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.
Cheaper, less silly (to prevent killing we kill people), and no evidence to suggest that it's any better than the death penalty. Life imprisonment is clearly superior.
Yes, and in fact it's worse than death penalty when it's along with solitary confinement. That is an extreme torture rightly deserved by the worst of criminals.
First of all, it's hugely insulting to imply that death is the only thing that a suicide bomber cares about. How can you even begin to consider dealing death to someone if you don't even understand their motives in even a basic manner.
To the original question, I don't think that anyone should be killed by a state. There's too many risks, too many variables, too big a cost, too little proof of it working, lots of problems. It's such a draconian idea, something that needs to be ended.
Well, a suicide bomber does this: Install bombs on himself and blow them up. That would obviously lead to death.
The disadvantage of life imprisonment (though I support it) is that it is a burden on the country's resources. Spending so much to keep criminals alive....
Yes, but they it's not about the arbitrary act of dying. If the US shoots a suicide bomber (also called a martyr), they won't be satisfied. They want to change something for what they perceive to be good.
To use an example that you might find easier to understand, consider a US commando unit. If they went to Afghanistan to kill some high up member of Al-Qaeda, but they were killed outside their houses, would they be happy? They would have have failed their mission, just as much as a martyr would have failed theirs.
And to the second point, yes, there's definitely studies that show that even 50 years in jail is cheaper than a death sentence, depending on many factors obviously. But it's worth thinking about.
Giving a death sentence to a suicide bomber is NOT giving him what he wishes. Like any other group of individuals their wishes lie with in inability to determine their own destinies. Radical islamist groups are no different, they rise in the muslim world is largely attributable to the deprecation suffered by the worlds muslim populations. They have been systematically oppressed, this has nourished the most radical elements within their societies, now, as for your jibe about giving them "what they want", this is a fairly short sighted opinion, you have to have some understanding of power in order to understand what the motivations of groups like the Taliban actually are.
A creed has always been a marvellous source of power, and if it's religious, all the better. If the odds are stacked against you, it is natural to resort to an extreme doctrine in order to boost moral, and thus, make victory more probable, or in the case of suicide bombers, simply to increase your enemies casualities. It's no secret that Mohammed used the promise of paradise to those that fell fighting the infidel as a means to promote courage and confidence in battle.
More often than not though, these kinds of extreme doctrines are employed in desparation, people need to feel like there really is no other option, if they think their existence, or their way of life is under threat, there is likelyhood that they will resort to fairly extreme measures.
How are they systematically oppressed? The gang of middle east countries, largely comprising of the Muslim population are oppressed? They are much less oppressed than the blacks of Africa. Much less.
Not to take it literally, but my comment meant that the suicide bombers are prepared to DIE. They never fear death. A death sentence won't be a matter for them but a life sentence would. Because sitting in a jail they would rot to death thinking of how they failed to achieve their motive.
So, should they be given a death sentence also? Also, in relation to Africa, I do beleive based on what I know, although I have not done any kind of significant research on the topic, that the African continent has achieved more self governance than the middle east, primarily because of the lack of comparable oil reserves did not necessitate outside interference to the same degree. I'm open to being challenged on that, and I'm quite prepared to admit they have been just as oppressed, and historically, have in fact suffered hardships even greater than those of people from the ME.
"Limited information as compared to your exorbitant information?"
I'm not the one speculating on the innermost feelings of an imprisoned suicide bomber, but speaking as a self aware human, I think most of them would be happy not to be dead. But again, that is just speculation, I can't back this up, like you can't up your original statement.
What you've done is created a debate based on a counter-intuitive (IMHO) blurb, and when I pointed out that fact that you have presented nothing substantive to back it, you react by claiming I have not presented any evidence to the contrary, sorry, but that's not the way debating works.
You made the senstationalist claim, therefore the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders, if you cannot present anything aside from baised opinion, I shall dismiss this as the speculative nonsense it clearly is.
If you give death sentence to a suicide bomber, you give him what he wanted in the first place.
