CreateDebate


Debate Info

91
105
I Support it I oppose it
Debate Score:196
Arguments:180
Total Votes:203
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I Support it (86)
 
 I oppose it (85)

Debate Creator

Belma(229) pic



Do You Support or Oppose the Death Penalty?

Death penalties can go too far sometimes. Electric shock machines, cutting of fingers, ect. What do you think about it and why?

I Support it

Side Score: 91
VS.

I oppose it

Side Score: 105
2 points

If one is convicted in a United States court of law by a jury of their peers for committing murder then you should be put to death for that crime you committed.

Side: I Support it
Pantagruel(984) Disputed
2 points

Please, define for me: peers.

If you are a murderer, then can it be said that a non-murderer is your peer?

If you are black, then can it be said that a non-black is your peer?

If you are a man, then can it be said that a woman is your peer?

If you are well-educated, then are illiterate people your peers?

Simply choosing 12 people relatively at random to pass judgement on somebody accused of having committed a crime against their peers does not make them peers to the person who stands accused.

Furthermore: how reliable can a court of law be given the absolutely massive (and largely unknowable) list of wrongfully convicted people simply in the USA alone? The jury system - along with the court system and the prison system - is deeply flawed: to demand a life in exchange for an interpretation of guilt is evil - I want to say inhumane - but all too human.

Side: I oppose it

For most categories of murder I fully support the death penalty. By imposing the death penalty the state would be ridding society of such vile creatures as rapists, including child molesters, who subsequently murder their victims, terrorists who have caused death, assassins of police officers/security forces, armed robbers who use their weapons during the course of their crime, those who coldly and clinically carry out pre-meditated murders and other classifications. Eradicating such filth from the face of the earth reduces the evil which stalks our towns and cities. When released murderers re-offend, (as they often do), those responsible for their release keep their sick heads below the ''parapet walls'' until the controversy has subsided. Those of he bleeding hearts club who oppose the death penalty across the board, would I'm sure reconsider their reasoning if one of their own family, say their 5 year old daughter, was sexually assaulted then subsequently brutally murdered. The fools who actively resist the death penalty regardless of the circumstances are, in my opinion, complicit in many deadly crimes.

Side: I Support it
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

What I would personally do or want to do to someone who harmed someone I cared about is not necessarily what I would want the government to do. And I"m not a "bleeding heart". I'm a pragmatist. The death penalty is not demonstrated to be an effective deterrent, which makes sense given that most crimes are crimes of passion, crimes of compulsion, and/or premeditated. The only benefit, then, is retribution and retributivist systems are demonstrably less effective at creating healthier societies than rehabilitative counterparts (the reason recidivism is so high is because you are referencing the output of a retributivist system). The less authority we give the government as possible, the happier I am since power tends to consolidate over time which endangers the constituency.

Side: I oppose it
1 point

The inference of your response seems to imply that you would most likely favour the death sentence for anyone who murdered one of your family/loved ones, ''GOD FORBID''. Well, it would also be the wish of most of the grieving kith and kin of murder victims that the perpetrators of such foul crimes roasted in hell, but before that they deserve to see the filth squirm as they are given the lethal injection. My firmly held view is that the death penalty would have a certain deterrent affect, but that would be a fringe benefit as the main purpose of the death sentence would be as sweet revenge to be savoured. For instance, when terrorists in Northern Ireland murder members of the security forces and slaughter men women and children they know if they get caught, charged and proven guilty in a court of law the most they will face is a 7 years custodial term and will probably be out in half that time. Indeed, not only were some of them released after two years, they actually form part of the devolved ''Power sharing Executive'' in Belfast. You present a reasoned counter argument but, I consider it to be wholly misguided and utterly counterproductive. After the convicted filth have received the death sentence, let the shit bubble and froth in them for about a fortnight and give them graphic illustrations of how they're going to die, then, and only then introduce them to ''Madam Syringe''.

Side: I Support it
2 points

I am for it only in cases where the verdict is without a doubt 100% accurate. Many cases have been overturned by DNA evidence in the past. The death penalty should only be allowed in cases where certain evidence like DNA, video, or some other kind of very accurate evidence is given.

Side: I Support it
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

There is rarely (if ever) such a thing as 100% certainty. DNA testing under controlled conditions is only 99% accurate, and in crime scenes the material is likely to be incomplete, contaminated, etc. Correlating a person with a crime scene through DNA also cannot prove causality since it only places the suspect on the scene and the rest is inferred. For those few murders where there is video evidence the video is generally poor quality and fails to capture all events leading up to the act which could mitigate the nature of the crime; I am unaware of a single case where there was clear video evidence that captured all relevant events leading up to a crime, and the odds seem so against that probability as to render a 100% certainty standard practically a ban on the practice.

