Instigator / Pro
11
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Topic
#3975
Resolved: On balance, the death penalty in the US does more harm than good.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
11
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
Resolution: On balance, the death penalty in the US does more harm than good.
Death penalty (from Merriam-Webster): death as a punishment given by a court of law for very serious crimes: capital punishment
The burden of proof is shared. PRO must prove that the death penalty in the US does more harm than good. CON must prove that the death penalty in the US does more good than harm.
Rules:
-No semantic Kritiks
-No personal attacks
-Focus only on the death penalty in the United States
-Forfeits result in the loss of a conduct point, but the debate still continues
-I will be using research from a previous debate. You are welcome to do the same.
Structure:
R1: Constructive arguments (no direct rebuttals)
R2: Rebuttals/defense
R3: Rebuttals/defense
R4: Conclusion (no new arguments)
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot, for accepting this debate. Good luck.
I. Framework
I will aim to prove my case on two fronts, each of which will be split into several points.
1. The death penalty does excessive harm.
A. The death penalty is immoral and a violation of human rights.
B. The death penalty, as it is currently applied, is racially discriminatory.
C. The death penalty is irreversible and has executed innocent people.
2. The death penalty does little good.
A. The death penalty is ineffective in reducing crime.
B. The death penalty does not save costs, and is more expensive than LWOP.
C. The death penalty does not bring justice in any way.
II. Burden of Proof
The resolution is an “on-balance” debate, meaning the burden of proof is shared. As such, if I prove the death penalty does more harm than good, I win. The converse is true for my opponent.
III. Definitions
The definition of the main topic, the death penalty, is provided in the description. My opponent has agreed to this definition by accepting the debate.
In addition, I will use “harm” and “good” in the usual context of public policy: damage, and benefit, respectively.
IV. Constructive Arguments
IV.1. The death penalty does excessive harm.
Overall, I will prove that the death penalty, as a public policy, causes an unacceptably high amount of damage.
IV.1.A. The death penalty is immoral and a violation of human rights.
First, the death penalty is fundamentally immoral. We don’t punish rapists by raping them, nor arsonists by burning down their houses. One of the main purposes of criminal punishment is to keep society safe from offenders, a justification often made for the death penalty. However, life without parole (LWOP) achieves the same fundamental purpose.
Second, the death penalty is a clear violation of human rights. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), “More than half of all prisoners currently sentenced to death in the U.S. have been on death row for more than 18 years.” [1] Furthermore, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commision for Human Rights, has said that this long and torturous wait constitutes “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.” [2]
Finally, even if the death penalty can be argued to be theoretically moral, in practice is it not. This brings me to my next point.
IV.1.B. The death penalty, as currently applied, is racially discriminatory.
Obviously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is why I will rely on a variety of peer-reviewed, published, criminal justice studies in order to support my claim.
According to a study published in the Harvard Law Review, in Georgia, people who are accused of killing white victims are 17 times more likely to be convicted than people accused of killing Black people. [3]
Furthermore, according to the DPIC, in 96% of states studied, there was evidence of racial bias in death penalty sentencing. [4]
Justice is supposed to be color-blind, and this is even more important when it comes to irreversible punishments like the death penalty. Unfortunately, as shown above, practice has shown this is not the case.
IV.1.C. The death penalty is irreversible and has killed innocent people.
Since 1973, over 190 people sentenced to the death penalty have been officially exonerated. [5] Of the over 1500 people who have already been executed, an unknown number (certainly greater than zero) were innocent.
According to one study published in a peer-reviewed journal, 4.1% of people sentenced to death are likely innocent. [6]
There are several specific cases in which there was compelling evidence of innocence, yet the defendants were executed anyway.
For example, Cameron Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for a fire that killed his family, was likely innocent. The prosecution's case was built on outdated forensic methods and possibly perjured testimony. At least three arson experts later proclaimed that the fire was accidental. [8]
IV.2. The death penalty does little good.
Overall, I will prove that the death penalty creates minimal benefit, if any, compared to the damage it causes.
IV.2.A. The death penalty is ineffective in reducing crime.
One of the most widely cited justifications for the death penalty is its alleged effectiveness in reducing crime. I will aim to prove that this is a false and baseless assertion.
Most murders are committed with little thought for the consequences – an obvious fact, since anyone thinking of them wouldn’t commit a murder. As such, no amount of extreme punishment is likely to have a deterrent effect.
According to the New York Times, “during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.” [7]
It is true that confounding factors that vary state-by-state might affect the homicide rate. However, according to Steve Messner, an accredited criminologist, “Whatever the factors are that affect change in homicide rates, they don’t seem to operate differently based on the presence or absence of the death penalty in a state.” [7]
IV.2.B. The death penalty does not save costs.
Another common argument for the death penalty is how it saves costs over LWOP. This, too, is a baseless argument.
Hundreds of studies have been conducted across all 50 states aiming to assess the fiscal efficiency of the death penalty. Of these, almost every single one has proved that the death penalty is inefficient, costly, and wasteful.
For example, according to a study conducted by the Palm Beach Post, each execution in Florida costs taxpayers a stunning $24 million, because of increased trial costs, as well as the extra appeals offered in capital cases. Similar studies conducted across the nation unanimously support the same conclusion: the death penalty is fiscally wasteful and an irresponsible policy. [8]
With the hundreds of millions of dollars saved, we could make genuine and meaningful changes to our criminal justice system, such as by increasing funding for public defenders, improving education in low-income areas, and bringing killers still at large to justice.
IV.2.C. The death penalty does not bring justice.
The final possible justification for the death penalty, how it brings “justice,” is often brought up as a way to justify the stunning amounts of money wasted on it. In reality, I will show how it is the opposite of justice.
First of all, the death penalty often results in mistrials or even acquittals for those clearly guilty, as jurors are often highly reluctant to administer the death penalty as a matter of principle. Instead of bringing justice, the death penalty causes miscarriages of justice.
Second of all, death penalty cases have a long and lengthy appeal process, which can bring trauma to both the accused’s and victim’s family. Far from bringing peace and closure, this process, which can take several decades, only opens old wounds.
Third of all, every case of an innocent person being executed fundamentally undermines faith in our judicial system – it sets a dangerous and worrying precedent.
V. Summary
In my lengthy opening speech, I have shown several important assertions about the death penalty. Namely, the death penalty is a violation of fundamental human rights, is racially biased, and has executed innocent people.
Furthermore, I have also proven that the death penalty does minimal good – it is extremely costly, has no proven deterrent effect, and undermines faith in the judicial system.
I have proved my side of the burden of proof, and look forward to my opponent’s response.
VI. Sources
Con
#2
“Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding.”
- Henri Ducard (Played by Liam Neeson.) in Batman Begins.
Preamble:
I shall prove my case on five fronts, which shall be divided into sections of their own.
- Capital Punishment is constitutional.
- The Death Penalty keeps stability.
- Execution works as an effective deterrence.
- The Government is obligated to carry out justice.
- Victims’ families need closure.
Burden of Proof:
Since the BOP is shared, Pro wins should they manage to prove that the DP does more harm than good.
Conversely, I win if I prove the reverse is true.
1. Capital Punishment is constitutional.
The Government strongly endorses the Death Penalty.
