Epicmafia

Back to Forum Games

Death vs Justice

over 7 years

Case #2 Danse Macabre

All rise. The Sandbox Court, is now in session, the Honorable Judge Parudoks presiding. Members of the Jury, your duty today will be to determine whether the Death Penalty should be abolished. The defendant, Death himself, believes himself to be just when it comes to the punishing of criminals. This court case will last from May 14th to May 20th

‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍

How to play

For the Jury

Anyone can vote, as long as it's on their main account. Just vote on the poll on the right. The team with the most votes wins. Please read the debate instead of automatically voting for your own beliefs, someone may even change your mind!

For the Debaters

Feel free to post below. You can post as often as you'd like but try to be as active as possible. Every case lasts from Sunday to the following Saturday so that every debate is flexible and can fit into everyone's schedule. Good luck!

Rules

No harassment or personal attacks on the opposition. Doing so will result in a warning, and if continued, it will result in the person being removed from the debate. You are expected to always be respectful during debates.
You are NOT allowed to vote on more than one account. If we discover that multiple votes have been placed by you, then you will be disqualified from the voting process. If this was done by accident, please pm me.
Stay on topic. If you want to talk about things outside of the debate, then please do it somewhere else. Getting off topic will result in you being removed from the debate.
Rules are subject to change anytime for any reason at my discretion. I will inform of any rule changes to avoid confusion.

Updates

Jimbei has dropped out of the "Yes" team.
JohnMiller has replaced Jimbei on the Yes team.

Should the death penalty be abolished?

22

Yes.

21

No.

over 7 years

but i'll point out again, this isn't a morality argument, it's a justice argument. we're not arguing whether it's moral, only if it's just

before saying they're the same thing, you should be able to argue on the grounds of justice alone if they are

and justice is predicated on retribution, if you do nothing then there is no justice.

over 7 years

im not even bothering this is the third round in a row thats been just me its someone elses turn this isn't remotely fair

over 7 years

Next, practicality.

There are approximately 3,000 people in the US currently on death row. Of those, about 30 will be executed this year. 1,414 people were executed ever since the penalty was reinstated.

Many of those convicted by the death penalty were done through the most eyewitness investigations they knew how to do. Due to the way human memory works, they still can confidently things wrong. (https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/)

DNA evidence has exonerated 156 people on death row.

That means for every 10 people killed, one person is freed. Studies estimate that wrongful executions could be as high as one in 25.
http://www.newsweek.com/one-25-executed-us-innocent-study-claims-248889

So, no, the process is not as efficient as it would seem. It is difficult to make reparations for somebody wrongly spending years in prison. It is impossible to make reparations for wrongfully executing somebody.

Let's get into the cost, too. What sounds more cost-efficient--imprisoning somebody for life, or ending their life with one act? If you're like most people, you'd probably assume the death penalty is cheaper. But you'd be wrong.

Capital cases are FAR more expensive than non-capital cases. They require experts in mental health, forensic evidence, and the social history of the defendant. Selecting juries in death penalty cases is much more time-consuming and expensive.

Keeping an inmate on death row for a year costs $90,000 more than keeping them in the general prison population. It is estimated that it would save $5 billion over the next 20 years if the death penalty was abolished in the state of California alone. What is the benefit of spending all this money?

Life imprisonment accomplishes the same thing far more efficiently and without catastrophic results if they are wrong.

over 7 years

Let's go into morality, then practicality.

In my view, you could only argue that the death penalty is moral, you have to assume one of two things.

1) Putting somebody to death prevents future suffering. If their death provides no benefit to human wellbeing then why are we doing it?

2) Vengeance is a moral act. In my view it is not because it is inseparable from selfishness. "You hurt me, so I get to hurt you now." Again, there's no benefit to human wellbeing because of this.

So I ask, what is the tangible benefit the death penalty provides? It had better be a darn high one considering the high cost of getting things wrong.