So, no such thing as without a doubt 100% accuracy. If you support the death penalty, that necessarily entails allowing for the possibility that someone innocent could be executed. That doesn't mean we have to oppose it, of course, since we could decide the probability makes it justifiable... but by your stance we would really be compelled to abolish it.

Side: I oppose it
2 points

If there is undeniable evidence that someone has performed rape, murder, or cannibalism, I believe that the death penalty should be applied. Although this may seem harsh, it is my belief that this will keep society more civil, given that one will be killed for their crimes, instead of sitting in a prison cell receiving free medicine, food, and even earning degrees. Once a human being has broken the law in any of the aforementioned manners, they are "too far gone", not to mention the money saved by not having prisons filled with dangerous and possibly mentally unstable criminals. That way, more money can be allocated to more deserving programs, such as better rehabilitation programs for drug users and better government healthcare programs for those who need it.

Side: I Support it
Pantagruel(984) Disputed
1 point

What is wrong with cannibalism?

It has been an accepted practice all over the world.

If you and everybody in your city are starving to death - all the rats, pets, & birds long since consumed - and all the succor to be found is in the form of recently-deceased humans, are you not morally obligated to consume those humans?

So many people have needlessly starved to death because their society says that eating the meat of their fellows is evil: I say it is evil to let people die simply to perpetuate a flawed system of morality and mistaken belief in the sanctity of the human!

Side: I oppose it
1 point

We should expand the death penalty to cover more crimes. I mean, if your sentence is 10 or more years in jail, you might as well just shoot the guy. I don't want to pay to keep him there and when he gets out, he will be unemployable, so..., shoot the mofo.

Side: I Support it

There are only so many people with the evil and inhumanity to kill others. When we put these people to death, it GUARANTEES they will never kill again. If they had life in prison without parole, they can still kill other inmates or kill guards.

That's the reason for the death penalty. IT'S CALLED PROTECTING INNOCENT LIFE FROM THOSE WHO WOULD TAKE IT.

We are living in a time of unbeleivable misplaced compassion. Those on the Left care more for the right's of Terrorists, murderers, criminals, the mother's right to end the life of unborn Baby's verses the Baby's right to life, etc. etc.

As the Left keeps separating any mention of our Christian heritage from public along with the common sense values derived from that heritage, the inhumanity of people keeps hitting new lows. The compassion for future victims of killers takes a back seat to the killer's rights. How sick this progressive movement.

Side: I Support it
2 points

Except you are giving the government authority to use a flawed system to execute people, despite clear, irrefutable evidence that we have executed both innocent people, and people who's guilt falls well out of the relevant "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

How can you be a "small government" "pro-life" individual if you are signing off on a big government system that kills innocent people?

Seems, what's the word.....it starts with an h, you misuse it a lot.....oh, right, hypocritical.

Side: I oppose it
1 point

Because there will always be some scumbags who do not value lives of other human beings at all and they won't mind killing someone just for the sake of few petty things. Some of them are just fanatic and they kill in the name of religion and their beliefs. These guys are worse than animals and we don't think twice before killing an animal, do we? I support death penalty because in my opinion it is the only thing that can act as an effective deterrent for some low lives who are just looking for killing some one for the most trivial reasons.

Side: I Support it
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

There is no evidence that the death penalty is actually an effective deterrent. Which make sense, given that most murders are either (a) crimes of passion where the threat of punishment isn't considered or (b) premeditated where the perp thinks they won't be caught and aren't worried about the threat of punishment.

Side: I oppose it

There are two key reasons why I don't support the death penalty. Most importantly... it doesn't work. There isn't much evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. As such, it's just adding to the levels of death for the sake of vengeance, which shouldn't be the goal.

And secondly, I am appalled by the idea of giving the death penalty to someone who may be innocent. There are countless cases of people on death row who were found to be innocent, sometimes before their intended execution, and sometimes after they have already been given the death penalty. Our criminal justice system has far too many flaws for us to be killing people who might be guilty.

Side: I oppose it
1 point

In addition there is the fact that the death penalty offers some form of gratification to some criminals who already have the desire to die (e.g. martyrdom). Reducing their life to simple survival behind bars seems far more fitting - provided the incarceration facility does not resemble any previous comforts they may have enjoyed.