- Punishment for serious federal crimes came into effect when the Crimes Act of 1790 was signed by George Washington.
- The bombing of Oklahoma City in 1995 took the lives of 168 people. Around 700 were injured, with 20 of them being children. As a result, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act had been signed by President Clinton.
- During President Obama’s term, he pushed for the execution of the Boston Marathon bomber as well as the mass murderer, Dylann Roof.
2. The Death Penalty keeps stability.
Removing the Death Penalty causes violence.
It stands to reason that removing the Death Penalty would shake the people’s faith in the system’s ability to carry out justice. Consequently, this leads to mob mentalities and vigilantism.
- Notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was bludgeoned to death on November 28, 1994 by fellow inmate, Christopher Scarver.
The belief that the government will hold perpetrators accountable for their actions is what stops avengers from taking the law into their own hands in the name of justice.
Fictional character, Clyde Shelton, became a murderer himself who sought to punish the men that killed his family and got away with it. While movies rarely represent real life, the lesson behind this story is still valid.
3. Execution is an effective deterrence.
There are three types of deterrence.
- General deterrence refers to a person thinking about committing a serious crime, but then deciding not to, unless they are killed.
- Specific deterrence is the morbid joke/idea that the dead defendant will be unable to harm anyone else.
- Retribution is the eye for an eye. Society has the moral right to deliver punishment to the worst kind of offender.
4. The Government has an obligation to deliver justice.
Repealing the Death Penalty is morally reprehensible and constitutionally offensive.
- Without the Death Penalty, all criminals are treated exactly the same. For the worst kinds of criminals: Rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, mass murderers, and drug dealers. LWOP is simply insufficient.
- If the offender is not put to death, there runs the risk that they will one day be back on the streets. LWOP is not a guarantee because any high-level attorney can sometimes give free passes such as.: Reduced sentence, plea bargain, or removed charge.
5. Victims’ families deserve closure.
The death of any person is a tragedy that causes long-term trauma to the families and friends of the victim. The execution of the offender brings them the comfort that they need and removes the fear that the individual will not be back on the streets to cause harm to other people.
The DP in this case allows families to move on from the incident.
- California’s death row inmates took the lives of more than 1,000 people. Can people really feel safe if these killers were not properly dealt with?
- Statistically speaking, 54% of the adults in the US prefer execution for those convicted of murder according to a 2021 survey.
Sources: https://news.gallup.com
Round 2
Pro
#3
I. Preamble
This response will be dedicated entirely to rebuttals. I extend my arguments from R1.
II. Rebuttals
I will respond to each of my opponent’s five main contentions in turn, using the Deny, Reverse, Minimize, Outweigh, and Bypass structure. All quotes are directly from my opponent, unless mentioned otherwise.
1. Capital Punishment is constitutional.The Government strongly endorses the Death Penalty.
- Punishment for serious federal crimes came into effect when the Crimes Act of 1790 was signed by George Washington.
- The bombing of Oklahoma City in 1995 took the lives of 168 people. Around 700 were injured, with 20 of them being children. As a result, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act had been signed by President Clinton.
- During President Obama’s term, he pushed for the execution of the Boston Marathon bomber as well as the mass murderer, Dylann Roof.
Bypassed. The constitutionality of the death penalty is irrelevant to this debate. This debate only addresses whether the death penalty does more harm than good.
Furthermore, the endorsement of the government doesn’t mean the death penalty is an effective, nor beneficial policy. Throughout various points through US history, the government has endorsed (implicitly or explicitly) slavery, racial segregation, disenfranchisement of women, and various other policies that we understand to be harmful today.
2. The Death Penalty keeps stability.Removing the Death Penalty causes violence.It stands to reason that removing the Death Penalty would shake the people’s faith in the system’s ability to carry out justice. Consequently, this leads to mob mentalities and vigilantism.
- Notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was bludgeoned to death on November 28, 1994 by fellow inmate, Christopher Scarver.
The belief that the government will hold perpetrators accountable for their actions is what stops avengers from taking the law into their own hands in the name of justice.Fictional character, Clyde Shelton, became a murderer himself who sought to punish the men that killed his family and got away with it. While movies rarely represent real life, the lesson behind this story is still valid.
Outweighed. Yes, removing the death penalty might encourage some to take the laws into their own hands. However, vigilantism is exceedingly rare, to the point where it doesn’t meaningfully have any effect on my impact-weighing. Prison killings are the symptom of a fundamentally broken judicial system, rather than the result of removing an inhumane punishment.
Furthermore, an innocent conviction can lead to as much instability in the justice system as a guilty man walking free. I recommend you watch The Green Mile – it's a good film about an innocent man sentenced to death.
3. Execution is an effective deterrence.There are three types of deterrence.
- General deterrence refers to a person thinking about committing a serious crime, but then deciding not to, unless they are killed.
- Specific deterrence is the morbid joke/idea that the dead defendant will be unable to harm anyone else.
- Retribution is the eye for an eye. Society has the moral right to deliver punishment to the worst kind of offender.
Denied. I will counter these three sub-points individually.
- General deterrence: Most murders are committed with little thought for the consequences – an obvious fact, since anyone thinking of them wouldn’t commit a murder. As such, no amount of extreme punishment is likely to have a deterrent effect. See argument IV.2.A from my opening speech for more specific evidence.
- Specific deterrence: Life without parole serves the same purpose, while being cheaper, more humane, and allowing innocent people to later be released.
- Retribution: Justice should be forward-looking (rehabilitation, deterrence) rather than backwards-looking (punishment, retaliation). We, as a society, should move on from the ancient “eye for an eye” philosophy. We don’t burn arsonists’ homes down, nor rape rapists. A heinous crime is not an excuse for a systemic violation of human rights.
4. The Government has an obligation to deliver justice.Repealing the Death Penalty is morally reprehensible and constitutionally offensive.
- Without the Death Penalty, all criminals are treated exactly the same. For the worst kinds of criminals: Rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, mass murderers, and drug dealers. LWOP is simply insufficient.
- If the offender is not put to death, there runs the risk that they will one day be back on the streets. LWOP is not a guarantee because any high-level attorney can sometimes give free passes such as.: Reduced sentence, plea bargain, or removed charge.
Minimized. First of all, I would think repealing an inhumane, costly, racially discriminatory punishment that has been shown to execute innocent people would be quite the opposite of “morally reprehensible.”
Second of all, what the heck is “constitutionally offensive”? The Constitution only says we can implement the death penalty; it doesn’t say we should or must do it.
Furthermore, my opponent said that without the death penalty, “all [serious] criminals are treated exactly the same.” I would think this is a benefit of repealing the death penalty – standardizing punishments in the justice system would be a serious improvement over our current inconsistent sentencing guidelines.
Also, my opponent mentioned that “If the offender is not put to death, there runs the risk that they will one day be back on the streets.” I will address each of the examples they gave individually.
- Reduced sentence: In any case where the crime is serious enough that the prosecutor pushes for the death penalty, then life without parole is virtually at least guaranteed. Thus, a reduced sentence is irrelevant.
- Plea bargain: If a prosecutor goes for a plea bargain, then obviously, they’re not seeking the death penalty anyway. Thus, a plea bargain is irrelevant.
- Removed charge: If the charge is removed, then neither prison nor the death penalty is happening. Thus, a removed charge is irrelevant.
