Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#5624
The death penalty is unnecessary excluding one exception.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1264
rating
363
debates
39.81%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
The death penalty is typically unjustified and it serves no justice.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
The death penalty which is the extinguishing of a life for a said crime is unnecessary with one exception.
If there is absolutely no way to hold, contain or imprison the perpetrator, the death penalty is warranted.
For instance, the prisoner is a serial murderer. This person will stop at nothing to murder. If prisons are unsuccessful with keeping this person from murder, what other option is there but for the person to not be able to breathe?
The person has to be alive in order to murder right.
But all these individuals on death row that have been in prison since sentencing, a life for a life doesn't compensate.
When you try to prevent a life being taken by another compensates.
That is justice. Some people call the death penalty justice. That only exception I mentioned would be justified.
Justice is about compensation, fixing up or making up from what is missing.
Killing someone just for the sake of that someone having killed someone else is not making up for that victim's life.
Why the death penalty exists outside the exception, no one can make a justifiable argument including the law makers.
You can't use the determent argument or simply argue it's justice. Insubstantial.
Arguing about emotions and feeling better or making others feel worse doesn't cut it .
I'll leave it there. This is not a heavy in-depth subject.
If there is absolutely no way to hold, contain or imprison the perpetrator, the death penalty is warranted.
My opponent mentioned only this exception to death penalty, but the system he is arguing for consists of prison and death penalty as punishments for serious crimes.
1. Since people in prison still can commit serious crimes, it follows that it is impossible to contain people by prison.
2. If same system for sentencing to prison sentence is used to sentence to death sentence, the only difference between the two becomes that instead of feeding and caring for individual for the next 30 to 60 years, the individual is sentenced to death which costs much less to carry out.
Thus, we see that from an economical point of view, death penalty is desirable over long term prison sentence.
This is also true in terms of resource distribution. If there are less criminals alive, there will be less food consumed by criminals, thus more food left for non-criminal citizens.
The amount of food in total does not increase if you keep criminals alive, but the amount of food consumed by criminals increases, thus amount of food left for non-criminals reduces.
3. Finally, there are people who desire death penalty and wish to die. To deny them of that would greatly increase their pain.
Further on the final point, prison system is torture and pain for most people, thus death penalty reduces amount of people in prison, thus reduces pain.
Giving people a choice in how they want to be punished is beneficial for them, since all get what they prefer, thus suffering in total is reduced.
Round 2
"1. Since people in prison still can commit serious crimes, it follows that it is impossible to contain people by prison."
Once more I say that if it is not possible to restrain a perpetrator or criminal to prevent further criminality, then the prisoner will have to be executed.
If the opposing side disagrees with this, then the opposing side agrees to non defense/self defense. Basically this is how this is justified in what I'm saying. It's just basically self defense of those that would face fatal repercussions from a relentless killer.
A killer that breaks free from his cell is loose in the prison or in the world at large to continue to kill. The particular prison facility failed in which was there to contain him. Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is insanity.
There are many people serving their time that have suspended their criminality. Otherwise there'd be not one inmate breathing in a prison anywhere.
"2. If same system for sentencing to prison sentence is used to sentence to death sentence, the only difference between the two becomes that instead of feeding and caring for individual for the next 30 to 60 years, the individual is sentenced to death which costs much less to carry out."
This is not a justification for killing somebody. It's not justified to kill me just because I cost a lot for you to support me.
Ridiculous point.
"Thus, we see that from an economical point of view......."
Yeah this entire premise is nonsense. It really shares the same logic with abortion . For financial reasoning, kill people.
First of all, the death penalty is not instituted due to financial benefits for overall society. Otherwise everybody convicted particularly for life would be executed. You're going far out. The opposing side is going far left merging into arguments you would use for abortion.
Totally ludacris. When I move , you moved all the way out the legal standing.
"3. Finally, there are people who desire death penalty and wish to die. To deny them of that would greatly increase their pain."
This is the same logic of encouraging suicide. If a person desires death, attempt to cause death to another and that person will get that wish, that's fine .
But outside that, we encourage as a functioning law abiding society for people to seek help and therapy. We call it the suicide hotline.
Due to having so much help and assistance programs to help overcome suicidal thoughts and tendencies, it has been proven that people can live productive lives. Society is a thriving flourishing society.
We're not a nihilistic society. The opposing side is promoting a nihilistic approach as if it's a human right to destroy yourself.