Side: I oppose it
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

SIZE OF DEATH ROW BY YEAR - (1968 - present)

1968 517 1982 1,050 1996 3,219 2010 3,158

1969 575 1983 1,209 1997 3,335 2011 3,082

1970 631 1984 1,405 1998 3,452 2012 3,033

1971 642 1985 1,591 1999 3,527 2013 2,979

1972 334 1986 1,781 2000 3,593 2014 3,054

1973 134 1987 1,984 2001 3,581 2015 2,984

1974 244 1988 2,124 2002 3,557

1975 488 1989 2,250 2003 3,374

1976 420 1990 2,356 2004 3,315

1977 423 1991 2,482 2005 3,254

1978 482 1992 2,575 2006 3,228

1979 539 1993 2,716 2007 3,215

1980 691 1994 2,890 2008 3,207

1981 856 1995 3,054 2009 3,173

So can you show the "countless cases of people on death row who were found to be innocent" by the numbers provided above ?

Side: I Support it
Atrag(5666) Disputed
3 points

156 people have been released from death row. We don't know how many of those put to death were also innocent because, of course, police don't continue to investigate after the defendant is executed. Saying that though, 156 people nearly killed by the government is absurd.

I guess USAians find it amazing that every single country in Europe has abolished the death penalty. To us its is shocking when we read about how USAians allow the government to take peoples lives. It is intolerable to us.

Side: I oppose it
jtbdad(5) Disputed
1 point

I agree with you that the number isn't countless. The real question is how many innocent deaths is justifiable? 1, 10, 100? How many innocent deaths would it take to make capital punishment unjustifiable? Whatever that number is to you then why not one more or one less?

Side: I oppose it
pastafarian(79) Disputed
1 point

The number of wrongfully executed will rise as the total number of people executed rises. People whose lives are cut short, their good name stained, their families left broken all for something they didn't do in the name of "justice". The death penalty is a blood sport that satiates our societal need for vengeance, but vengeance and justice are two different things. First of all its paradoxical that you can teach a country not to kill by killing someone. Second of all the death penalty doesn't discourage murder as a murderer already places no value in human life, including their own. Third, the money spent on housing/food/lawyers/appeals would be much better spent if allocated toward actually REHABILITATING people in prison instead of turning them into caged animals who need to become criminals in order to survive incarceration.

Side: I oppose it

The only people who can not be rehabilitated are the truly sick and deranged, who deserve pity, not execution.

Rehabilitation is cheaper and more effective than prison. It's not as cheap and easy as killing people for certain crimes, true, but that particular choice literally requires us to end a human life because it's easier, which is shitty of us to do.

Side: I oppose it
2 points

Generally agreed. Although I'm not convinced execution is actually cheaper. The appeals process is very expensive for the state, and once you add in the years incarcerated on death row to the full cost I suspect that the difference would actually be marginal. Admittedly, I don't have the stats to back that but I certainly haven't seen them for the converse and intuitively it doesn't make much sense that execution would be the cheaper option. IMO.

Side: I oppose it
1 point

There are people who have no emotions and they are called psychopaths.

They amount up to half of the prison population.

Psychopaths are innately evil and cannot change.

Psychopaths deserve death.

Side: I Support it
2 points

Psychopath (noun): a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.

You'll note that nowhere in that definition does it say "people who have no emotions". That's because such people don't exist. Emotions are how brains work. People might have different emotions, or they might seem strangely sedate in their emotions, but if their brain does anything at all then they are experiencing emotions.

Also, psychopaths don't always end up in prison. Often, they end up being your boss

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathyintheworkplace#citeref-11

Go ahead and post your source for that "up to half" statistic.

While you do that, here's some info on rehabilitation vs prison sentences!

http://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/economics/articles/cost-prison-vs-residential-treatment-offenders.html

This ones a full report detailing how they reached the $111, 458 saving per prisoner figure.

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/04-01repmdtreatmentorincarceration_ac-dp.pdf

That one is specifically about the advantages of rehabilitating heavy drug users as opposed to cycling them in and out of the prison system!

http://rehab-international.org/blog/drug-rehab-instead-of-prison-could-save- billions-says-report

That one goes through more of the cost savings of rehab as opposed to prison!

Check out those sources, Blizzardbird! Would you just look at those sources! Sittin' there, lookin' all pretty and supportive. How 'bout you go right ahead and post some yourself champ, I'm on the edge of my fucking seat with anticipation.

Side: I oppose it
danniit97(10) Disputed
1 point

You can't give someone the title of a psychopath for expressing zero emotions?

Psychopaths can, and have changed due to prison reformation.

Saying that psychopaths deserve death is completely out of order.