5. Victims’ families deserve closure.The death of any person is a tragedy that causes long-term trauma to the families and friends of the victim. The execution of the offender brings them the comfort that they need and removes the fear that the individual will not be back on the streets to cause harm to other people.The DP in this case allows families to move on from the incident.
- California’s death row inmates took the lives of more than 1,000 people. Can people really feel safe if these killers were not properly dealt with?
- Statistically speaking, 54% of the adults in the US prefer execution for those convicted of murder according to a 2021 survey.
Reversed. The death penalty does not bring closure to a victim’s family; instead, it does the opposite. Death penalty cases have a long and lengthy appeals process to minimize innocent convictions. This process can take several decades. These are several decades in which the victim’s family has to relive the trauma over and over again.
To give an example of this, I’ll quote the poignant words of Donald McCartin, a California judge who at first supported, then later opposed the death penalty. [1]
"Had I known then what I know now, I would have given Alcala and the others the alternative sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Had I done that, Robin’s mother, Marianne, would have been spared the pain of 30 appeals and writs and retrial. She could have dealt then and there with the fact that her daughter’s killer would be shut away, never again to see a day of freedom, and gone on to put her life together.”
“What family members must find is reconciliation with the reality of their loss, and that can begin the minute the perpetrator is sent to a prison he will never leave. But to ask them to endure the years of being dragged through the courts in pursuit of the ultimate punishment is a cruel lie.”
Furthermore, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, right now, over 50% of homicides are going unsolved. [2] Meanwhile, we’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on the death penalty. Instead of wasting money on pursuing “closure” over decades, perhaps we should give peace to the families who still don’t know who killed their loved ones.
Also, my opponent cited a survey saying that 54% of US adults support the death penalty for those convicted of murder. This is an ad populum fallacy – public support is hardly compensation for the great harms of the death penalty.
III. Concluding Remarks
I have decisively refuted each of my opponent’s main contentions, by showing why they are untrue, irrelevant, unimpactful, or even antithetical. I also extend all my arguments from R1, particularly the one regarding the enormous and wasteful cost of the death penalty.
I look forward to my opponent’s response.
IV. Sources
Along with all sources from the previous round, I add:
1: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-mar-25-la-oe-mccartin-death-penalty-20110325-story.html
Con
#4
In round 1, Pro had some specific concerns about the Death Penalty that I will take the time to analyze and deconstruct in this one.
Rebuttals:
1. The Death Penalty is evil and inhumane.
“First, the death penalty is fundamentally immoral. We don’t punish rapists by raping them, nor arsonists by burning down their houses. One of the main purposes of criminal punishment is to keep society safe from offenders, a justification often made for the death penalty”
Historically, you can find bizarre and unusual punishments where the criminal would be subject to the same crime he did to other people. As a civilized society, we have evolved beyond the need to resort to such inhumane methods of torture. The Death Penalty is about accountability, not vengeance. In not stooping to the offender’s level, we are demonstrating we are above them and that their heinous crimes will not be tolerated.
“Second, the death penalty is a clear violation of human rights. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), “More than half of all prisoners currently sentenced to death in the U.S. have been on death row for more than 18 years.” [1] Furthermore, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commision for Human Rights, has said that this long and torturous wait constitutes “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.”
I’ll entertain this idea by asking the following question. What is the difference between waiting years on death row before your execution and living out the rest of your life behind bars until your natural expiration date?
LWOP has oftentimes been called an ‘alternate death penalty,’ with valid reasons too.
2. The Death Penalty is RACIST???
“Obviously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is why I will rely on a variety of peer-reviewed, published, criminal justice studies in order to support my claim.According to a study published in the Harvard Law Review, in Georgia, people who are accused of killing white victims are 17 times more likely to be convicted than people accused of killing Black people. [3]Furthermore, according to the DPIC, in 96% of states studied, there was evidence of racial bias in death penalty sentencing. [4]Justice is supposed to be color-blind, and this is even more important when it comes to irreversible punishments like the death penalty. Unfortunately, as shown above, practice has shown this is not the case.”
The power of Cause and Effect.
The claims of racial biases in wrongful sentencing are reasonable, but to use this as justification that the Death Penalty is at fault just leads me to the point that the blame is misplaced.
The solution is not therefore to repeal the Death Penalty, as abolishing it won’t solve racism. Instead, we should address the problem directly which are corrupt judges, racist prosecutors, and incompetent defense attorneys.
3. The Death Penalty is Permanent and kills innocent people.
“Since 1973, over 190 people sentenced to the death penalty have been officially exonerated. [5] Of the over 1500 people who have already been executed, an unknown number (certainly greater than zero) were innocent.”
Just keep in mind that of all the cases, 32 of them claimed innocence. Technically, 32 of around 7,200 cases since 1973.
“According to one study published in a peer-reviewed journal, 4.1% of people sentenced to death are likely innocent. [6]
There are several specific cases in which there was compelling evidence of innocence, yet the defendants were executed anyway.”
“Likely” innocent????
LIKELY?!?!?!?
There is no concrete evidence that proves an innocent has been executed since 1900 in the United States. This is why death penalty abolitionists will use adjectives such as “likely” or “probably.” This recontextualizes everything about their arguments.
And there are already systems in place to prevent the execution of innocent people. The appeals process, the penalty phase, and jury selection.
But even if we entertain the idea that errors happen, how is permanent incarceration supposedly more fair?
4. The Death Penalty does not reduce crime.
“One of the most widely cited justifications for the death penalty is its alleged effectiveness in reducing crime. I will aim to prove that this is a false and baseless assertion.Most murders are committed with little thought for the consequences – an obvious fact, since anyone thinking of them wouldn’t commit a murder. As such, no amount of extreme punishment is likely to have a deterrent effect. “
There’s that word again. The studies that attempt to prove some sort of causation through correlation oftentimes find that their results are inconclusive. For killers who murder on impulse, there is Specific Deterrence, as the individual will be unable to inflict harm on anyone else.
For premeditated crimes such as robbery, Isaac Ehrlich observed a “deterrent effect based on the severity of punishment when studying robbery reports from 1950.”
“According to the New York Times, “during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.” [7]It is true that confounding factors that vary state-by-state might affect the homicide rate. However, according to Steve Messner, an accredited criminologist, “Whatever the factors are that affect change in homicide rates, they don’t seem to operate differently based on the presence or absence of the death penalty in a state.” [7] “
The alternative to the death penalty is LWOP, but so long as the convict remains alive, there is always the possibility that the governor overturns this conviction and releases this dangerous person back into society. Which is precisely what happened in 2012.:
Betty Smithey, Longest Serving Female Inmate, May Get Parole For 1963 Murder
- At the time, Smithey was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. According to the law at the time she was sentenced, only the governor could grant her clemency.
- https://www.abcnews.com
5. The Death Penalty is too expensive.
This point is actually true, as the evidence has shown some states could save costs by removing the DP.
6. The Death Penalty is not justice.
“First of all, the death penalty often results in mistrials or even acquittals for those clearly guilty, as jurors are often highly reluctant to administer the death penalty as a matter of principle. Instead of bringing justice, the death penalty causes miscarriages of justice.”