A famous philosopher named Gandalf once said, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

over 7 years

also im going to drop a bombshell right now because ive been thinking about this for a while

criminal justice is not innately moral
you lock people up. that's always a bad thing, nobody wants that, but it's JUSTified. you execute people. that's pretty immoral, but it's JUSTified if they executed someone else. criminal justice isn't about morality, it's about equality. fortunately, i'm arguing that the death penalty is JUST, not that it's MORAL.

over 7 years

which is to say furthermore that you must argue against justice, and my goal is to argue that the death penalty is just

over 7 years

Kitt says

also it sounds like you're arguing for no more prisons here. surely that means you're arguing for no more death penalty...which isn't your side?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

you made my point again

if prisons and the death penalty are two sides of the same coin, you cannot justly abolish one without abolishing the other. that means to argue against the death penalty, you have to argue against prison and the whole system of legal consequence

over 7 years

by living in a country you agree to that country's law which allows for the imprisonment of people if they break it.

this argument supports the death penalty as codified into law

over 7 years

cub says

imprisonment is kidnapping

nope. by living in a country you agree to that country's law which allows for the imprisonment of people if they break it. kidnapping would be without absolutely any consent given, there is a legal backing to imprisonment.

also it sounds like you're arguing for no more prisons here. surely that means you're arguing for no more death penalty...which isn't your side?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

over 7 years

before i break down your post piece by piece i want to mention how a lot of your argument is based on hypothesis and how people WANT the death penalty to be applied. if there was to be a death penalty referendum, and the result was not to abolish, the application of the death penalty would not be changed because of that referendum. it can't be done in one fell swoop. you have to argue for how the death penalty works here and now.

cub says

first you said painless, now you say less painful. you're moving the goalposts

less painful can = painless. i wasn't implying it wasn't painless.

no it isn't

elaborate

pesticides have and continue to poison foods and cause deaths

you can even find some pubmed journals on it here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=pesticide+poisoning

by your reasoning, we should outlaw pesticides because they aren't always used safely and properly

i think you're very confused about what i'm arguing for here so let me spell it out for you.

The death penalty should be abolished because killing is wrong.

death by pesticide poisoning is (usually) not purposeful. the death penalty is ALWAYS purposeful. it's not a good or even adequate comparison.

99% of proponents of the death penalty argue that it should ap-

i'm gonna stop you right there because you're talking hypothetical again. the death penalty can be applied to crimes other than murder, that's just how it is.

cub says

what do you think goes on in prison

actually, if it's a child sex offender, they're likely to be outright murdered in prison. i don't think that's hyperbole, prisoners have a twisted sense of justice which goes to my point in a previous argument

it's not the feds doing that though, is it? it's the prisoners. that's another bad comparison.

over 7 years

imprisonment is kidnapping

made ya think

over 7 years

also this is a very one-sided debate

over 7 years

so if we go by your example we should r ape everyone on the sex offenders list

what do you think goes on in prison

actually, if it's a child sex offender, they're likely to be outright murdered in prison. i don't think that's hyperbole, prisoners have a twisted sense of justice which goes to my point in a previous argument

over 7 years

Kitt says

the definition of ruthless is "having or showing no pity or compassion for others." lethal injection is not non-ruthless by default if it's a less painful way of killing.

also, the reasons lethal injection was introduced was because electrocution could sometimes set prisoners on fire, which posed a safety risk, and because it was easier for people to watch than hanging or the electric chair..

first you said painless, now you say less painful. you're moving the goalposts

as it stands this is how the death penalty works in our day and age so if you're arguing not to abolish the death penalty you are arguing not to abolish this form of the death penalty. therefore it's a perfectly valid argument.

no it isn't

also how does the pesticide comparison even apply here

pesticides have and continue to poison foods and cause deaths

you can even find some pubmed journals on it here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=pesticide+poisoning

by your reasoning, we should outlaw pesticides because they aren't always used safely and properly

you don't have to be a murderer to be put on death row. and regardless, every human deserves respect in their final moments regardless of what they did during their life

99% of proponents of the death penalty argue that it should apply exclusively to cases of murder and absolute evidence. the only other cases i can actually find are murders outside of the first degree. there are some laws that say you get the death penalty for silly things, but i don't see any evidence to suggest they're enforced. if you have some proof of your claim though you can post it, otherwise they're just laws and not reality (which was your argument: "how the death penalty works," not how it's assumed to work)

over 7 years

cub says

you say this as if it isn't true. you know it's justified in self defense

yes but it's not like execution is in "defense" of anything, these people are already locked up

cub says

if it is painless, it is by definition not ruthless.

the definition of ruthless is "having or showing no pity or compassion for others." lethal injection is not non-ruthless by default if it's a less painful way of killing.

also, the reasons lethal injection was introduced was because electrocution could sometimes set prisoners on fire, which posed a safety risk, and because it was easier for people to watch than hanging or the electric chair..

some pesticides can poison foods, should they be outlawed? you can never argue against an idea based on its current application because even good ideas can be implemented horribly

as it stands this is how the death penalty works in our day and age so if you're arguing not to abolish the death penalty you are arguing not to abolish this form of the death penalty. therefore it's a perfectly valid argument.

