GTP Mass Debating Contest- Heat 4

  • Thread starter Danny
  • 73 comments
  • 3,561 views
Danny

Danny

Code Red
Premium
24,121
United Kingdom
Scarfolk
Grim10
Are you kidding?
Round Four!

Team B vs. Team AAMMM

Debate Topic:-
Should the Death Penalty be brought back to Europe?

Team B will be arguing that yes it should, Team AAMMM will be arguing that it shouldn't..

Deadline for 400 word arguement-Thursday 19th October.

Your 3 days to formulate a 400 word arguement start...



Now!
 
Yup, I can acknowledge receipt of message as of 9:38am PST October 16, 2006.

By the way, we officially changed our name from "Team C" to the Anti-Anti-Missile-Missile Missiles (AAMMM).

This "Team C" "Team A" "Team B" business is too hard to remember. I can't ever figure out whose team I'm up against, who won, or who I am. I'm hoping everyone will rename their team.
 
Message received and understood. One anti-anti-anti-missile-missile-missile missile prepped and ready to launch...
 
Famine
Message received and understood. One anti-anti-anti-missile-missile-missile missile prepped and ready to launch...
Click to expand...

:) I hate to be the one that has to eliminate you, but it has to be done.
 
We might feel a little bit bad about eliminating Famine. Maybe.
Puts on cocky boots.
 
It'll be a good one. under normal circumstances I'd be debating for the death penalty so it makes it a bit more interesting for me to be looking for information to debunk my own views :lol:.
 
Argument Against Capital Punishment
Team AAMMM ​

Introduction

Arguments about capital punishment can usually be categorized into two groups: moral and practical. Proponents argue that execution is morally required for justice to be served and is more practical than incarceration. However, we assert below that execution is inherently immoral and hypocritical and offers no practical social benefits.

Execution is Immoral

While it’s tempting to say that justice is served when the “punishment fits the crime”, one must remember that no justice system is infallible. Numerous convictions for murder, rape, and other violent crimes in the United States have been overturned due to subsequent introduction of DNA evidence into old cases[1]. Some innocent individuals have been incarcerated up to 24 years[2]. A handful of innocents have even been found on death row within days of execution[3]. These occurrences leave no question that innocent lives will be lost to executions. That the system would be guilty of the exact crime it attempts to punish is inherently hypocritical and immoral (see Cicero[4]). However, if inmates are incarcerated instead of executed, new evidence can be and has been used years later to exonerate wrongly-convicted individuals. The following list contains additional moral difficulties with capital punishment:

  • Makes anti-execution jurors less likely to convict, thereby eroding the judicial system.
  • Unnecessarily punishes innocent family members
  • Does nothing to rectify the wrongs committed
  • Raises concerns with the mentally ill (see Charles Singleton[5])

Execution is Impractical

A New York Times survey verifies a government study showing that US states without capital punishment have lower murder rates than those with – indicating that capital punishment is not a deterrent[6,7]. This may be because criminals often act irrationally and ignore potential consequences[8]. The following are additional practical problems with execution:

  • The average cost per inmate in the US is about $22,650 (USD)/year[9]. The US executed 60 inmates in 2005[10]. A similar execution rate in England would provide miniscule savings, even assuming no additional legal, incarceration, or execution costs. These savings pale in comparison to the $20 billion (USD)/year UK criminal justice system budget[11].
  • Damages paid to wrongly-executed individuals’ families could be astronomical.
  • Extensive legal battles or automatic appeals can substantially increase state costs.
  • Protests often cost government time and money while reprieve is considered[12]

Conclusion

Execution is morally reprehensible, hypocritical, and practically unsound.

Word Count: 378

References
[1] – Innocence Project (2006). Press Room. Retrieved October 17, 2006, from innocenceproject.org. Web site: http://www.innocenceproject.org/press/
[2] – Associated Press (2005). DNA Evidence Clears Georgia Inmate of Rape Retrieved October 17, 2006 from FoxNews.com. Web site: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178138,00.html
[3] – Associated Press (2002). For 110 Inmates Freed by DNA Tests, True Freedom Remains Elusive Retrieved October 17, 2006 from deathpenaltyinfo.org. Web site: http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=293
[4] – On the Good Life, Cicero. Translation by Michael Grant. 1971. Penguin Books: London. p. 147.
[5] – United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2002). Charles Laverne Singleton, Appellant, v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee. Retrieved October 18, 2006 from cognitiveliberty.org Web Site: http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/singleton_8circ2.htm
[6] – Ford Fessenden (2000). Deadly Statistics: A Survey Of Crime and Punishment . Retrieved October 17, 2006 from nytimes.com. Web site: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr...ference/Times Topics/People/F/Fessenden, Ford
[7] –Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden (2000). States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from janda.org. Web Site: http://janda.org/c10/statisticsnews/NoDeathPenalty.htm
[8] – TruthTree (2002). Penalty of Death . Retrieved October 18, 2006 from truthtree.com. Web site: http://www.truthtree.com/death.shtml
[9] – U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004) State Prison Expenditures, 2001. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from US Department of Justice. Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/spe01.txt
[10] – U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005). Key Facts at a Glance – Executions. Retrived October 17, 2006 from US Department of Justice. Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exetab.htm
[11] – Her Majesty’s Treasury (2006). 2002 Spending Review. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from HM Treasury. Web Site: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Spending_Review/spend_sr02/report/spend_sr02_repchap10.cfm
[12] – Catherine Komp (2005). Virginia Death Row Prisoner Granted Clemency. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from The New Standard. Web Site: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2635
 
Oh, hell - all these references. Are we really going down this road?
 