These acquittals do not mean the defendant is innocent, it only means that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
“Second of all, death penalty cases have a long and lengthy appeal process, which can bring trauma to both the accused’s and victim’s family. Far from bringing peace and closure, this process, which can take several decades, only opens old wounds.Third of all, every case of an innocent person being executed fundamentally undermines faith in our judicial system – it sets a dangerous and worrying precedent.”
Pro has not specified the number of innocent people executed, he said that it’s unknown which is why he frequently resorts to words such as “likely” to justify his hyperbolic arguments.
He states that death row cases take too much time, but it is these very factors that makes the executions of innocent people statistically low.
Sources: https://www.abcnews.com
Round 3
Pro
#5
I. Preamble
I will dedicate this response entirely to the defense of my own case, by rebutting my opponent’s rebuttals. I extend my R2 arguments, which my opponent has not responded to.
II. Rebuttals
For the sake of brevity, each heading will represent all the arguments under that associated heading by my opponent.
1. The Death Penalty is evil and inhumane.
Again, we seem to have a split over whether the criminal justice system should be forward-looking or backward-looking. I believe that if there is no legitimate deterrent value in the death penalty, then the death penalty is simply administered out of a desire for revenge. Accountability implies some meaningful impact the death penalty has on the future, which it does not.
Additionally, the death penalty is “stooping to the offender’s level.” Why should the government have the special power to end life? What purpose, or justification, does this serve? All that it’s teaching is that state-sanctioned homicide is acceptable.
Furthermore, there is a huge difference between waiting on death row before execution and LWOP.
First, my opponent has ignored the fact that isolation, typical for death row inmates (but not for LWOPers), has serious effects on mental health. According to a report from the ACLU, prisoners are kept in solitary confinement, often in tiny cells, for decades. [1] They are also deprived of human interaction and religious studies, two factors that have been shown to have a positive effect on inmates. This violates international human rights norms, as proven by the DPIC. [2]
Second, this long wait, facing an unknown fate of execution at an unknown time, has also been proven to be inhumane. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that a long period of waiting before execution violates the European Convention on Human rights (this applies to the US, since it was regarding an extradition case). [2]
2. The Death Penalty is RACIST???
The motion that our current criminal justice system has fundamental inequalities does not change the fact that the death penalty is one of most broken parts of it. Racism in sentencing is a valid objection to a cruel and arbitrarily administered punishment.
Furthermore, my opponent mentioned some problems of the current system, which are “corrupt judges, racist prosecutors, and incompetent defense attorneys.”
If we abolished the death penalty, we could save an incredible amount of money (see argument 5). This money could be used to fix the exact same problems my opponent mentioned.
I also remind voters, and my opponent, that this debate deals with whether the death penalty does more harm than good – notice the present tense. Considering future effects of keeping/abolishing the death penalty is a valid argument. Singing the virtues of the death penalty in a nonexistent ideal world is not.
3. The Death Penalty is Permanent and kills innocent people.
“There is no concrete evidence that proves an innocent has been executed since 1900 in the United States.” Cameron Willingham. Martinsville Seven. Groveland Four. Joe Arridy. Dozens of others, who, while not formally pardoned, did not have their guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [3]
Also, your semantic criticism over the use of “likely” is irrelevant to the conclusion of the study. Yes, it’s not exactly accurate – the real number might be a few tenths of a percent higher or lower. Any statistical study that claims to have 100% accuracy is utter rubbish.
The only thing that matters is that this is a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal, that came to the conclusion that about 4.1% of prisoners on death row are innocent.
“But even if we entertain the idea that errors happen, how is permanent incarceration supposedly more fair?“
Permanent incarceration gives the opportunity to prove innocence later on, and moreover, is far more humane than the death penalty.
4. The Death Penalty does not reduce crime.
A meta-review of Isaac Ehrlich’s study, published in a criminology journal, found that “flawed techniques used to analyze data yielded unreliable results.” In particular, Ehrlich’s study was based on “an underlying microeconomic theory which holds that homicide is a maximization of personal utility by those who commit the crime.” This has been proven to be fundamentally false – homicides rarely result in maximal benefit for those committing the crime. [4] More recent and reliable studies, like the one I linked in R1, show that the death penalty has no deterrent effect.
In addition, my opponent mentioned that with LWOP, “there is always the possibility that the governor overturns this conviction and releases this dangerous person back into society.”
I object to this scaremongering: first of all, the governor has no power to “overturn” the conviction, and second of all, the governor wouldn’t just release a dangerous person back into society. Parole is based on careful considerations, foremost of which is the chance of reoffending.
5. The Death Penalty is too expensive.
My opponent has conceded this important point.
6. The Death Penalty is not justice.
“These acquittals do not mean the defendant is innocent, it only means that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.” Yes, this is true. What does this have to do with my argument?
My opponent also failed to respond to my argument about the trauma to the victim’s family by the decades-long appeal process.
“He states that death row cases take too much time, but it is these very factors that makes the executions of innocent people statistically low.“ My opponent concedes my point regarding the excessive length of capital cases, while also failing to respond to my argument and evidence regarding innocence – 4.1% is not statistically low when it comes to innocent people on death row.
III. Concluding Remarks
In this response, I have successfully defended each of my six main contentions. To recap:
- 1: Countered morality argument, demonstrated how the death penalty wait is crueler than LWOP
- 2: Noted the irrelevance of opponent’s argument, pointed out how money saved could be used to counter racism
- 3: Reaffirmed my point, which my opponent did not directly counter
- 4: Showed why the death penalty does not deter crime, and why my sources are more reliable
- 5: Opponent concession
- 6: Showed why my opponent’s arguments are insufficient and fail to address my main arguments
I thank my opponent for the excellent debate so far, and look forward to his response.
IV. Sources:
And all additional sources from previous rounds.
Con
#6
Brief Summary:
Throughout the previous two rounds, I have maintained the position that the Death Penalty is good and argued against Pro’s constructive arguments from round 1.
I shall now focus primarily on counter-rebuttals.
Counter-Rebuttals:
- The Death Penalty is about vengeance.
“Again, we have a split over whether the criminal justice system should be forward-looking or backward-looking. There is no legitimate deterrent value in the death penalty, then the death penalty is administered out of a desire for revenge. Accountability implies some meaningful impact the death penalty has on the future, which it does not.Additionally, the death penalty is “stooping to the offender’s level.” Why should the government have the special power to end life? All that its teaching is that state-sanctioned homicide is acceptable. “
Your belief that the DP is about vengeance is irrelevant.
Contrary to what you might think, the people in government are not born with an intrinsic value to commit homicide. Some people are simply too dangerous to live, so those in charge do not have time for the nonsense that “every life has value.”
When you’re in a position of power, you have the responsibility to do what is right. You can assume the moral high ground, but if you’re dealing with the worst kind of criminal, you will not be on it for long.
“There is a huge difference between waiting on death row before execution and LWOP.First, my opponent ignores the fact that isolation, typical for death row inmates, has serious effects on mental health. According to a report from the ACLU, prisoners are kept in solitary confinement, often in tiny cells, for decades. [1] They are also deprived of human interaction and religious studies, factors that have been shown to have a positive effect on inmates. This violates international human rights norms, as proven by the DPIC. [2]Second, this wait, facing a fate of execution at an unknown time, proves to be inhumane. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that a long period of waiting before execution violates the European Convention on Human rights (this applies to the US, since it was regarding an extradition case). [2] “
You shall find in many circumstances that LWOP is actually worse than death row and those arguing that ending their life is inhumane do not actually care about their living conditions.
