CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do you believe in the Death Penalty?
Many people argue over whether or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong, and whether or not it should be allowed. What is your opinion on the matter?
If the justice system is organized and operated correctly, then I believe the death penalty should be used, but it should only be used in very severe cases.
To state my opinion, I believe in the death penalty. I feel that it is a good punishment for those who deserve it for the severe crimes in which they have committed. Many people fear death, even those who kill. So taking their life away is the ultimate punishment. However, there are people who don't fear death, in this case the death penalty doesn't really serve its purpose as far as 'punishment' goes. But it still brings justice to the public, and people personally involved in whatever crime was committed. Plus, It can also be dangerous for example if someone is getting the death penalty, yet they have been wrongly accused (Which has happened) I find that to be a flaw in the Death penalty, however nowadays we have more advanced technology and resources to where this is not a huge issue. So all in all I believe in the death penalty. But I also can see how some people would disagree with it.
I definitely support the death penalty, however unless something can be done about the cost it's just not feasible. It's much cheaper to lock them up for life.
"California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment."
"The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated."
All though I don't think that the death penalty is not warranted from this:
The death penalty is not a punishment, but is rather for the safety of others. Punishments are imposed on one for that person to learn. However, the death penalty does not give one the chance to rehabilitate and change, but rather for the safety of others; One can break out and again or commit what is not conform to our laws (Which are legislated based upon what we think of morality).
Well, what if the person is a criminal, and he has killed a lot of people, and he would POSSIBLY kill more people.. is that morally acceptable to kill him?
Do you see a difference between someone who kills another civilian for their selfish greed and blatant violation of law from the state that executes someone for the greater good of the people they serve?
No, in 99.999&#xof; the time there are other options, states still allow the death penalty because its not cheap to keep people in jail. Unless you are extremly mentally unstable and are not able to recive treatment and you are still a risk for the public, crimminal should be kept alive.
Death is simply a gift for a person who has done something horribly wrong. Slow, mental torture, instead of death should be inflicted on the persons who commit the most heinous of crimes.
I believe that would be a violation of the 8th amendment to the U.S Constitution and various underlying principles of applying punishment in a swift manner.
Nothing about death is a gift. We live in a democratic society where the principles of the constitution must be reflected within our legal system and its philosophies. Torturing people and forcing them to suffer, regardless of the crimes they committed is a reflection of the many unfair practices within previous society. If as a nation, we argue that life is sacred and that it must be treated with respect, then that applies to all categories of people regardless of their actions.
By death, a criminal gets rid of all the guilt that he has developed because of his crime. It is a fresh start for him in the other part of the mortal world. Isn't it pretty much a gift to him that he has cleared his moral guilt?
And how would you know this for a fact? What if through death the criminal is still not able to get rid of his guilt because he is a psychopath and psychopaths feels no emotion nor guilt. Rather their execution is enforced as a safeguard against society and even other inmates. You have never committed a crime nor have you been put on death row so how can you argue that it gets rid of all guilt when most people who commit gruesome murders are actually psychopaths who feels no emotion nor guilt.
You say that all people who commit gruesome murders are psychopaths. So, taking the logic of your own argument, how do you know this for sure, if you are not one yourself? What you are talking about here is a mere possibility, in the face of the general fact.
I argued that most people who commit gruesome crimes are psychopaths because statistics and science have shown there is a strong criminological correlation between the two concepts. At no point did I use the term, "all." You have no qualifications within criminology nor have you been put to death row so how can you argue that death row affects freedom of guilt when in fact, science has shown that there is no guilt as it relates to psychopathy. Even if I am not a psychopath, I have studied and analyzed criminal behavior and patterns as it relates to gruesome crimes. And based on previous patterns of criminal behavior and gruesome crimes, psychology would argue that it is a strong possibility in the face of fact unless you can prove otherwise.
There is no time that killing is justifiable, the death penalty is hypocritical and it shows how messed up/troubled someone is if they wish death on someone. I personally would never wish death penalty on someone no matter what they did to me/family/friends I would just want them in jail for a life sentence because then the threat is pretty much over.
I dont agree with it, but that doesn't mean to say that I think criminals should be let off. I just don't think or feel that anybody should have the right to end somebodies life, because that person has a family too and friends, also in some countries the seat penalty is for the stupidest crimes.
The life sentence really needs to be for a life time not only 30 years or what ever it is, but the death penalty is no morally or ethically correct.
Death penalty has nothing to do with belief. Believing in anything is like being religious, and that is bad. I either know or don't know, trust or don't trust. Belief is irrational and just pointless.
Hey there, nummi. Take it easy. I am starting to notice that each and every dispute of yours ends up with taking a not so favorable stand for belief. The debate has no relation with belief, whatsoever.