Side: I oppose it
jtbdad(5) Disputed
1 point

If they are innately evil and cannot change then how can they "deserve" to be put to death? If something is not within your ability to control how can you justifiably be held responsible for it?

Side: I oppose it
1 point

I don't think it's wise for the gov't to have the power of death over its citizens.

Side: I oppose it
1 point

It is wise for the government to have the power of life and death over it's citizens.

The government has our best motives at heart and knows what is right ultimately.

Some People need to die.

Side: I Support it
Atrag(5666) Disputed
2 points

The government has our best motives at heart and knows what is right ultimately.

You can't really believe that surely?

Side: I oppose it
sceathers(155) Disputed
1 point

You might not think so once the "death panels" arrive. Now that they're in the healthcare business, the government's going to need to find ways to pay for it and reduce costs. I've worked for a couple large hospitals in my State and have heard things. The best advice I can give is to stay as healthy as you possibly can.

Side: I oppose it
1 point

I am sorry, but the people in government only care about the people in government. The government does not have our best motives at heart.

Side: I Support it
Dante756(77) Disputed
1 point

What do you call armed police then? This is poorly phrased.

And it isn't the government who makes this call. It's prosecutors!

Side: I Support it
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Who work for the government, by the way.

Side: I Support it

Whether or not they deserve it, we shouldn't kill people unless its completely necessary. Period. If a person is in custody then there is no immediate reason to kill them, therefore we should not.

Side: I oppose it
1 point

What negative consequences would arise if a guilty person would die?

No harm would be done, would it not?

Side: I Support it
WastingAway(340) Disputed
1 point

The harm done would be that a person that didn't need to die did, justice doesn't work out of cold blood.

Additionally, that isn't justification to kill, so don't act as if it is. That kind of logic can be used to justify plenty of terrible things. The idea that you should kill a person because no negative consequences come out of the killing is incredulous and doesn't make you any better than those on death row, if anything it makes you worse.

Side: I oppose it
Pantagruel(984) Disputed
1 point

What negative consequences would arise if a guilty person would die?

Precedent is a powerful thing.

Guilt is ascribed to an actor who is believed to have caused an action in the past which society deems unacceptable.

Morals change over time and place.

The past - hereafter: history - is unknowable. There are as many interpretations of events, their causes and effects, as there are people to observe them: none none of these can be said to be without doubt 100% factual.

Now, why should a person be killed because humans' faulty ability to understand history gives people to the belief that this person has committed an act that is (relatively) morally wrong and which, in fact, may not have even been caused by this person who is being killed?

Finally: Is a society that kills killers any more or less morally blameworthy than the killer himself?

Side: I oppose it
1 point

First of all - how hypocritical is this? If one ends a life and therefore has their life ended by the death penalty - surely the person who is the one to do this should also have their life ended for committing exactly the same crime?

There has been endless evidence to prove this does not work and hasn't worked. People commit murder out of passion, defence and with reason (which even though should not be an excuse, you have to put yourself in their shoes before coming to such a conclusion)

I am totally against people breaking the law let alone committing murder, but we have to act humane and not lower ourselves down to their standards - surely the person who ends murderer's life is also a murderer?

Side: I oppose it
1 point

People who murder others cannot be considered to be human beings whatsoever.

Side: I Support it
Atrag(5666) Disputed
1 point

You mean like soldiers or the many people that are involved in the criminal justice system that sentence people to die?

Side: I oppose it

If a punishment is cruel or unusual then it is a violation of the 8th amendment.

A crime that is unnecessary is considered unusual or cruel.

If the death penalty doesnt prove to be definitively more effective at deterring crime or accomplishing justice then it ought to be considered unnecessary

The death penalty has not been proven to deter crime any more than life imprisonment. Additionally it has caused innocent people to be executed for crimes they didnt commit, detracting from its ability to accomplish justice.

Therefore the death penalty is unnecessary.

Therefore the death penalty is cruel/unusual.

Therefore the death penalty is in violation of the 8th amendment.

Side: I oppose it
blizzardbird(904) Clarified
1 point

The death penalty is not meant to act as deterent, it doesn't scare psychopaths from committing murder because psychopaths aren't fazed by punishment, nor do they have any fear.

The soul purpose of execution is to eliminate psychopaths.

Side: I Support it
AveSatanas(4443) Clarified
1 point

Okay then well if the sole purpose is to separate them from the general populace why is killing them more effective than life in prison? I mean yeah theyre dead but if they were locked away with no parole would it be that much different? And if you cant prove that the death penalty "eliminates" substantially more effectively then i would say my argument still stands.

Side: I Support it