It is not. Why? Clearly the human body is structured to live , grow, reproduce, etc.
If I have pain, I don't resort to killing myself. There is a cause to pain. You can eliminate the cause without eliminating your life as that is contrary to what life is.
I yield.
"1. Since people in prison still can commit serious crimes, it follows that it is impossible to contain people by prison."Once more I say that if it is not possible to restrain a perpetrator or criminal to prevent further criminality, then the prisoner will have to be executed.If the opposing side disagrees with this, then the opposing side agrees to non defense/self defense. Basically this is how this is justified in what I'm saying. It's just basically self defense of those that would face fatal repercussions from a relentless killer.A killer that breaks free from his cell is loose in the prison or in the world at large to continue to kill. The particular prison facility failed in which was there to contain him. Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is insanity.There are many people serving their time that have suspended their criminality. Otherwise there'd be not one inmate breathing in a prison anywhere.
My opponent clearly misunderstood the argument being made.
His basic premise was:
P1. If people can be contained by prison, they should not be executed.
But take many group of prisoners, and some among them will kill others in prison, some will rape others, hurt others...ect.
My opponent has no way to contain this, as he cannot predict which criminal will be well behaved and which wont.
So when it comes to those who have commited serious crimes, giving them all death penalty obviously contains crime more than letting them live and do more crime in prison, since only the first one stops all further crime, where the second one allows more crime to happen.
This point is meant to prove that an exception to death penalty as used by my opponent cannot be reasonably applied, as the only thing which contains the most crime in all cases is exactly the death penalty. So my opponent's "exception" includes all cases of crime, which then means its not an exception, but a rule.
Then my opponent moved the goalpost and said "Only if they repeat a crime". But if they repeat a crime, you concede that your method failed to contain crime compared to death penalty.
"2. If same system for sentencing to prison sentence is used to sentence to death sentence, the only difference between the two becomes that instead of feeding and caring for individual for the next 30 to 60 years, the individual is sentenced to death which costs much less to carry out."This is not a justification for killing somebody. It's not justified to kill me just because I cost a lot for you to support me.Ridiculous point."Thus, we see that from an economical point of view......."Yeah this entire premise is nonsense. It really shares the same logic with abortion . For financial reasoning, kill people.First of all, the death penalty is not instituted due to financial benefits for overall society. Otherwise everybody convicted particularly for life would be executed. You're going far out. The opposing side is going far left merging into arguments you would use for abortion.Totally ludacris. When I move , you moved all the way out the legal standing.
My opponent attacked a strawman.
First he conceded that death penalty costs less.
Then he claimed that cost is not a reason to kill somebody.
But my argument was never "if someone costs a lot, it is justified to kill him".
No, my argument was "if criminal who committed serious crimes can be punished by prison or death sentence, and death sentence costs less money, then he should be punished with death sentence."
Notice that my argument was only dealing with criminals who committed serious crimes.
My opponent tried to attack a strawman by attacking the claim "if anyone costs a lot of money, it is justified to kill him", but my argument never mentioned people in general, but criminals. The worth of criminals is less than that of non-criminal people, and even more so for serious crimes.
Further, economy is what keeps people alive, thus economy is crucial for life and an increase of life.
Thus, if you can gift life to a good citizen or to an evil criminal, why would you prefer an evil criminal?
"3. Finally, there are people who desire death penalty and wish to die. To deny them of that would greatly increase their pain."This is the same logic of encouraging suicide. If a person desires death, attempt to cause death to another and that person will get that wish, that's fine .But outside that, we encourage as a functioning law abiding society for people to seek help and therapy. We call it the suicide hotline.Due to having so much help and assistance programs to help overcome suicidal thoughts and tendencies, it has been proven that people can live productive lives. Society is a thriving flourishing society.We're not a nihilistic society. The opposing side is promoting a nihilistic approach as if it's a human right to destroy yourself.It is not. Why? Clearly the human body is structured to live , grow, reproduce, etc.If I have pain, I don't resort to killing myself. There is a cause to pain. You can eliminate the cause without eliminating your life as that is contrary to what life is.
My opponent conceded that death penalty reduces pain, and since pain by its worth is the strongest negative value, then death penalty helps people eliminate the strongest negative value they have.
Not everyone wants to live in pain. Not everyone wants to live while burning in fire. Thus, death penalty would improve those who want the death penalty, and would reduce their pain.