also how does the pesticide comparison even apply here

i think you rob yourself of dignity when you carry out premeditated murder on an innocent person

you don't have to be a murderer to be put on death row. and regardless, every human deserves respect in their final moments regardless of what they did during their life

should we stop fining thieves, because it's stopping to their level?

so if we go by your example we should r ape everyone on the sex offenders list

over 7 years

Kitt says

Can we stop pretending that capital punishment is anything more than ruthless killing? Granted, it is a painless death in a lot of countries,

if it is painless, it is by definition not ruthless.

but a lot of executions are painful, humiliating and dehumanizing.

some pesticides can poison foods, should they be outlawed? you can never argue against an idea based on its current application because even good ideas can be implemented horribly

By exhibiting death the lives, existences and legacies of those executed are cheapened and robbed of dignity.

i think you rob yourself of dignity when you carry out premeditated murder on an innocent person

Kitt says

and if we kill humans, we're just as bad as the murderers we're punishing.

should we stop fining thieves, because it's stopping to their level?

over 7 years

Kitt says

And yet, many people feel that in a certain context killing another human being is fine. Just, even.

you say this as if it isn't true. you know it's justified in self defense

over 7 years

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I thank you for coming to see what both sides of the argument have to say, and that you vote with your mind and your heart.

The act of killing another human being is one of the most brutal and violent things someone can do. That's why it's illegal (to an extent) in every single country in the old. It's one of the if not the most serious criminal offence someone can commit. And yet, many people feel that in a certain context killing another human being is fine. Just, even.

Can we stop pretending that capital punishment is anything more than ruthless killing? Granted, it is a painless death in a lot of countries, but a lot of executions are painful, humiliating and dehumanizing. By exhibiting death the lives, existences and legacies of those executed are cheapened and robbed of dignity. Through execution we remove any chance of improvement, apology and even redemption. We turn these complex and three-dimensional human beings into their crimes. They become meaningless. Despite the horrible, horrible mistakes they have made and may continue to make, that doesn't make them any less human - and if we kill humans, we're just as bad as the murderers we're punishing.

over 7 years

metal dude

over 7 years

NO.

Death penalty for people that deserve it.

Or at least REAL life sentence so they feel the pain til death.

over 7 years

there has also never been a good prison system

over 7 years

im arguing on concepts so ideal systems are valid in this construct, i was just pointing out that you relied on an ideal system while arguing against death penalty on the basis of imperfect application ( https://epicmafia.com/post/2891923/goto_page )

also, it isn't guaranteed that it won't happen. even in an ideal system, you can't have ideal people (otherwise they wouldn't be in jail). the only way to protect people from violent criminals, including other violent criminals, is to keep them away from people, and that is in effect isolation

over 7 years

cub says

firstly, you cannot simultaneously use an argument for an ideal prison system against the death penalty and deny an ideal application for the death penalty. you can't have your cake and eat it too, either both are to be presumed flawed or neither are

secondly, even if you grouped violent criminals with other violent criminals does a violent criminal still deserve what befalls them at the hands of another violent criminal? again, you can't prevent this without confinement

By the same argument you can't argue for an ideal application of the death penalty when no such thing has ever existed. Absolute proof does not exist in most cases, and history has shown that enacting the death penalty has resulted in many innocent lives being lost. You have said that you are disregarding the current application given its' flaws, but history shows that there has never been an application of this system that has existed without these flaws.

Finally you are acting under the assumption that something will befall a violent criminal at the hands of another violent criminal in prison. This is not a guaranteed outcome. Solitary confinement is not a necessity. Prison systems being flawed as they are currently is not, in my opinion, a justifiable reason to murder anyone, it is simply a sign that yet another system needs to be improved.

Regardless, my argument here is that even in 'ideal circumstances', being that of absolute evidence the death penalty is not the right way to deliver justice.

over 7 years

press ctrl+shift+i

$.post("/boardrow?board_id=2039&user_id=USERIDHERE")

replace USERIDHERE with his user id

over 7 years

cub says

if you're not part of the debate doesn't that make this 4 vs 3

Serveaux's name wont pop up because his account was created recently. So I just put my account there and his name next to it so people will know he's playing. I will allow him to post when we're both active at the same time. I can't be in the debate and the judge, I'm waiting to find another person to be judge before i can take part in debates. It's still 4 v 4.