DEBATE TOURNAMENT SEMI-FINAL... Zirc vs Retro

[USF Sam]

Semi-Final Match: Zirc vs Retro

​

The Death Penalty

Thirty-five states plus the US military and federal government use capital punishment. 15 states plus DC do not. At every execution you can expect a protest in front of the prison, both for and against. Proponents claim that it is just punishment for certain crimes. Opponents point out “You can’t overturn Death if there is a mistake.” The cost of appeals, religious considerations and a slew of other factors are wrapped up in a debate that has been around since the dawn of man.

QUESTION: “Should Capital Punishment be legal?”

Zirc, you may lead off.

Posts are limited to 400 words, three rounds per person. No editing unless approved by me.

PLEASE- NOBODY ELSE POST IN THIS THREAD UNTIL THE RESULTS OF THIS DEBATE ARE ANNOUNCED.

Zirc, the floor is yours.

 

[freakofnature]

Can I defer?

 

[USF Sam]

Can I defer?

If you want to give up the right to pick your side of the debate, sure. :dunno


RETRO- you are up.

 

[USF Sam]

Retro has until 10:00 PM EST to submit an opening post.

That is 24 hours from when I told him he could go first.

 

[retro]

The subject of the death penalty is rather polarizing. In most cases, people either agree with it or they don’t. In the eyes of many, it is nothing more than murder, and despite what crime the individual sentenced to death may have committed, it doesn’t excuse another killing. Other people believe that it is a justifiable punishment for the most heinous of crimes; an eye for an eye.

My personal belief is that the death penalty should not exist as it currently does. There are many cases where it is discovered after the fact that they were actually innocent of the crime they were convicted of. Unfortunately, once their sentence is carried out, there isn’t any going back. There’s no way to bring a wrongfully sentenced individual back from a permanent punishment.

I will not disagree with the fact that there are people that have been sentenced to death that are there because of a crime that they committed. But according to the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1973, over 130 inmates were released from death row, and DNA testing alone has proven more than 23 people innocent. It is also estimated that there are 5 death row exonerations every year. If 5 are found every year, how many others are out there that have been wrongfully convicted as well?

Another thing to consider is the financial impact of enforcing the death penalty. An average death penalty sentence costs approximately $3 million, depending on the state. In Florida alone, from the 44 executions that have been carried out since 1976, it is estimated that each execution has cost the taxpayers $24 million. That extreme cost pales in comparison to California; where the death penalty system costs $114 million per year. This means that the taxpayers in California have paid more than $250 million for the executions in that state. With the current fiscal crisis in California, that money could have been spent elsewhere, for arguably a far better purpose, such as education.

When you weigh all of these factors, I don’t think that the death penalty should continue to be administered. Even if the financial impact is ignored, even one wrongfully convicted and executed individual is one too many.

 

[USF Sam]

BUMP for Zirc

 

[freakofnature]

I think that with the level of technology we have today we ought to be able to determine if a person is guilty of a capital crime. As we continue to advance in our technology the chances of a wrongful conviction will be slim to none. If it can be proven that a person committed first degree murder with no remorse, then absolutely, they deserve to have their life taken from them as well. This is especially true for repeat offenders and serial killers. These people are convicted for their crimes and then put in jail, only to be released on probation several years later. What good is that? Just do away with them completely and remove the threat to society permanently. Every now and then an innocent may slip through the cracks and be wrongfully convicted but just as in war, there are innocent casualties. And as i said before, as we become more advanced in our technology wrongful convictions will become a thing of the past.

 

[USF Sam]

BUMP for Retro

 

[retro]

Yes, the technology available to us today is far superior to the technology of even 10 years ago. But what about the innocent people convicted 20-30 years ago, when that technology didn’t exist? Are they supposed to be wrongfully executed for crimes that they didn’t commit? In a perfect world where we had the technology to read someone’s mind in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt, then we might be able to consider the death penalty. However, that world doesn’t currently exist, does it? Even with the technology available to us today, there are still people who are wrongfully to prison terms, or death.

Consider the case of Michael Marshall, he was convicted of armed robbery in 2008 and sentenced to a four year prison term. After spending 1 ½ years in prison, DNA evidence exonerated him of the crime that he was wrongfully convicted of. He was convicted on the basis of eyewitness identification, which was obviously proved to have been misidentification. Granted, this was not a death penalty case, but it proves that people are convicted of crimes that they didn’t commit, even with the technology available to us today. The information about his case can be found on the Innocence Project website.

An innocent person “slipping through the cracks”, being wrongfully convicted, and eventually executed isn’t acceptable collateral damage to me. It is an abhorrent miscarriage of justice, and should not be allowed to happen. I said this already, but I believe that it bears repeating. Even one innocent person executed for a crime that they didn’t commit is one too many.

