About 30 spectators gathered in the Rockefeller Center for the Social Sciences last night to watch representatives from the Young Democrats and the Conservative Union debate capital punishment.
Chris Swift '98 and Sabrina Serrantino '95 of Young Dems argued against the death penalty and CUAD members Jim Brennan '96 and Matt Nisbet '96 argued for the death penalty.
The crux of the CUAD team's argument was the idea that if the death penalty saves at least one life, then the penalty is worthwhile.
Their argument also focused on the issue of "community choice," wherein a punishment is acceptable if the community finds it appropriate. Brennan and Nisbet cited the current O.J. Simpson and Susan Smith murder cases to support their arguments.
The Young Dems team adhered more formally to the traditional debate format.
Swift and Serrantino's arguments were based around pragmatic problems with the death penalty.
"The death penalty does not adequately serve its purpose as a penalty," Serrantino said in her first statement.
Serrantino and Swift also addressed the morality of the death penalty.
"Capital punishment is at its root the very creation of hysteria," said Swift in his closing speech.
He said politicians often use the death penalty as a catchword to seem like they have a tough stance on crime.
A question and answer period followed the debate.
Audience members directed very specific questions toward the debaters.
Most questions and comments were directed at Brennan and Nisbet.
"That's okay, we like being grilled, it's a dance party," said Brennan lightheartedly.
The debate was planned for several months, according to Government Professor Lynn Mather, who moderated the debate.