My opponent said that they can simply attack others and thus get killed, but that causes far more pain than death penalty and is much more likely to result in survival instead of death.
With economical argument unchallenged, pain argument unchallenged, and argument of want unchallenged, we get this:
Person is a criminal who commited horrible crimes. It is economically beneficial to give him death penalty instead of life in prison, as it will leave more money to support life of non-criminal citizens.
It will reduce his pain too.
He wants to die.
Compare that to my opponent's case:
No, dont kill him. Torture him for 50 years in prison, which will cost us lots of money and harm our economy.
We can clearly see that per priority, my case is better for all.
Round 3
"But take many group of prisoners, and some among them will kill others in prison, some will rape others, hurt others...ect.
My opponent has no way to contain this, as he cannot predict which criminal will be well behaved and which wont.
So when it comes to those who have commited serious crimes, giving them all death penalty obviously contains crime more than letting them live and do more crime in prison, since only the first one stops all further crime, where the second one allows more crime to happen."
At this point, the opposing side agrees with my exception. I've already addressed this. If someone cannot be stopped in his criminality , what other option is there but to execute?
But just like it was said by the opposing side that you can't predict which criminal will be behave, you run the risk of unnecessary killing of those that are successfully rehabilitating. Which is more non justification .
The opposing side is arguing more for injustice and I'm trying to argue for more justice. I'm trying to cease unnecessary killing. The opposing side is arguing to employ more which is the total opposite of the justice system we have now.
We can still have the justice system of not killing all prisoners but tweaking it for room of potential rehabilitation.
Remember the purpose of prisons. To contain and restrain.
"This point is meant to prove that an exception to death penalty as used by my opponent cannot be reasonably applied, as the only thing which contains the most crime in all cases is exactly the death penalty. So my opponent's "exception" includes all cases of crime, which then means its not an exception, but a rule."
The opposing side has not proven that all prisoners or applicable ones that are to be executed to make this exception a rule. I have proof that not all prisoners need to be executed. We can see many prisoners rehabilitated, seen in interviews within prisons, discussing progress made in serving their time. We learn about how they manage their time, how they're serving their time. These individuals are not getting into repeat offenses and constantly breaking out.
This shows that only the exception is necessary and they are exempt.
The opposing side is arguing to include them lumping them all together which is akin to massacring people.
"Then my opponent moved the goalpost and said "Only if they repeat a crime". But if they repeat a crime, you concede that your method failed to contain crime compared to death penalty."
That is the goalpost. They actually have to repeat. Just like the first time. The law actually has to wait until a death penalty crime is committed before it can be carried out. It can't be done before.
Based on the opposing side's logic, because we can't predict, therefore act on execution.
This proves more destructive. We don't argue because of prediction from the law standpoint, it's from confirmation.
"First he conceded that death penalty costs less."
I never argued that it doesn't cost less. I can only concede something I initially argued against.
I made the point that it doesn't matter the cost. Otherwise no prisoner be left alive.
"Then he claimed that cost is not a reason to kill somebody."
As in not a justification, no it's not. You can't refute that. I challenge the opposing side to make the argument that because I'm expensive to support, it justifies killing me. You make the argument and you'll be locked up probably facing death row.
"But my argument was never "if someone costs a lot, it is justified to kill him".
Then you should have never brought anything up having to do with finance, money , cost , etc.
Now you're backpedaling out of it as mentioning it proves fallacious.
"No, my argument was "if criminal who committed serious crimes can be punished by prison or death sentence, and death sentence costs less money, then he should be punished with death sentence." "
The opposing side is contradicting. You're contradicting yourself. Either the justification of the death penalty has nothing to do with reasoning the cost or it does.
People are not sentenced to death based on a cost. That is completely ignorant. The penalty for said crime is determined by crime in tandem with the state/legal jurisdiction.
"Notice that my argument was only dealing with criminals who committed serious crimes. "
This is dishonest. It was not only dealing with that. The opposing side brought up cost and if I didn't point it out, it wouldn't be retracted.
"My opponent tried to attack a strawman by attacking the claim "if anyone costs a lot of money, it is justified to kill him", but my argument never mentioned people in general, but criminals. The worth of criminals is less than that of non-criminal people, and even more so for serious crimes."
No it was your argument that you're pretending to be a strawman. I refuted your true real argument and you ought to honestly concede that.
"Further, economy is what keeps people alive, thus economy is crucial for life and an increase of life.