Your concerns about convicted serial killers, repeat offenders, and other people convicted of first degree murder being able to serve a few years in prison before getting out are misguided. I don’t know how it is in Canada, but in the United States, 49/50 states and the District of Columbia all offer life without parole sentences. These are far less expensive than maintaining death row, and allow for the possibility that wrongfully convicted individuals can be proven innocent. They also remove the threat to society, just as you have said the death penalty does.

 

[freakofnature]

One innocent person executed for a crime they didn't commit is one too many? What about the innocent civilians who die in wars they want no part in? The US is willing to spend untold billion in their "war on terrorism". Consider this a different form of terrorism and I think the sacrifice should be no less.

 

[retro]

I submit that the only “terrorism” in the area of capital punishment is the execution of wrongfully convicted individuals.

Yes, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have achieved part of their stated goals. Saddam Hussein was deposed as the President of Iraq. The Taliban were taken out of power in Afghanistan as well. We have to consider the cost involved in achieving those goals. Innocent civilian lives have been lost in these endeavors of partial success. Those partial successes have come at an incredibly high cost --- much like the continued use of the death penalty. While there are definitely cases where the guilty are punished, whether it be Saddam, the Taliban, or convicted murderers, the innocent casualties make them only partial successes.

According to a survey, 88% of former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies do not believe that capital punishment works as a deterrent (Radelet & Lacock, 2009). Additionally, only 5% believe that it is an effective deterrent, and the remaining 7% don’t have an opinion. According to the 2009 FBI Uniform Crime report, the southern United States, which accounts for over 80% of the total executions, has the highest murder rate. Compare that to the northeast United States, which has less than 1% of all executions, while having the lowest murder rate.

What are we left with? Capital punishment isn’t effective as a deterrent. Nor is it cost-effective, as proven by the fact that it costs at least three times as much to keep an inmate on death row as it does to sentence them to life in prison without the possibility of parole. I suppose that leaves us with an eye for an eye. To quote one of my favorite movies, “Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die”. But what if Inigo discovered he killed the wrong man? His closure would go away, and he would be left with the guilt of an innocent man’s death. Apply that to this debate, how would the families of the wrongfully executed and the murder victim feel? Anguish, for both murders.

The moral, financial, and questionable effectiveness dilemmas prove that capital punishment should not continue to be utilized. Life in prison without the possibility of parole should be the maximum allowed sentence, and should be used in all cases where the death penalty is currently applied.

 

[USF Sam]

Zirc, you get the last word.

You are up.

 

[freakofnature]

I absolutely, completely agree that capital punishment is not a deterent. I would advocate it more as a tool for retribution.

I don't think your example from the Princess Bride really applies here. Inigo Montoya was acting as a vigilante and that is another debate entirely. I certainly would not condone the use of capital punishment in that manner. You can't execute someone because you think he committed the crime. It would have to be proven in a court of law.

Capital punishment has its pros and cons but I believe the pros win out in the end.

 

[USF Sam]

DEBATE CLOSED.

Send me your votes via PM with the reasons.

Semi-Final Match: Zirc vs Retro

​

The Death Penalty

Thirty-five states plus the US military and federal government use capital punishment. 15 states plus DC do not. At every execution you can expect a protest in front of the prison, both for and against. Proponents claim that it is just punishment for certain crimes. Opponents point out “You can’t overturn Death if there is a mistake.” The cost of appeals, religious considerations and a slew of other factors are wrapped up in a debate that has been around since the dawn of man.

QUESTION: “Should Capital Punishment be legal?”

The subject of the death penalty is rather polarizing. In most cases, people either agree with it or they don’t. In the eyes of many, it is nothing more than murder, and despite what crime the individual sentenced to death may have committed, it doesn’t excuse another killing. Other people believe that it is a justifiable punishment for the most heinous of crimes; an eye for an eye.

My personal belief is that the death penalty should not exist as it currently does. There are many cases where it is discovered after the fact that they were actually innocent of the crime they were convicted of. Unfortunately, once their sentence is carried out, there isn’t any going back. There’s no way to bring a wrongfully sentenced individual back from a permanent punishment.

I will not disagree with the fact that there are people that have been sentenced to death that are there because of a crime that they committed. But according to the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1973, over 130 inmates were released from death row, and DNA testing alone has proven more than 23 people innocent. It is also estimated that there are 5 death row exonerations every year. If 5 are found every year, how many others are out there that have been wrongfully convicted as well?

Another thing to consider is the financial impact of enforcing the death penalty. An average death penalty sentence costs approximately $3 million, depending on the state. In Florida alone, from the 44 executions that have been carried out since 1976, it is estimated that each execution has cost the taxpayers $24 million. That extreme cost pales in comparison to California; where the death penalty system costs $114 million per year. This means that the taxpayers in California have paid more than $250 million for the executions in that state. With the current fiscal crisis in California, that money could have been spent elsewhere, for arguably a far better purpose, such as education.

When you weigh all of these factors, I don’t think that the death penalty should continue to be administered. Even if the financial impact is ignored, even one wrongfully convicted and executed individual is one too many.