Crimes that get you LWOP will lead you to a prison where you are surrounded by all kinds of dangerous people that will make your life a special hell.
Joseph Dole, a convict who received LWOP states the following.:
“I was never on ‘death row.’ Instead of being sentenced to death by execution, I am sentenced to death by incarceration or Life-Without-Parole (LWOP), the invisible death row. Does that mean I’m mean trilled to have been ‘spared’ the death penalty? Quite the contrary. Had the judge ordered me executed, I would be much better off
Those given the death penalty get all sorts of legal resources thrown at them, while lifers are left to fend for themselves. The numbers tell it all. A whopping 73% of death penalty convictions are overturned, while only 7% of lifers’ convictions are…
Serving a life-without-parole sentence, I am now one of thousands on Illinois’ invisible death row. Across America, we ‘lifers’ now number over 100,000 (and growing)… Even opponents of the death penalty argue that LWOP is the perfect alternative to the death penalty. As if the end result were somehow different. The end result, however, is exactly the same – no freedom whatsoever, no second chances, and death in prison. Death may not come as quickly as a planned execution, but it’s still a death sentence all the same. They think that supporting LWOP sentences is not supporting a death sentence – that their hands are clean. It is a death sentence though – death by incarceration. They are still supporting state-sanctioned taking of a life.”
Death penalty abolitionists should read this before assuming they know what is best for a defendant.
2. The Death Penalty is a broken system.
I have successfully proven that most wrongful death row convictions are overturned, thus minimizing the risk of innocent people being sentenced. And institutionalized racism will not magically be abolished just because you remove the Death Penalty. There is no proof that society would even use the funding to reform the legal system.
3. The Percentage of Casualties.
The only thing that matters is this is a peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal, that came to the conclusion that 4.1% of prisoners on death row are innocent.Permanent incarceration gives the opportunity to prove innocence later on. Far more humane than the death penalty.”
I respond to this only by reminding voters that anti-DP supporters are arguing absolutes, but the strength of their claims relies only on studies claiming likelihood and probability.
I quote my point from earlier, “There is no concrete evidence that proves an innocent has been executed since 1900 in the United States.”
My opponent ignored my point that “32 of around 7,200 cases claimed actual innocence.”
He admits the weakness of the evidence.
If a defendant is wrongfully sentenced to LWOP and exonerated, they will never be able to function normally in society. They end up unemployed and homeless, most likely having to turn to crime to survive and then end up back in prison all over again.
4. Fear-Mongering.
“A meta-review of Isaac Ehrlich’s study, published in a criminology journal, found that “flawed techniques used to analyze data yielded unreliable results.” Ehrlich’s study is based on “an underlying microeconomic theory which holds that homicide is a maximization of personal utility by those who commit the crime.” This was proven false – homicides rarely result in maximal benefit for those committing the crime. [4] More studies, like the one I linked, show the death penalty has no deterrent effect.My opponent mentions, “there is the possibility the governor overturns this conviction and releases this dangerous person back into society.”I object to scaremongering: The governor can't overturn a conviction. Secondly, the governor wouldn’t release a dangerous person back into society. Parole is based on careful considerations, which is the chance of reoffending.”
Governors do this all the time and I proved it. The DP ensures the individual will not return to society to cause any more harm.
The success of your arguments relies on scaremongering, such as claims like “the possibility of an innocent person being killed,” which is not backed by any evidence.
5. The Death Penalty Causes Trauma.
“These acquittals do not mean the defendant is innocent, it only means that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.”
It proves my point that there are systems in place to stop the risk of executing the wrongfully convicted.
“My opponent also failed to respond to my argument about the trauma to the victim’s family by the decades-long appeal process.”
I will counter this by extending my argument from earlier about how the alternative is actually a worse punishment for trauma.:
“You shall find in many circumstances that LWOP is worse than death row and those arguing that ending their life is inhumane do not care about their living conditions.Crimes that get you LWOP will lead you to a prison where you are surrounded by dangerous people that will make your life hell.”
Pro says, “He states that death row cases take too much time, but it is these very factors that makes the executions of innocent people statistically low.“ My opponent concedes my point regarding the excessive length of capital cases, while also failing to respond to my argument and evidence regarding innocence – 4.1% is not statistically low when it comes to innocent people on death row.”
Extend.
“I also quote my point from earlier that, “There is no concrete evidence that proves an innocent has been executed since 1900 in the United States.”My opponent has also opted to ignore my very valid point that only “32 of around 7,200 cases claimed actual innocence.”
6. Vigilantism is not a concern??
“Outweighed. Yes, removing the death penalty might encourage some to take the laws into their own hands. However, vigilantism is exceedingly rare, to the point where it doesn’t meaningfully have any effect on my impact-weighing. Prison killings are the symptom of a fundamentally broken judicial system, rather than the result of removing an inhumane punishment.”
My opponent has unknowingly contradicted his earlier arguments about deterrence. If removing the DP encourages vigilantism, then it is also reasonable to conclude that the DP is what is keeping these people in check and thus falls under the category of deterrence.
Vigilantism is rare because we have Capital punishment, but if you take that away, the numbers go up.
Overall Statements:
- Proven the need for the DP and demonstrated how the latter is worse with a corroborating testimony from a convict who received LWOP.
- Showed that most wrongful convictions go overturned and that institutionalized racism will still exist in sentencing even if we abolish the DP.
- My opponent was exaggerating the accuracy of his claims.
- LWOP is not a guarantee. The governor can overturn a conviction and let this dangerous person back into society. I demonstrate proof for this.
- The risk of an innocent person being executed is low.
- My opponent contradicts his earlier statements about how the DP does not deter crime.
Sources: https://www.prisonwriters.com
Round 4
Pro
#7
I. Rebuttals
1. The death penalty is about vengeance.
“Contrary to what you might think, the people in government are not born with an intrinsic value to commit homicide. Some people are simply too dangerous to live, so those in charge do not have time for the nonsense that “every life has value.”
How does someone decide that a person is “too dangerous to live?” There’s a big difference between killing someone who has the potential to commit crime again, versus killing someone when you could put them in LWOP instead.
“When you’re in a position of power, you have the responsibility to do what is right.”
And by what arbitrary moral standard is the death penalty “right?” We can argue about this in circles, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t change the fact that the US death penalty has been ruled to be inhumane by the European Court of Human Rights, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and several international human rights watch organizations. Why should your opinion, based on nothing more than emotion, be taken into consideration?
“You shall find in many circumstances that LWOP is actually worse than death row and those arguing that ending their life is inhumane do not actually care about their living conditions.”
My opponent has given no concrete proof that LWOP is worse than death row, while I’ve shown that prisoners on death row face isolation, solitary confinement, and deprivation of religious studies – all indicators of terrible living conditions.
Furthermore, when debating an issue affecting a group of people, often the most powerful form of evidence is to see what that group of people think.
In 2003, Ilinois governor George Ryan commuted death sentences of 167 inmates into LWOP. A court ruled he had overstepped his authority, since he hadn’t received formal petitions for clemency from the prisoners. As a result, he had to wait for the prisoners to choose their own fate: LWOP, or the death penalty.