You don't have to read the references, all the points we're arguing for are in the main text (unless your a judge then you might I don't know), the references are just there to back thoes points up and show where any figures come from.
 
live4speed
You don't have to read the references, all the points were arguing for are in the main text (unless your a judge then you might I don't know), the references are just there to back thoes points up and show where any figures come from.
Click to expand...

I think Duke is more concerned about the additional work it would mean for his next debate. If we want to adjust the rules after this heat to limit the number of references it might help keep the time commitment down.

But yea, from a judging point of view it's not necessary to read the references - they're just there in case people felt like we're making claims that can't be backed up.
 
danoff
I think Duke is more concerned about the additional work it would mean for his next debate. If we want to adjust the rules after this heat to limit the number of references it might help keep the time commitment down.

But yea, from a judging point of view it's not necessary to read the references - they're just there in case people felt like we're making claims that can't be backed up.
Click to expand...

Yep.. the references are there to prevent us being beheaded for plagiarizing.
 
3 minutes late... Sorry...

Should the Death Penalty be brought back to Europe?
Click to expand...

Pro argument:
While it is irrefutable that a capital sentence, once carried out, is a very final solution indeed, the necessity for such an eventuality cannot be overstated. It is important to recognise why a death penalty may be given in order to establish this.

The judicial system of any state is a double-edged sword. It exists to enforce the law and, in doing so, protect the law-abiding from those who would threaten them. But it also exists to rehabilitate and punish those who breach code.

Any act which sees a finite term of incarceration handed to an offender is one from which the state judges the offender to be able to be rehabilitated and, during their time separated from society, learn how to reintegrate themselves so that they will not present any significant harm when released. However, the presentation of an indefinite sentence is solely for the punishment of the offender – they have been judged incapable of ever being rehabilitated or ever providing a useful role in society.

Keeping such an offender behind bars only serves to damage society yet further – though they have been removed physically from society, they are not removed fiscally, and present a drain on public resources for the duration of their term. Many such offenders are young males, and can be expected to survive for more than 50 years after their original sentence. If the purpose of their punishment is to protect society and there’s no possibility of their reintegration, then surely a life sentence, rather than a death sentence, is the very antithesis of this aim.

A potential for losing one’s life for the most heinous of crimes also acts as a deterrent. As with the earlier firearm debate, who would, knowing that if caught they can face certain death, commit the crime in the first place? The existence of such a punishment acts as a disincentive to almost anyone who would commit a crime where the punishment is apt.

It ought to be noted that judiciary is imperfect and, with all trials, the wrong verdict can be reached. However, incorrectly locking someone away for the duration of their life is no more or less moral than their execution – they, and their families, have still lost a great deal, be it physical or temporal. Not executing someone because they might be innocent makes no more sense than not imprisoning someone for the same reason.
 
Both excellent, I reckon this is going to be a tight one.

Although I'm not fully in favour of using big long lists of references either, I have to say that Team AAMMM's post is otherwise very nicely structured and a quality post all round - an original way to set out your argument.
 
And much clawing there will be, if Famines teams rebuttal is as good their main point this will be close.
 
argh. sorry i couldnt help famine. if you didnt see me in the thread i would have helped if needed.
 
CCX
argh. sorry i couldnt help famine. if you didnt see me in the thread i would have helped if needed.
Click to expand...

Not a problem - now you've read all, I'm at the end of a PM.
 
Famine
3 minutes late... Sorry...



........
A potential for losing one’s life for the most heinous of crimes also acts as a deterrent. As with the earlier firearm debate, who would, knowing that if caught they can face certain death, commit the crime in the first place? The existence of such a punishment acts as a disincentive to almost anyone who would commit a crime where the punishment is apt.

It ought to be noted that judiciary is imperfect and, with all trials, the wrong verdict can be reached. However, incorrectly locking someone away for the duration of their life is no more or less moral than their execution – they, and their families, have still lost a great deal, be it physical or temporal. Not executing someone because they might be innocent makes no more sense than not imprisoning someone for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Well, those last two paragraphs were just awesome. However danoff's argument was short enough and conveyed the idea pretty well because of the references.




Ciao!
 
Sunday:ouch:

Sorry, should have given notice.

Due Wednesday 1st November
 

Latest Posts

Back