull and crossbones, shiver-me-timbers type of characters. Whether or not there are modern-day pirates is, quite frankly, beside the point. Since no penalty should be punishable by death, that includes piracy.

As my next post shall also be discussing the cost of capital punishment, I will refrain from further rebuttal, and move on to the point of this post.

The victim and capital punishment - Most discussions on capital punishment focus on the criminal and his/her crime. The victim is often sadly ignored. From the victim's standpoint, capital punishment serves no realistic purpose. All it accomplishes is the death of the purpotrator. For some people, an eye for an eye seems to be a fair penalty. You get me, I get you - that's the basic reasoning. I will accede that for some people, it is enough to know the person responsible is dead. This is not always so, but whether it is or not, the fact remains that the wishes of the victim aren't necessarily a reasonable and objective response, and cannot be used to guage an appropriate punishment.

An eye for an eye may seem to appease some level of basic justice, but is it really "Just"? There is a fine line between Justice and Revenge, and often people intent on revenge often hide behind a flag of Justice. I can understand the need to vindicate the victim to some extent. Unfortunately, with the death penalty, nothing can be accomplished. The criminal is dead. It does not bring back the murdered relative who died by the hands of this criminal. It does not erase the brutal rape of a sister who was violated. Regardless of what else happens, the victim is still dead, or scarred for life (mentally and/or physically). Nothing the legal system implements will change history. Killing the criminal will not erase that fact.

Since nothing is actually accomplished with the death of the criminal, why have such a punishment at all? There are other sentences that can be imposed on a criminal. Sentences that allow some hope for rehabilitation and sentences that allow some hope for the jailed innocent. The death penalty allows hope for neither. It is entirely an unnecessary and cruel punishment.

[et's daddy]

Whether or not there are modern-day pirates is, quite frankly, beside the point.

if it's beside the point why did you originally bring it up ?

first you accuse me of acting too American, then you complain when i talk about other areas of the world that involve the death penalty. just seems to be no pleasing you

Since nothing is actually accomplished with the death of the criminal

really ? nothing ?

every year the families of victims go before parole boards to see to it that killers stay behind bars. each time the family members do this they relive the horror of their loved ones death. should they be made to suffer like this ?

In 1985, 13-year-old Karen Patterson was shot to death in her bed in North Charleston, S.C. Her killer was a neighbor who had already served 10 years of a life sentence for murdering his half-brother Charles in 1970. Joe Atkins cut the Pattersons' phone lines, then entered bearing a machete, a sawed-off shotgun, and a pistol. Karen's parents were chased out of their home by Atkins. Karen's mom ran to the Atkins home nearby, where Joe then murdered his adopted father, Benjamin Atkins, 75, who had worked to persuade parole authorities to release Joe from the life sentence.

When Katy Davis observed three strangers outside her Austin, Texas, apartment, she walked away. Returning later, she was attacked and forced to open the door by Charles Rector, on parole for a previous murder. The men ransacked her apartment, abducted her and took her to a lake where she was beaten, gang-raped, shot in the head and repeatedly forced underwater until she drowned

still want to argue that nothing is accomplished with the death penalty ?

Post 4........political side

every democratic country that has the death penalty, yes including America, has it because the majority of the population wants it

it's the society we live in, so i suppose in all of these countries you know better then the majority of the people and politicians ?

More Than Two-Thirds of Americans Continue to Support the Death Penalty

source

the above is not just to show the American side, it is intended to show just how strongly the death penalty is supported politically in this democratic society.

[+Paranoid Android]

Post 5 - the cost of rehabilitation

if it's beside the point why did you originally bring it up ?

I was discussing crimes that in the past have carried a death sentence. Note my exact words: Historically speaking, the reasons for capital punishment have been many and varied. Unless you believe the past is not important.....?

first you accuse me of acting too American, then you complain when i talk about other areas of the world that involve the death penalty. just seems to be no pleasing you

Please, point out to me where I complained about you discussing other areas of the world. I have discussed some other countries that use capital punishment, but never did I complain about your use of the information. Indeed, use it as much as you want - you're only strengthening my case for me

every year the families of victims go before parole boards to see to it that killers stay behind bars. each time the family members do this they relive the horror of their loved ones death. should they be made to suffer like this ?

still want to argue that nothing is accomplished with the death penalty ?

Crimes other than murder carry the death penalty also, it's not only murderers who get sentenced to death.

every democratic country that has the death penalty, yes including America, has it because the majority of the population wants it....

