CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:26
Arguments:18
Total Votes:27
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Death penalty does not save lives (18)

Debate Creator

Tom Janca(18) pic



Death penalty does not save lives

I speculate that it causes more killings then it prevent.  I speculate that if The State solves it's  worst problems by killing the offenders. It is not that big of jump for citizens  to do the same thing. I speculate that Killers kill witnesses because of the death penalty.

Add New Argument
2 points

I think that only killing in self Defense is justified. Cold calculated methodical killing for punishment after the safety of others is secured is Wrong.

2 points

Well, I don't think there is a huge number of witnesses being killed to avoid the death penalty,

usually the death penalty is only administered to those in low socio-economic class, without the means to a high priced lawyer and whatnot.

However the assertion is correct, it doesn't save lives. The sort of crimes currently meriting the death penalty are not commited by those who are weighing the consequences of their actions. That means you cannot deter them from commiting the act through consequence of the action.

That was never the point though. The death penalty is not a deterent or revenge, just a permanent means of removing those who cannot function at all in society except in a very negative manner.

I don't object to this philosophy per se,

however there are countless instances of us, as a society, killing the wrong person using the death penalty.

If it just happens once it should give us pause, but it happens all of the time. It is actually pretty barbaric for a society.

Add to that it actually costs more money in taxes to kill someone than to keep them in a maximum security prison (not a single person in the history of the universe has escaped a maximum security prison in the US by the way) there really is no reason for the death penalty but revenge and that weird thing christians always do where they get all blood thirsty, hateful and ignorant at like the exact same time.

1 point

Whether it does or not is peripheral to the central objective of the death penalty, to administer justice. Taking the life of another is the highest crime you can commit and therefore requires the highest payment possible. To accept anything less is to degrade the value of human life. If someone destroyed a priceless artifact of yours you would be insulted if they took some spare change out of their pocket to pay the debt they owe. There may be a multitude of peripheral issues to consider but the central fact is that a debt as been incurred that must be payed. You would be furious if the person who broke your priceless artifact began to give excuses as to why he shouldn't have to pay the debt he rightfully owes. So whether or not the death penalty saves lives is not as important as the fact that the death penalty maintains the value of human life. And if as a result of that it also saves lives that's a good thing.

Side: Not the point
Tom Janca(18) Disputed
2 points

to administer justice. Isn't doing this just a nicer way to say revenge.

Taking the life of another is the highest crime you can commit and therefore requires the highest payment possible. When we are trying to teach how valuable life is. Then we execute the convicted how does that make human life more valuable. It would be degrading for for a convict to balance the equation with any love one of mine. How can killing the the convicted be teaching the value of life. If the State kill to solve problems. It is not that far for the citizen to jump to do the same. So whether or not the death penalty saves lives is not as important as the fact that the death penalty maintains the value of human life. OK so when a love one is Murdered = Kill the bastard and all will be equal and the value of life is maintained. Not in my life. And it won't bring back my loved one and maybe He was framed and was innocent. To big of a Worry for me or do I Value life too much.

Side: Not the point
Tom Janca(18) Disputed
1 point

Is What you are saying? We don't care about the innocent witnesses we just want revenge punishment for the killers. In that case I think The state become the killers and that certainly does not add to the value of human life. What responsibility does the state have for these extra killings? I think the State is responsible and This should be considered in the law.

Side: Not the point
1 point

First off, the point of the death penalty is not to prevent future killings, it is there to give justice. Although it can be argued that it creates the possibility of more killings, this is probably not the case, seeing as in general people who are committing the murders that get them the death penalty will not shy away from killing someone to avoid jail time, let alone the death penalty.

Side: Not the point
Tom Janca(18) Disputed
3 points

Is justice just revenge? Why do you think that the death penalty isn't for preventing future killings. If it may not be preventing future killing why have it. Why not use the extra money to help the family's affected instead of feeding the hungry lawyers. As long as the public is protected from the killers why can't they contribute to pay back in some way to society.

Side: No Death Penalty
Troy8(2430) Disputed
1 point

It isn't 'revenge.' If anything it should be labeled as retribution. Human life is incredibly valuable, thetefore killing a killer maintains this high value of human life. Also, it isn't clear that capital punishment doesn't serve as a deterrent to crime. Because if this life-threatening consequence doesn't scare those commiting heinous crimes, why do they submit when a police officer points a gun at their head?