166 of the 167 prisoners (99.4%) requested LWOP over the death sentence. [1]
I rest my case.
2. The Death Penalty is a broken system.
“I have successfully proven that most wrongful death row convictions are overturned”
You really haven’t. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Yes, you mentioned the lengthy appeals process. This is irrelevant, since you haven’t refuted the study I gave showing 4.1% of prisoners on death row are innocent.
“And institutionalized racism will not magically be abolished just because you remove the Death Penalty”
Strawman – I never said that. I merely pointed out that the death penalty doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and that as long as it remains a legal punishment, we need to consider how real-world racism in sentencing affects it.
3. The Percentage of Casualties.
“I quote my point from earlier, “There is no concrete evidence that proves an innocent has been executed since 1900 in the United States.”
My opponent fails to understand a fundamental point of the legal system: innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
Proving innocence, barring concrete and undeniable evidence like an alibi corrobated by multiple people, is nearly impossible. Any case with such evidence of innocence would never make it to trial. If you don’t understand it, search “selection bias.”
Exonerations don’t occur because someone is proved innocent – they occur because prosecutorial or police misconduct is discovered, legal errors were found in the original case, or another suspect confesses to the crime.
As such, asking me to show “concrete evidence” of innocence is a red herring that demands an unrealistic standard of evidence.
My opponent ignored my point that “32 of around 7,200 cases claimed actual innocence.“
My opponent used https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence as a source for this. However, after exhaustively examining this link, including checking all the related hyperlinks and articles, I have found no source for this statistic. I have queried my opponent four times in the comments while he was online, to no response, so I think it’s fair for me to treat this as unsourced.
In the interest of assuming good faith, I will treat this source omission as accidental, but nevertheless, what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Finally, my opponent is using weasel words and unsourced statistics because he hasn’t found a way to refute my fundamental piece of evidence: a peer-reviewed, widely cited study found that 4.1% of prisoners on death row are innocent. Unless my opponent refutes this, anything he says regarding innocent convictions is fundamentally meaningless.
4. Fear-Mongering.
“Governors do this all the time and I proved it. The DP ensures the individual will not return to society to cause any more harm.“
I never denied that governors sometimes issue pardons. However, I object to your argument that they will return to society to cause more harm. Unless you give sourced statistics showing specifically that:
- First-degree murderers
- Serving life without parole
- Pardoned by a governor
- Reoffend at a statistically significant rate
Then I’m afraid that I can justifiably call your argument scare-mongering.
The success of your arguments relies on scaremongering, such as claims like “the possibility of an innocent person being killed,” which is not backed by any evidence.
See my study showing 4.1% of people on death row are innocent.
5. The Death Penalty Causes Trauma.
“It proves my point that there are systems in place to stop the risk of executing the wrongfully convicted.”
Yes, there are; now go refute my 4.1%, as well as the examples of innocent executions I gave in R3.
“I will counter this by extending my argument from earlier about how the alternative is actually a worse punishment for trauma.”
See my rebuttal to #1.
6. Vigilantism is not a concern??
“Vigilantism is rare because we have Capital punishment, but if you take that away, the numbers go up.”
What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Also, vigilantism (lynching) used to occur even in states that did have the death penalty. Most of the victims of lynching were accused of murder, in states that did have the death penalty, yet they were lynched anyway. [2]
All this proves is that death penalty or no death penalty, terrible people will always be terrible people.
Overall Statements:
- Proven the need for the DP and demonstrated how the latter is worse with a corroborating testimony from a convict who received LWOP.
Refuted. I showed a far larger sample size (167 people) of prisoners almost unanimously preferring LWOP. Also demonstrated why living conditions on death row are worse than LWOP. My opponent also did not prove a “need” for the DP; he merely showed a very weak reason.
- Showed that most wrongful convictions go overturned and that institutionalized racism will still exist in sentencing even if we abolish the DP.
Partially refuted. While many wrongful convictions are overturned, 4.1% of people in death row are still innocent, and many will serve out the rest of their lives in inhumane conditions or be executed. Furthermore, racism in sentencing is a valid point, as it creates yet another arbitrary factor in deciding who goes to LWOP and who gets the death penalty.
- My opponent was exaggerating the accuracy of his claims.
Never even proved. Using words such as “likely” or “about” to describe a statistical study with inherent measurement error does not invalidate its conclusions, nor the claims that can be drawn from those conclusions.
- LWOP is not a guarantee. The governor can overturn a conviction and let this dangerous person back into society. I demonstrate proof for this.
Refuted. I objected to the “dangerous” part of that statement: governors don’t just release dangerous people back into society for no reason – see point 4.
- The risk of an innocent person being executed is low.
Still contested, apparently. I gave clear evidence demonstrating about 4.1% of people on death row are innocent – even if they aren’t executed, they still have to endure years in inhumane conditions. My opponent gave a unsourced statistic and didn’t directly address my point.
- My opponent contradicts his earlier statements about how the DP does not deter crime.
Never even proved. Again, a claim without sourced evidence.
II. Final Focus
PRO:
- Immoral: Contested, but on balance, leaning towards PRO.
- Racist: Directly uncontested, with opponent trying an irrelevant argument not addressing my point.
- Innocence: Contested, but the statistics are on my side.
- Deterrence: Ignored, after I showed why my studies regarding deterrence were more reliable. Vigilantism argument was irrelevant and unsourced.
- Cost: Conceded by opponent.
- Justice: Contested, but on balance, leaning towards PRO.
CON:
- Constitutional: Uncontested but deemed irrelevant. I showed how the constitutionality of the death penalty is irrelevant to the debate.
- Stability: Contested, and unproven. My opponent has talked about vigilantism, but offered no proof that it will happen in significant numbers.
- Deterrence: See above.
- Justice: See above.
- Closure: Reversed by me, after I showed how the decades-long appeal process can be deeply traumatizing.
Vote PRO.
III. Sources
And sources et al.
Con
#8
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
The Definition of Irony:
Arguing that we should prioritize the chance of someone’s innocence and then doing the literal opposite by making ridiculous assertions about a person’s actions.
Context:
It would appear that despite being cordial and following the established rules given by my opponent, me and Pro are not operating on the same level of mutual respect.
As a response to my argument from the previous round, Pro went into the comments to spam my notifs with urgent demands.:
Added: 14 hours ago
Instigator
-->@Sir.Lancelot
Do you have a source for "32 of around 7,200 cases claimed actual innocence"? I checked the DPCI link you provided, but found no relevant figures supporting your claim.
Added: 13 hours ago
Instigator
-->@Sir.Lancelot
Friendly tag, last chance for mutual clarification before I put up my argument
Added: 13 hours ago
Instigator
-->@Sir.Lancelot
I know you're online, please respond to comment #10
Added: 11 hours ago
Instigator
-->@Sir.Lancelot
Last warning before I formally accuse you of poor conduct in my R4 argument
When he didn’t get a response, he assumed I was ignoring him and proceeded to make goofy threats he had no intention of following through with, to then attacking my character.
To anyone who experiences this, it just comes off as repetitive and annoying.