I think that with the level of technology we have today we ought to be able to determine if a person is guilty of a capital crime. As we continue to advance in our technology the chances of a wrongful conviction will be slim to none. If it can be proven that a person committed first degree murder with no remorse, then absolutely, they deserve to have their life taken from them as well. This is especially true for repeat offenders and serial killers. These people are convicted for their crimes and then put in jail, only to be released on probation several years later. What good is that? Just do away with them completely and remove the threat to society permanently. Every now and then an innocent may slip through the cracks and be wrongfully convicted but just as in war, there are innocent casualties. And as i said before, as we become more advanced in our technology wrongful convictions will become a thing of the past.

Yes, the technology available to us today is far superior to the technology of even 10 years ago. But what about the innocent people convicted 20-30 years ago, when that technology didn’t exist? Are they supposed to be wrongfully executed for crimes that they didn’t commit? In a perfect world where we had the technology to read someone’s mind in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt, then we might be able to consider the death penalty. However, that world doesn’t currently exist, does it? Even with the technology available to us today, there are still people who are wrongfully to prison terms, or death.

Consider the case of Michael Marshall, he was convicted of armed robbery in 2008 and sentenced to a four year prison term. After spending 1 ½ years in prison, DNA evidence exonerated him of the crime that he was wrongfully convicted of. He was convicted on the basis of eyewitness identification, which was obviously proved to have been misidentification. Granted, this was not a death penalty case, but it proves that people are convicted of crimes that they didn’t commit, even with the technology available to us today. The information about his case can be found on the Innocence Project website.

An innocent person “slipping through the cracks”, being wrongfully convicted, and eventually executed isn’t acceptable collateral damage to me. It is an abhorrent miscarriage of justice, and should not be allowed to happen. I said this already, but I believe that it bears repeating. Even one innocent person executed for a crime that they didn’t commit is one too many.

Your concerns about convicted serial killers, repeat offenders, and other people convicted of first degree murder being able to serve a few years in prison before getting out are misguided. I don’t know how it is in Canada, but in the United States, 49/50 states and the District of Columbia all offer life without parole sentences. These are far less expensive than maintaining death row, and allow for the possibility that wrongfully convicted individuals can be proven innocent. They also remove the threat to society, just as you have said the death penalty does.

One innocent person executed for a crime they didn't commit is one too many? What about the innocent civilians who die in wars they want no part in? The US is willing to spend untold billion in their "war on terrorism". Consider this a different form of terrorism and I think the sacrifice should be no less.

I submit that the only “terrorism” in the area of capital punishment is the execution of wrongfully convicted individuals.

Yes, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have achieved part of their stated goals. Saddam Hussein was deposed as the President of Iraq. The Taliban were taken out of power in Afghanistan as well. We have to consider the cost involved in achieving those goals. Innocent civilian lives have been lost in these endeavors of partial success. Those partial successes have come at an incredibly high cost --- much like the continued use of the death penalty. While there are definitely cases where the guilty are punished, whether it be Saddam, the Taliban, or convicted murderers, the innocent casualties make them only partial successes.

According to a survey, 88% of former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies do not believe that capital punishment works as a deterrent (Radelet & Lacock, 2009). Additionally, only 5% believe that it is an effective deterrent, and the remaining 7% don’t have an opinion. According to the 2009 FBI Uniform Crime report, the southern United States, which accounts for over 80% of the total executions, has the highest murder rate. Compare that to the northeast United States, which has less than 1% of all executions, while having the lowest murder rate.

What are we left with? Capital punishment isn’t effective as a deterrent. Nor is it cost-effective, as proven by the fact that it costs at least three times as much to keep an inmate on death row as it does to sentence them to life in prison without the possibility of parole. I suppose that leaves us with an eye for an eye. To quote one of my favorite movies, “Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die”. But what if Inigo discovered he killed the wrong man? His closure would go away, and he would be left with the guilt of an innocent man’s death. Apply that to this debate, how would the families of the wrongfully executed and the murder victim feel? Anguish, for both murders.

The moral, financial, and questionable effectiveness dilemmas prove that capital punishment should not continue to be utilized. Life in prison without the possibility of parole should be the maximum allowed sentence, and should be used in all cases where the death penalty is currently applied.

I absolutely, completely agree that capital punishment is not a deterent. I would advocate it more as a tool for retribution.

I don't think your example from the Princess Bride really applies here. Inigo Montoya was acting as a vigilante and that is another debate entirely. I certainly would not condone the use of capital punishment in that manner. You can't execute someone because you think he committed the crime. It would have to be proven in a court of law.

Capital punishment has its pros and cons but I believe the pros win out in the end.

 

[USF Sam]

BUMPITY BUMP BUMP...


Both parties put a lot into this. Please place your votes.


Voting ends noon EST Monday.

 

[USF Sam]

BUMP.

I've received a handful of votes but in this case, unlike the theory of boobs, more than a handful is NOT a waste.

:24:


Seriously... get off your butts and vote.

 

[USF Sam]

FINAL BUMP


for today