Side: No Death Penalty
Tom Janca(18) Disputed
2 points

First off, the point of the death penalty is not to prevent future killings, it is there to give justice.

Is justice just revenge? Why do you think that the death penalty isn't for preventing future killings. If it may not be preventing future killing why have it.

Although it can be argued that it creates the possibility of more killings, this is probably not the case, seeing as in general people who are committing the murders that get them the death penalty will not shy away from killing someone to avoid jail time, let alone the death penalty. Doesn't the death penalty just seals the deal kill or be killed. Eliminate the witnesses.

As long as the public is protected from the killers why can't they contribute to pay back in some way to society. Why not use the extra money, the extra cost for death penalty conviction. to help the family's affected instead of feeding the hungry lawyers.

Side: No Death Penalty
1 point

While it may be the case sometimes that people kill more people in order to "silence" witnesses so as to avoid justice, it is the exception to the rule and not the norm. And we shouldn't make laws based on the exception.

Furthermore, administering justice is not revenge punishment for the killers; justice is not revenge. The difference is in the motive.

About the state having responsibility for these extra killings; the state has none. Unless the state used the force of law to make them do it, which it doesn’t. But if it did, that would be an exception to the rule and not the norm. These ‘killers” are free moral agents making free choices, as opposed to doing it under compulsion, therefore they are fully responsible and culpable for their actions.

And in regards to giving money to the families affected; I say what an insult. It’s like offering to pay for a priceless object by pulling spare change out of your pocket. Because human life is of such priceless value there is only one payment that is sufficient, a life for a life. If you have taken the life of another by homicide you have forfeited your right to life, it’s that simple. And no other payment is sufficient to pay such a debt. Any payment less than that is degrading to the value of human life because what you imply is that you think human life is worth “X” amount of dollars, when it is not. They only thing that is as valuable as a human life is another human life.

And lastly, taking the life of another in order to administer justice is always justified when the due process of law has been followed.

Side: Not the point
Tom Janca(18) Disputed
2 points

While it may be the case sometimes that people kill more people in order to "silence" witnesses so as to avoid justice, it is the exception to the rule and not the norm. So I see some agreement here. Great.

And we shouldn't make laws based on the exception.

But Here I got you!

Murder is an exception and not a norm. I think we should make laws for the exceptions.

Because human life is of such priceless value there is only one payment that is sufficient, a life for a life.

OK Kill Him and you miss out on how many lives he could save. Lets say he wanted to donate blood once every two weeks. How many lives would that be in a 25 year time period.

And lastly, taking the life of another in order to administer justice is always justified when the due process of law has been followed.

Maybe you haven't heard how many people on death row have been freed because they were wrongly convicted.. How many Were put to death and they pleaded but I did not do it.

Side: Not the point
1 point

Back To the point Does the death penalty save lives or cause more deaths? Don't forget how priceless each life is. If you knew It would save just one are you willing to sacrifice them the innocence witnesses. For the right to put to death a killer. Don't forget that life in prison secures the rest of us from such predators that have been convicted. It looks like it doesn't stop future killers Or we wouldn't have any.

Side: No Death Penalty

It costs the lives of people who were wrongfully convicted.

There have been 273 post-conviction exonerations just through the use of DNA, accounting for 3,524 years wrongfully served behind bars. ref

Side: No Death Penalty

I would agree with your main proposition that the death penalty does not save lives with one small clarification "more than life in prison".

It is not more of a deterrent than life in prison, and the death penalty would not encourage murderers to kill witnesses more than life in prison would.

Side: No Death Penalty
1 point

People that kill people in such brutal manners do not deserve to be in our society or in prision... case closed.

Side: pro death penalty
Tom Janca(18) Disputed
2 points

Over the millions of years killing your enemies was an accepted as the right way to do things. I want to be a warrior and kill our enemies. Lyons, tigers, Dogs, Seals, and many others animals still kill their own kind to find a mate keep terratories. They use killing to survive. Kill or be killed or eat or be eaten. I see you are of the same opinion. Humankind would be better if we could move beyond killing to solve our survival problems.

Side: pro death penalty
Morgie717(76) Disputed
1 point

thats ur opinion not mine... i disagree and yet agree... Lets say someone randomly killed another person, that person should die for killing. But if killing one another never existed, then i agree with you.

Side: pro death penalty

The Death Penalty is a negative. Nothing good comes out of it.

Side: pro death penalty