Debate Info

Makes sense Ludicrous, no
Debate Score:27
Total Votes:33
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Makes sense (3)
 Ludicrous, no (9)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3321) pic

Public executions to deter murder?

Makes sense

Side Score: 8

Ludicrous, no

Side Score: 19
3 points

Well watching someone break there leg jumping a fence will most likely deter you from jumping that fence don't you think? Having televised murder maybe on pay-per-view could very possibly deter a numerous amount of murders. It may not have worked in the past but a lot of things didn't work in the past.

Side: Makes sense
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
0 points

You're assuming that murderers think like you do. And that the death penalty is a cause of horror. The process is usually quite peaceful, and sociopaths don't connect the emotions of anyone, much less one they see on tv, to their own.

Televised executions would not stop a single murder.

Side: Ludicrous, no
1 point

It actually makes perfect sense. Make an example.

sure, knowing that you will die if you commit murder is a deterrent, but actually showing everyone... now that'll make them shit their pants.

That's how leaders keep their people in line. They punish the first offender in front of everyone else. After that, they don't need to worry about offenders (and when there are more, you punish them as well in front of everyone else).

Side: Makes sense
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

Sure, this works great for the general population. If a normal person sees someone executed for throwing trash out of their car window, they won't throw trash outside of their car window.

But the general population does not commit murder. You cannot assume that one so psychologically and emotionally sick that they'd kill another human, are going to react to deterents the same as the general population.

For example, before Soviet Russia fell it had exraordinarilly strict laws, and before the curtain was pulled aside revealing the great Oz, so to speak, many myths were encouraged by their government, one of them being they did not have the problem the U.S. had with serial murders, as a result of their stictness. Most people believed this to be true. But it turned out the Soviet Union had as much, if not more of a problem with serial killers, than the United States.


Obviously these people who function from a different perspective, were not detered.

The other type of murder, spur of the moment, highly emotional, eg. a guy catching his wife cheating, then killing one or both.

In that situation again, the person is not thinking of someone else executed, in that moment, they really don't care if they are executed themselves.

Side: Ludicrous, no
ThePyg(6743) Disputed
1 point

what about anti-socials who do it not for power, but for a reason.

most anti-social murderers have a reason for their crime. a couple are psychopaths as well, and a good amount (but not most) do it in the heat of passion.

but, as for the heat of passion. a man finds out his wife is cheating on him. instead of killing her right away, he starts to plan it:

1. he is not an anti-social yet still has decided to kill her.

2. he has time to think about what's going on.

so that one can easily be deterred, not even by public executions, just by the idea of it.

as for anti-socials. some do it for the power. They like the idea of killing people and watching their inferiority. the thing about anti-socials, though, is that they don't crave murder. they can do other things. sort of like the guy who really wants to take acid but decides not to anyway. only difference here is that the anti-social has a lot more to do then the wannabe junkie.

psychopaths, yes, are impossible to stop from committing murder. they do it because they are combined with an anti-social personality and schizophrenia or a schizoid personality. They're usually insane, as well.

the main person that this will stop is the planner. the person who is pissed and is trying to find a way to kill whomever. will it stop many crimes? probably not. But it will stop a few.

as for the USSR, they killed people for almost anything. if you were christian, you died. if you were jewish, you died. if you wrote poetry, you died.

hard to deter open mindedness, and in a dark world such as the USSR, people were far more likely to be filled with rage and hate. just a bunch of ticking time bombs.

Side: Makes sense
5 points

I say nay, did it work in the past? Nope.

A lunatic isn't going to be restrained just by a visual. Maybe a sane man but again sane people commit crimes of passion that can end up in murder.

Since it didn't work with public hanging in the past why would it work in the present?

Side: Ludicrous, no
3 points

I don't think it would deter murder at all... People are well aware of the consequences of murdering another human being. But I do think executions should be broadcasted on TV. Not on any mainstream television station, but it'd be interesting to allow the people associated with the case to watch the culprit die, kind of like revenge.

Side: Ludicrous, no
3 points

You used to be able to, I am unsure of the present. But I do not think I would find any relief from seeing another man's life taken from him/her. I think I would rather see that man rot in prison for the rest of their lives.

Side: Ludicrous, no

These are not deterrants...they are spectacles. Nothing more and nothing less.

Side: Ludicrous, no
1 point

There is no evidence that lies within the experiences of mankind to infer the existence of a deterrent for murder. Consequently, we lack the necessary evidence to either prove or disprove the affect of public executions. Public executions might provoke or deter they who are murderous in intention. And until a self-evident argument can axiomatically affirm or deny either consequence of public execution, we can not reasonably argue either affect.

Side: unknown

Children will look at them and become traumatized. Not a good idea!

Side: Ludicrous, no
0 points

There are barely any lunatics left dude.

ANy murder nowadays it;s society's problem not the individuals.

Side: Ludicrous, no