......the above is not just to show the American side, it is intended to show just how strongly the death penalty is supported politically in this democratic society.

The Will of the people does not decide the political landscape. Politicians often make decisions that the majority of the population are not happy with.

To the subject of this post now: How does one judge the value of a human life? What monetary value should be placed on it? $500,000? $1,000,000? More? Less? Counting the costs of capital punishment as opposed to life imprisonment neatly packages the human into a number - a statistical note of how much they are worth. The death penalty in America puts the value of a convicted criminal at $680,000 (as et's daddy suggests, 10 years on death row not including the gallows). Overseas, it is even more pronounced, with sentencing and death occuring often very shortly after the other. In Indonesia a drug trafficker can be executed less than 6 months after conviction, often much less. Using the price of an American's stay on death row as a basis, that adds to a total of less than $34,000. I cannot help but wonder how anyone can devalue the life of a human being in such a manner.

What is the value of a convicted murderer?

What is the value of a convicted rapist?

What is the value of a homosexual in the Sudan?

What is the value of a drug trafficker in Indonesia?

What is the worth of rehabilitation? Are criminals worth the time and effort to be given the chance to repent, to atone for their wrongs? I am not suggesting that every criminal can be "saved", yet many criminals use their time in jail to better themselves, to once more become productive members of society. With gang-members and drug addicts who are rehabilitated after commiting an atrocious crime to support their habit or to appease their gang boss, they often donate their time to help youth, using their experiences to counsel the next generation of children of the horrors of gang warfare and drug abuse - potentially stopping a future crime.

To finally quote once more et's earlier post:

as shown the cost of the death penalty in thelong run is much cheaper and you have rid the world of a person we are better off without.

Cheaper, indeed, but better off I'm not sure. The real people punished by the death of a criminal is the family of the criminal. They don't see their brother/sisiter/father/mother/blood relative as someone "we are better off without". They were not responsible for the crime (assuming the accused was not wrongfully imprisoned, that is). Yet it is them who are affected most strongly. Never getting to see their loved one again, watching their own flesh and blood get murdered themselves.

Some might consider this fair trade, the victim's family is changed forever with the loss of a loved one, it's only fair the same happens to the accused. But to put it another way - capital punishment punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. And that, my friend, is just plain wrong - on all levels!

[et's daddy]

- potentially stopping a future crime.

potentially isn't good enough

the death penalty guarantees a future crime will not be committed

Cheaper, indeed, but better off I'm not sure. The real people punished by the death of a criminal is the family of the criminal. They don't see their brother/sisiter/father/mother/blood relative as someone "we are better off without". They were not responsible for the crime (assuming the accused was not wrongfully imprisoned, that is). Yet it is them who are affected most strongly. Never getting to see their loved one again, watching their own flesh and blood get murdered themselves.

all you're doing is shifting the blame, to those that impose the death penalty

it isn't their fault the criminals family will never see them again, it is the criminals

see my family will never have that problem as it it easy to avoid committing such a crime

Post 5--------the past

should the past weigh on our choices today ? yes of course they should. we can now make sure people are executed with 100% assurity of their guilt

the death penalty is as old as time itself. from stoning to lethal injection, people have been put to death in one form or another.

tradition plays a big part in society, people wrap their lives around tradition

ignoring the past also ignores the biggest case of capitol punishment of all time, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ

whether you subscribe to the tale or not it is a huge part of society impossible to ignore

without that death the world would be a much different place, it would change the lives of literally billions of people, and if you ask them the change would not be for the better as the death of Christ is the only way to get to Heaven

and according to them the criminals families can rest assured if the criminal confesses their sins before death, they will be safe with God for all eternity

[+Paranoid Android]

Conclusion

the death penalty guarantees a future crime will not be committed

Yes, it guarantee's a futurue crime is prevented...... at the expense of committing a current crime. Murder is murder - whether it be a criminal killing a stranger, or the state executing a criminal.

we can now make sure people are executed with 100% assurity of their guilt

As you once counseled me earlier in the debate, I now return the favour: for the love of God please do a little research

A comprehensive study of 328 criminal cases over the last 15 years in which the convicted person was exonerated suggests that there are thousands of innocent people in prison today. Almost all the exonerations were in murder and rape cases.....

.....Only 20 percent of the murder exonerations involved DNA evidence, and almost all of those were rape-murders.......

......Some 90 percent of false convictions in the rape cases involved misidentification by witnesses......

......the study found that the leading causes of wrongful convictions for murder were false confessions and perjury by co- defendants, informants, police officers or forensic scientists.....