If he wanted to accuse me of poor conduct, he should do so. But in the interest of saving face, however, he walks back all of these statements apparently by “giving me the benefit of the doubt.”
So now one must question, why is Pro changing his tune suddenly? Did he expect me to let this behavior slide because he thought being nice after the fact would make up for it?
For the sake of consistency, I’m going to need you to keep that same energy, Austin.
Counter-Rebuttals:
“How does someone decide that a person is “too dangerous to live?” There’s a big difference between killing someone who has the potential to commit crime again, versus killing someone when you could put them in LWOP instead. “
When that person poses too much of a threat to the lives of everyone else, it is clear he is too much of a liability to be allowed to live and what must be done becomes more obvious.
“And by what arbitrary moral standard is the death penalty “right?” We can argue about this in circles, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t change the fact that the US death penalty has been ruled to be inhumane by the European Court of Human Rights, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and several international human rights watch organizations. Why should your opinion, based on nothing more than emotion, be taken into consideration?”
An opinion shared by the majority of Americans, according to the study I posted earlier. This retort has as much substance as the saying, “but that’s just your opinion, bro.” Our Founding Fathers saw the need for it, the American people see the need for it, and the presidents in recent years also see the need for it.
“My opponent has given no concrete proof that LWOP is worse than death row, while I’ve shown that prisoners on death row face isolation, solitary confinement, and deprivation of religious studies – all indicators of terrible living conditions.”
Do I require proof that people in prison deal with the possibility of being raped, stabbed, or having their things stolen from them? And that non-criminals who are wrongly sentenced may actually end up murdering and becoming a criminal themselves in prison in order to survive?
“Unlike death penalty cases, however, LWOP sentences receive no special consideration on appeal, which limits the possibility they will be reduced or reversed. A person sentenced to die in prison receives only one automatic appeal, not several, and is not provided any court-appointed attorneys after this appeal is complete, usually within two years of the initial sentence.”
Here is my opponent’s next statement.:
“My opponent fails to understand a fundamental point of the legal system: innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.”
The government has already proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they’re guilty. Any exceptions to this result in the next step of your following quote,
“Exonerations don’t occur because someone is proved innocent – they occur because prosecutorial or police misconduct is discovered, legal errors were found in the original case, or another suspect confesses to the crime.”
“My opponent used https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence as a source for this. However, after exhaustively examining this link, including checking all the related hyperlinks and articles, I have found no source for this statistic. I have queried my opponent four times in the comments while he was online, to no response, so I think it’s fair for me to treat this as unsourced.
In the interest of assuming good faith, I will treat this source omission as accidental, but nevertheless, what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Finally, my opponent is using weasel words and unsourced statistics because he hasn’t found a way to refute my fundamental piece of evidence: a peer-reviewed, widely cited study found that 4.1% of prisoners on death row are innocent. Unless my opponent refutes this, anything he says regarding innocent convictions is fundamentally meaningless.”
This is what my opponent was pestering me for last night. I’ll acknowledge this is an error I made. These are the links that were supposed to be included in my original post.: https://da.mdah.ms.gov/musgrove/2558.php?action=email&id=36171, https://da.mdah.ms.gov/musgrove/pdfs/37163.pdf
“What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Also, vigilantism (lynching) used to occur even in states that did have the death penalty. Most of the victims of lynching were accused of murder, in states that did have the death penalty, yet they were lynched anyway. [2]
All this proves is that death penalty or no death penalty, terrible people will always be terrible people.”
You’re backpedaling on your previous statement where you already agreed with me,
“Outweighed. Yes, removing the death penalty might encourage some to take the laws into their own hands. However, vigilantism is exceedingly rare, to the point where it doesn’t meaningfully have any effect on my impact-weighing. Prison killings are the symptom of a fundamentally broken judicial system, rather than the result of removing an inhumane punishment.”
The only disagreement we have then, is the number of vigilante-related cases in proportion to the removal of the Death Penalty.
Conclusion:
- Proved that the DP is constitutional and demonstrated the need for it.
- Countered my opponent’s claims about racial sentencing by showing his problems are with institutionalized racism in sentencing, not the DP.
- Showed that LWOP is worse than the DP.
- Demonstrated that the DP is necessary for Justice.
My opponent has shown to be unreliable and inconsistent on three counts.
By deliberately being obnoxious and bluffing that he was going to “expose” my poor conduct and not acting on it, agreeing with my statements about vigilantism and then retracting them, and then admitting he exaggerated the strength of his evidence.
Vote Con.
Sources: https://news.gallup.com
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Welp... After a long awaited time period, I am finally giving my vote.
While both sides went back and forth reversing their own arguments with their rebuttals against each other, one valuable statistic ultimately shredded PRO's argument.
PRO repeatedly argued that many innocent people are given the death penalty, but he also argued that the appeals process is lengthy for the death penalty and not LWOP.
This begs the question, that CON successfully answered, is it really possible that so many innocent people are dying if they have significantly more legal resources and appeals than LWOP?
PRO never really responded to this point by CON when it was raised the first time. He merely doubled down on his 4.1% statistic of "likely innocent" people.
But this creates a problem, because one central tenet to PRO's overall case was that the death penalty is immoral because it sends innocent people to death.
But when countered by a person who is in LWOP, who showed that 73% of death penalties get revoked, and how they have more legal resources, PRO dropped this argument entirely, because he previously agreed with half of it (the additional trials that can take decades to complete).
So what is PRO's final case? That a courts of law in another continent decided the death penalty was immoral and that Death Penalty people chose LWOP.
Well, considering this is "death penalty in the US," then what European courts say doesn't matter. Since this is about the U.S. and not the death penalty on general. So all that is left is that LWOP was chosen by those on the death penalty.
But, as previously shown, CON cited a person in the opposite direction, someone who has LWOP and wants the death penalty. This LWOP writer claims many of his fellow inmates would choose the death penalty because of the extra chances to appeal and the extra legal help provided. Plus the appealing statistic of 73% of death penalties revoked.
Why should we value the opinions of those on death row over those with LWOP? Clearly both groups view the other as "the grass is greener."
So, when everything is resolved, we are left with innocent murders, and the fact is both sides agree that there are significantly more hurdles to jump through to convict someone of the death penalty, unlike LWOP.
And PRO even stated that he wanted to do away with all those useless trials, which make it more difficult to murder an innocent person.
Which means that, ultimately, PRO agreed with CON that the death penalty appeals process saves innocent lives due to its extreme rigorousness, and therefore, it does not do more harm than good. So CON ultimately won the debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1auBtKAwjpTkyeKYOk-9HPfzcxkJ1GTa0A7c3Rc8rBSY/edit?usp=sharing
Let me know if you have any questions/concerns.
"likely innocent" you kept forgetting the "likely" which you conceded anyways in the debate when you went on about how Innocence is impossible to prove.
I look forward to the vote - thanks in advance.
"then it stands to reason only guilty people get the death penalty anyways"
I'm pretty sure I refuted that with my 4.1% statistic - as far as I'm aware, CON failed to counter that.
I may well vote on this then.
I will give it a proper read later on and vote in the next day.
I see what you're saying, but you're arguing against extra trials to prevent innocent convictions in that process.
You say you want to improve LWOP trials, but you didn't really explain how in the rebuttals. In fewer innocent people are given the death penalty due to the many trials, then it stands to reason only guilty people get the death penalty anyways, and what is wrong with that?