Thus, if you can gift life to a good citizen or to an evil criminal, why would you prefer an evil criminal?"
Now you used the word "economy ". Am I making a strawman of your argument even though you're using the term economy in your point that I say you're making a point and argument of?
Get honest with what you're doing and saying. You claim your point has nothing to do with money but you continue to involve it.
The question of gifting life is akin to if I were God , a life giving spirit. I can't argue in a philosophical, spiritual, hypothetical. No person, no person can give a gift of life. No person can give or create life. A person can take it away. That's what the topic is about. Is the death penalty justified outside the exception?
I say no. As far as I get from the opposing side, it is justified leaving no exception to an excessive point for all "serious" crime prisoners which is arbitrary by the way.
A person convicted of a sentence in prison has committed a serious crime. So the opposing side may wish to consider specifying better than that.
More than likely the specification is to leave the justice system as is. But we'll still have serious crime convicts in prison who are not sentenced to death.
That's where my argument comes in to extend that to all whom have proved to be successfully contained and restrained within a penal prison.
I can't give anybody life. If I were God, I don't know. I'm not God .
Again my argument comes in to extend that to all whom have proved to be successfully contained and restrained within a penal prison.
From the opposing side if I committed a crime to put me in prison, I should be executed even if I can still contribute to society within the prison walls as a productive rehabilitated inmate.
"My opponent conceded that death penalty reduces pain, and since pain by its worth is the strongest negative value, then death penalty helps people eliminate the strongest negative value they have."
I never made an argument about pain and the death penalty. I can only concede something I initially argued for.
Let's get a refresher on what conceding is. You mentioned the cost and the death penalty. Now because you mentioned it, take it as a lesson or tip, whatever, because you mentioned it, you make it a part of your argument. So therefore it is your argument whether you realize it not.
Do not mention anything that is not to be involved or added as any part of your point to an argument.
Duly note that. Otherwise what is the point of mentioning it?
Think of the point of using any word. Think of why you're using any word. Don't throw words around, don't use throw away words.
So what you mentioned becomes your argument. Then the opposing side comes back this round trying to say it has nothing to do with cost. This is actually indirectly conceding because you initially argued this or made an argument with the subject of cost.
That's what conceding is .
"Not everyone wants to live in pain. Not everyone wants to live while burning in fire. Thus, death penalty would improve those who want the death penalty, and would reduce their pain."
Evidently this is not the way the death penalty law works. The opposing side is not arguing from the current legal standpoint. You are arguing by your own ideology.
To that, you have given no justification that has stood up.
"My opponent said that they can simply attack others and thus get killed, but that causes far more pain than death penalty and is much more likely to result in survival instead of death."
Do you know that prisons can successfully contain and restrain people?
Do you know people can live on without pain or agony?
You're continuing to argue for death. It is not justified to resort to death when other options are available.
"With economical argument unchallenged, pain argument unchallenged, and argument of want unchallenged, we get this:
Person is a criminal who commited horrible crimes. It is economically beneficial to give him death penalty instead of life in prison, as it will leave more money to support life of non-criminal citizens.
It will reduce his pain too.
He wants to die."
Here we go readers. The opposing side admits making an economical argument. None of these arguments justify the death penalty.
I kindly suggest the opposing side to argue from the current legal standpoint which is due to commiting a crime itself. Why would that in and of itself justify such a so called punishment?
Don't use these other arguments because even from a legal standpoint, they're are not accepted or used.
"Compare that to my opponent's case:
No, dont kill him. Torture him for 50 years in prison, which will cost us lots of money and harm our economy."
Oh don't torture anybody. You can live a productive life in prison getting involved with constructive programs, having regular visits, conjugal visits, physical activity, etc.
The opposing side is painting this false dilemma as the only two options are death and living in agony.
The opposing side has not proven this is the dilemma for every inmate. We know plenty of inmates are serving time staying out of trouble. This is why prisons still exist because they are overall successful. In fact this is what makes inmates parolees.
So being that it's not every inmate, that leaves the possibility for more and more room for others thus making the justification for an attempt at rehabilitation rather than further destruction which is being claimed from the opposing side on my position.
My position is for less annihilation as it incorporates inmates as well as law abiding civilians.
"We can clearly see that per priority, my case is better for all."
No it's clear to you.
The opposing side is arguing for a nihilistic government which is not what the death penalty is about in the current real world government.
I rest my case
Forfeited
Round 4
Case closed.
Yes.