Situation:
The suicide bomber's gang succeeds in killing the enemy.
He is caught and brought to justice.
Situation A: The punishment is death sentence
The suicide bomber will take the death sentence as he already has prepared himself that he WILL die once the bomb goes off and kills his enemy.
Situation B: The punishment is life sentence with solitary confinement.
That would inevitably lead to a miserable life.
I hope that's clear now.
African continent has achieved more self governance than the middle east, primarily because of the lack of comparable oil reserves did not necessitate outside interference to the same degree.
Write a new debate on the same. It's an interesting topic.
You made the senstationalist claim, therefore the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders, if you cannot present anything aside from baised opinion, I shall dismiss this as the speculative nonsense it clearly is.
I presume this is an opinion site where people represent their viewpoints and not what is a 'fact'? What's the point of discussing facts, or is there?
As you said, YOU think most of them would be happy not to be dead. I think most of them would be happy to be dead than in solitary confinement. Viewpoints. You are free to agree or disagree.
"The suicide bomber will take the death sentence as he already has prepared himself that he WILL die once the bomb goes off and kills his enemy."
This assumes suicide bombers want to die, they are driven by incomprehensible desparation and their minds have been manipulated by the most perverse of ideolgies, if they fail to do the damage intended in them committing suicide, I see no reason why they would still wish to die, and even if some did, a humane society is supposed to try to reform people, not kill them, that's the idea behind sending psychopath's to an insane asylm and not the electric chair.
"That would inevitably lead to a miserable life."
How do you know this? Again, this is unsubstantiated speculation, and frankly, counter intuitive.
"I hope that's clear now."
It was clear from the beginning but I still no reason to beleive any of it.
"Write a new debate on the same. It's an interesting topic."
Actually you're right.
"I presume this is an opinion site where people represent their viewpoints and not what is a 'fact'?"
Ya, you're right, but you're the one trying to assert suicude bombers would prefer death to captivity, I pointed out baselessness of the claim, then you reacted by saying I have no basis by which to disagree, which is true, but I'm not trying to assert anything, you are.
"As you said, YOU think most of them would be happy not to be dead. I think most of them would be happy to be dead than in solitary confinement. Viewpoints. You are free to agree or disagree."
As I said, that's just my impression, the truth value of my opinion is zero, that's why if you, ir anyone else asked me what exactly we should, I would say: "how bout asking the people themselves whether they want to die instead of chucking them into an electric chair"
I think they should kill the people who do serious crimes because if we put them in jail then the jail will be overcrowded. If only people actually allowed the death penalty where once you murder someone there life must be takened. Some of the people need to be killed.
Well yes because if we keep all the criminals in jail for something they did really wrong then the jails will get overcrowded and that is why there is overpopulation sometimes in jails. If we killed some of the criminals that murdered someone then it would be a whole lot better
Well actually my religion is involved because in the Bible it tells that if someone kills someone there life needs to be taken away. And if someone rapes a child or abuses them they have to get killled.
I think that they shouldn't suffer there time in prision because if you let them out then, they would probably do something else. Also I would kill the people who are in prision for the rest of there life, if they did something very serious.
As far as I was aware, it only supports killing in the Old Testament, whilst Jesus' message was to love they neighbour, and turn the other cheek, and all. I don't agree with Christianity, but I do agree with much of the morals that Jesus preached, they're essentially good.
The death sentence should be given to the worst kind of criminals.
Should, because it's impractical considering what we're playing with; justice. Not life. Justice should be preserved at all times, and the state should never execute someone without knowing all the facts, and being completely sure that they were responsible for whatever deed committed.
I think that killing the worst criminals is the best, but least realistic, option.
well, actually, from the POV of criminals death sentence is better than life imprisonment (which is usually solitary confinement). Imagine having to spend your whole life in a closed dingy room with nobody to talk to but yourself?
Death sentance definatly an eye for an eye you kill someone they should be killed but it's not much of a punishment if it's painless should be slow like the electric chair.