LWOP is also torture for the inmate, a removal of their rights, and if we draw out the legal process for LWOP, it's still the same trauma to the family anyways.
I see where you're coming from. I am against the death penalty myself. But for those reasons I had to vote CON.
I see where you're coming from. However, my overall stance, throughout the debate from R1-R3, was simply:
-A death penalty case inherently requires more appeals and a longer process
-More appeals and a longer process causes trauma to the victim's family
-Hence, the death penalty is undesirable
-LWOP causes less trauma to the victim's family
-Hence, LWOP is more desirable than the death penalty
-LWOP (and the justice system) is flawed
-The death penalty wastes money
-The money can be used to improve the LWOP trial process
So I don't really see any internal contradiction. Anyway, I'm not asking for you to change your vote, just trying to set the record straight. Thanks for your time and consideration.
So, you agreed the many retrials prevented innocent deaths from occurring and then said this is bad because it brings trauma to the family.
This is why I handed it to CON, because sending innocent people to their death was precisely an argument you gave against the death penalty in your initial round, and LWOP actually has the potentiality to do just that in a much larger number since there are significantly fewer retrials. They basically just await their death in prisons, as CON pointed out, which you dropped completely.
When you said:
"Second of all, death penalty cases have a long and lengthy appeal process, which can bring trauma to both the accused’s and victim’s family. Far from bringing peace and closure, this process, which can take several decades, only opens old wounds."
In your R1.
And here:
"Reversed. The death penalty does not bring closure to a victim’s family; instead, it does the opposite. Death penalty cases have a long and lengthy appeals process to minimize innocent convictions. This process can take several decades. These are several decades in which the victim’s family has to relive the trauma over and over again."
You then quote a judge that wished she didn't hand out death penalties because of the many retrials that followed which caused trauma for the families as an argument for LWOP, which doesn't have these extra trials.
To me it seemed pretty clear you were against the idea of additional trials to prevent death penalties from being given out willy nilly. In fact it really seemed like you believed that LWOP is better precisely because it DOESN'T have extra trials.
Thanks for the vote - I appreciate the feedback.
One objection though - where exactly did I say that I "wanted to do away with all those useless trials, which make it more difficult to murder an innocent person."
I checked my arguments, so I'm a little bit confused where that came from.
I have voted. Both sides brought up great points, but the debate really devolved by the time R4 showed up.
Thank you for the vote!
that doesn't change style and tactics much, the shared BoP solely stops Con going 'oh there are equal drawbacks and gains' which Con should avoid anyway.
"I am a very destructive debater, my skill is in destroying my enemies and crippling them more than building my own case brilliantly."
Shared burden of proof moment
I challenged you, check notifications and read the description. :)
I accept you underestimating me as it's earned. However, you should be warned that my 'skill' is more than you may assume. I am a very destructive debater, my skill is in destroying my enemies and crippling them more than building my own case brilliantly. I will use your Round 1 to frame my own and then destroy you from there as brutally as you did me when I was Con and as you did Lancelot here (I skimread it, I reckon you won and may vote later on as in with 1 day left or something).
It will be hard not to accidentally copy you, you write the points well so I probably will lose by plagiarism issues.
Are you saying you actually think you can beat your Round 1 if the person plays the later Rounds correctly? There is literally no leeway.
I'd bet 3-1 I could win this as CON against you
Con on this topic is unwinnable, it's rigged if Pro argues it correctly because Con cannot leverage things against the fact that DP has drawbacks, since DP is such an edge case and doesn't really reduce crime due to the limitations on its enforcement (by design).
Glad you both appreciated it.
Thank you for the excellent vote.
I read through the vote in the doc and found it both detailed and insightful.
I will vote on this when I get voting privileges.
Bump for a vote
Care to add a vote? Thx in advance.
My bad then.
A fair vote would be appreciated - thx in advance.
Look, I was sort of annoyed last night after spending 20 minutes manually going through every single link you provided in the sources, and not finding anything related to the statistic.
I apologize for threatening to accuse misconduct - I was annoyed and thinking you were making up evidence, especially after I spent another 10 minutes searching the web for "32 innocence", "32 claimed innocence", "death penalty 32", "32 7000 death penalty", etc, and finding absolutely nothing.
I wanted to try and settle it in the comments peacefully, since I'm interested in having an actual debate regarding the death penalty, not an argument over who has better sources. I would always prefer to look at your source and genuinely refute it, rather than just saying it doesn't exist at all.
After having a dinner to think about it, I decided to try and assume good faith instead when writing my final argument - perhaps you had simply missed an important source and didn't see my comments, which is what actually happened.
Anyway, this is my attempt to explain what happened, and apologize for what you might have seen as "bluffy" or "obnoxious" behavior - I assure you this was not the case.
I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to accomplish with this.
It's one thing to say I didn't provide a source, it's another to deliberately try and find fault by alleging misconduct, and then walk it back at the same time.
Incredible.
In retrospect, I have to agree with your advice - I appreciate it, and will remember it in the future. I don't really think it'll change much though, since my opponent probably didn't see it anyway.
No one blames you if the opponent doesn't give his sources, and no one other than the ranking system blames the opponent for failing to provide any sources.
Well, I am not trying to scold you, but in doing so, you haven't restored as much faith as the potential loss you have caused due to you enabling the opponent a headstart going into a new round.
Hey Sir.Lancelot, thanks for the excellent debate - I wanted to add a short conclusion, but I ran out of characters. Overall, I think you had good arguments, but some of them didn't have enough relevance to the resolution, or significantly measurable impact - I admit that I was a bit guilty of that as well. Nevertheless, I enjoyed this interesting discussion regarding the death penalty - I have a feeling neither of us will change our minds, but perhaps some voters will.
P.S. sorry for the spam notifs.
Yes, that's a fair point - I'm trying to assume good faith, however.
#10(and #14) is an active attempt at weakening the relative strength of your arguments. You don't want your opponent to back anything outside the confinements of the rounds if you aren't going to do the same.
Last warning before I formally accuse you of poor conduct in my R4 argument
I know you're online, please respond to comment #10
Given that no executions of death penalty are being made currently, the Pro position is heavily limited by including "does".
Friendly tag, last chance for mutual clarification before I put up my argument
Do you have a source for "32 of around 7,200 cases claimed actual innocence"? I checked the DPCI link you provided, but found no relevant figures supporting your claim.
No worries, it looks great!
Apologies for the slightly messy style of writing, I had to type it up in 30 min or so because of a busy day.
That's a valid strategy, but keep in mind that you might get squished by the character limit if you try to rebut my responses from both R2 and R3.
Forgive me for not acknowledging your rebuttals in Round 2. I was keeping my response brief, so you didn’t get annoyed with the length of the response.
In Round 3, I’ll focus specifically on your rebuttals from Rounds 2&3.
The problem is that you can't prove the 'good' without proving prison more bad or something and that is just too difficult because DP is directly dedicated to the most deranged criminals that don't react sanely to deterrance.
Awesome
Sure, I made it an open challenge for a reason.
May I accept?
I had similar discussions about this particular subject on Reddit. Though, I don’t know how much my actual insight will pan out as a whole.
Up for a rematch?