Death Penalty

Death Penalty ARET form Final work

Pro
1. Removes possibility of future crimes
Assertion: I believe we should have the death penalty.
Reason: Because it removes the possibility of future crimes and killing of more innocent people. Evidence/Explanation: For the case of Pedro Lopez, he had was jailed, then came out and killed
100 girls. Then he was jailed again. If he had the death row, at least 200 girls would not be dead.
Tie up/Conclusion: So we should have death penalty for these cruel criminals to save the lives of the innocent.
2. Eye for an eye
Assertion: I believe that we should have the death penalty.
Reason: Because the criminals deserve the death for their crime.
Evidence/Explanation: For Pedro Lopez, he deserves to die because he is responsible for the death of 3~400 girls.
Tie up/Conclusion: So the criminals deserves death penalty for what they have done.
3. Deterrence
Assertion: I maintain that we must have the death penalty.
Reason: Because it helps to deter.
Evidence/Explanation: By deterring, there will be less crimes, so citizens will be safe.
Tie up/Conclusion: So our society must have the death penalty.

4. Removes threat to society
Assertion: We should have death penalty.
Reason: Because it removes threat to society.
Evidence/Explanation: For Aryan Brotherhood, they killed several people even they were in the prison. After they had died, society felt much more safer than the time there was the Aryan Brotherhood.
Tie up/Conclusion: So we need death penalty to remove threat to society.
5. Humane
Assertion: We must have the death penalty.
Reason: Because it is more humane.
Evidence/Explanation: For the death penalty, it is more humane than boring, or terrifying life in the jail. The death penalty kills when the criminal is asleep. So it is more humane than the life in jail.
Tie up/Conclusion: So we death is more humane than boring life in prison.
6. Less people in prison
Assertion: I believe we must have the death penalty.
Reason: Because it helps the population in jail shrink.
Evidence/Explanation: For example, California Prison led 30,000 prisoners out of the jail because of overcrowded prison.
Tie up/Conclusion: So we must execute those cruel prisoners.
POI attacking con
1. How would the government solve these murders without death penalties?
2. Without death penalties, there will be hundreds and thousands of criminals in the whole world. Do you have any countermeasure against this problem?
3. Countries that have harsh laws have less criminals than other countries. This demonstrates deterrence. But are there any harsher laws than death penalty?
4. Does government have a better solution of getting rid of deadly criminals?
5. With the death penalty, it stops the future possibility of crimes. So do you have stronger opinion than putting people on death?

Con
1. Killing Innocents
Assertion: I believe we should abolish the death penalty.
Reason: Because it can kill innocent citizens.
Evidence/Explanation: For example, Johnny Frank Garett of Texas was executed in February
1992 for rape and murder but in March 2004, the case was reopened an a cold case investigation and DNA, fingerprints and hair evidence identified the true criminal as Leoncio Rueda.
Tie up/Conclusion: So we should stop the death penalty for the innocent people dying with no reason. 2. Mistakes
Assertion: I believe we should stop the death penalty.
Reason: Because there can be mistakes taken.
Evidence/Explanation: There are huge amounts of innocent people dying and sacrificing for the evil and deadly criminals as there may have been a mistake in their trials, which convicted them as criminals even though they did not commit the crime. Tie up/Conclusion: So we should abolish the death penalty.
3. Deterrence
Assertion: I believe we should not have the death penalty.
Reason: Because death penalty doesn’t deter or effect the possibility of the crimes.
Evidence/Explanation: Because there are not much credible reasons why death penalty deters crimes. Tie up/Conclusion: So we should stop the death penalty.

4. Rights to live
Assertion: I maintain that we should not have the capital punishment.
Reason: Because every human have rights to live.
Evidence/Explanation: Because we cannot kill people that easily.
Tie up/Conclusion: So we should stop the death penalty.
5. Cost
Assertion: We should stop the death penalty.
Reason: Because it cost a lot.
Evidence/Explanation: It is much more expensive than having criminals in jail, which is $1.26 million. Also, California can save $1 billion per year by not having the death penalty according to a government website.
Tie up/Conclusion: So we should abolish the death penalty.
6. Racism
Assertion: We must stop the death penalty.
Reason: Because it is racism.
Evidence/Explanation: Minorities are more likely to get the death penalty. Also, there are more minority juries excluded by the judge.
Tie up/Conclusion: So we must not have the death penalty.
POI attacking pro
1. The government would not allow killing innocent citizens. Do you have solutions to prevent sacrifices of the innocents?
2. Every person has the right to live. But this punishment does not follow the rule. So, is it moral to have the death penalty? Why?
3. Should it be allowed to kill people that are innocent or those who are guilty?
4. Everybody makes mistakes. So we cannot expect the judge to be perfect. They can also make mistakes. So are you sure that the judges will make choices that always choose the criminals for the death sentence?
5. Having a death row cost a lot. It is much more expensive than having criminals in jail, which is $1.26 million. So are there countermeasure against these cost problem?

6. There is no reliable evidence that the death penalty deters crime effectively than long period of time in jail. So do you have any arguments against this?