Source

The system is not fool-proof. People are being released all the time. DNA evidence does not play a significant role in murder cases. As stringent as the system can be, mistakes are always made. With the death penalty, these mistakes cannot be fixed.

ignoring the past also ignores the biggest case of capitol punishment of all time, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ

Are you seriously using a religious icon as proof that capital punishment is viable? Since you brought it up though, I may as well show you what Jesus' actual stance was concerning capital punishment. When a woman who was to be stoned to death was brought before Jesus, Jesus said: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7) The crowd dispersed, leaving the woman unharmed. Jesus may have been crucified, but he did not approve of capital punishment.

To conclude then, the death penalty is an entirely unfair punishment. Whether it be the unfairness of innocent men and women being put on death row, or whether it be the ethical and moral beliefs of the people that impact the laws so that homosexuals are executed simply for being who they are. Or whether it be the fact that killing a criminal produces no tangible result other than a few dollars saved at the expense of rehabilitation or release - it is absolutely clear; the death penalty is unfair. The reasons to abolish capital punishment are almost infinite. The reasons to keep it - few. It's time to get rid of what doesn't work in society. It's time to get rid of the death penalty.

Thank you et's daddy, for participating in this debate. I wish you luck, now and for your future debates

Regards, PA

[et's daddy]

Yes, it guarantee's a futurue crime is prevented......

that's all that needed to be said there, nothing more

as once again youre trying to confuse thie issue

The system is not fool-proof.

i've never said the justice system itself is fool-proof

though individual cases can be, and it is those cases where capital punishment should be applied

Are you seriously using a religious icon as proof that capital punishment is viable?

of course i brought up the death of Jesus

as it is indeed the most important capital case of all time

without it billions of peoples lives would be changed for the worse forever

Conclusion

"That the death penalty, for murder in the commission of armed robbery, each year saves the lives of scores, if not hundreds of victims of such crimes cannot reasonably be doubted by any judge who has had substantial experience at the trial court level with the handling of such persons." -- The Honorable B. Rey Shauer, Justice of the Supreme Court of California

it has become a forgone conclusion that in certain cases the death penalty is the only true way to avoid certain criminals from repeating their crimes.

my opponent has conceded that capital punishment saves money over the alternatives, and i have proven that many times the criminal if released will continue to commit crimes, therefore the death penalty is now nesecary.

maybe at some point in the future there will be a viable replacement, but at this current date non-such exists.

we cannot buck history just as we cannot buck the will of the majority. their voice speaks loud and clear, the death penalty works and the people want it

I wish you luck, now and for your future debates

ditto

[Guest Lottie]

Okay. Well done to both of you!

We will now hand this over to our faithful judges.

[__Kratos__]

Nice debate the both of you. Glad to see interest in this issue. I would have liked to see a lot more from et's daddy in writing and research though. Nice job from PA for explaining his points and looking at all et's daddy's issues brought up.

Debater 1: Paranoid Android

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 9

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 10

TOTAL: 36

Debater 2: et's daddy

Relevancy: 7

Countering: 3

Style: 5

Persuasiveness: 4

TOTAL: 19

Edited May 1, 2006 by __Kratos__

[TooFarGone]

Debater 1: Paranoid Android

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 9

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 9

TOTAL: 35

Debater 2: et's daddy

Relevancy: 7

Countering: 3

Style: 4

Persuasiveness: 4

TOTAL: 18

[thebarman]

Well done the both of you in an interesting debate,

I very much liked the style both of you adopted in answering each others posts first, then continuing with your points. It made a welcome change to the usual "quote and reply" technique that leaves us almost reading each post twice which can be frustrating so I've reflected this in my scoring.

Both managed to stay fairly relevant although I felt the "Jesus" example wasn't really linked with the issues of today and backfired somewhat with PA's reply.

In the remaining two areas however I felt PA excelled, I'd liked to of seen a little bit more info from et's daddy and I didn't feel PA's points were delt with properly, a few more facts and figures for successful capital punishment cases would have added some strength.

Paranoid Andriod

Relevancy: 10

Countering: 9

Style: 9

Persuasiveness: 8

TOTAL: 36

et's daddy

Relevancy: 8

Countering: 6

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 5

TOTAL: 27

[AztecInca]

Paranoid Android wins this debate with a final score of 35.6

et's daddy finishes this debate with a final score of 21.3

Well done to both our debaters!

Edited May 6, 2006 by AztecInca