CreateDebate


Debate Info

262
224
Let 'em live Hang 'em high!
Debate Score:486
Arguments:234
Total Votes:625
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Let 'em live (130)
 
 Hang 'em high! (104)

Debate Creator

Republican2(351) pic



Should America ban the death penalty?

Should America refrain from implementing capital punishment? Or is it neccessary to keep our judicial system funtioning properly?

Let 'em live

Side Score: 262
VS.

Hang 'em high!

Side Score: 224
9 points

First off, let me just say that I believe in the death penalty 100%. I think it is philosophically and morally justified to execute anyone who has murdered another human being. There are few mitigating circumstances that excuse this behavior.

When someone does something wrong, they have to make up for it completely. If a person take a life, the only way to make up for it is to forfeit theirs.

However, we have one major problem: application.

People have, and will, be executed even though they are innocent of the crime. We may never know, 100%, if someone has or has not committed the crime of murder. There is no way to make up for the mistake, there is no way to bring a person back to life.

Unless we can come up with a system that almost always guarantees a fair trial with a correct verdict, I don't think it is right to put innocent people at risk.

Right now, though, I am not convinced that our system is accurate enough to make me comfortable with execution. If we could get it to 90-99% accuracy, I would be fine. But it looks abit more like 60-70% accuracy at this point.

Side: Let 'em live
4 points

Also, it's actually more expensive to execute someone in the United States than to support them for the rest of their life- it's ridiculously impractical, and why waste more resources?

Side: Let 'em live
dudleysharp(10) Disputed
3 points

Death Penalty Costs Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP & Fact Checking Required

Dudley Sharp, contact info below

As a general rule, the death penalty cost studies are worthless. Those that purport to compare life without parole costs to death penalty cost are, in most cases, comparing apples to kangaroos not apples to apples.

There is no reason that the death penalty, in general, should be more expensive than LWOP and, in many, if not most cases, the death penalty should be less expensive.

1) Virginia: How the death penalty will save money over life without parole (LWOP).

Virginia executes in 5-7 years. 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed. Only 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned.

(Source Virginia AG)

With the high costs of long term imprisonment, such a system, as Virginia's, a true life sentence will be more expensive than such a death penalty protocol. All states could duplicate this protocol, with the major exception that you can't transfer Virginia jurisdiction judges to other states.

2) Texas cost study - I have told the Dallas Morning News for years, to stop using their totally inaccurate cost review. They still use it.

They found that it costs $2.3 million per average death penalty case (for 5 cases), more than 3 times more expensive than a $750,000 life sentence. (C. Hoppe, "Executions Cost Texas Millions," The Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992, 1A)

The death penalty costs are for pre trial, trial and appeals and incarceration. Yet, the life cost is only for confinement for life. Big problem.

In addition, an academic review, by a neutral academic, found that the verifiable costs in the DMN article actually found the death penalty was cheaper.

p154-156 http://books.google.com/books?id=IQJtCjhdGeUC&pg;=PA154&lpg;=PA154&ots;=Mtji7SSu0v&dq;=cost+"death+penalty"+Dallas+morning+news"&ie;=ISO-8859-1&output;=html

3) Duke (North Carolina) Death Penalty Cost Study: Let's be honest

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/06/duke-north-carolina-death-penalty-cost.html

Almost exclusively, this study is presented, by media and anti death penalty folks, as the best example of the death penalty being much more expensive than a life sentence. Fact checking reveals just the opposite.

This study has been so distorted in the media and within anti death penalty literature that it really should be mandatory teaching in journalism schools as a fact checking disaster. I cannot find one example where the authors of the study ever corrected these distortions, thereby reflecting poorly on them, as well.

Prof. Cook, one of the authors, has a new study out, which claims an $11 million savings for NC, by ending the death penalty. I haven't read it yet. Maybe it really finds the death penalty saves money.

4) Cost Savings: The Death Penalty

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/07/cost-savings-the-death-penalty.aspx

A general review of some of the study problems and corrections for them.

5) Maryland cost study: A reply

See Dudley Sharp comments to article, after article at

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/03/09/death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison/

6) Colorado

Cost, Deception & the Death Penalty: The Colorado Experience

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/28/ cost-deception--the-death-penalty-the-colorado-experience.aspx

7) New Jersey - See my reply to the official state review of costs, in the reply section, at bottom

December 24, 2007 6:50 AM

dudleysharp said...

http://hallnj.blogspot.com/2007/12/case-for-repealing-death-penalty.html

8) Kansas - The study most quoted found that death penalty cases cost 70%, or about $500,000 more per median case cost than for the equivalent non death penalty murder case, but, the foundation was this: " . . .there was nothing we could look at to verify the accuracy of any of the data assembled for this report." (page 2). "Actual cost figures for death penalty and non death penalty cases in Kansas don't exist." (page 10). On pages 29 and 31 the study discussed methods of saving money. Again, please refer to "Cost Savings: The Death Penalty". ("Performance Office Report: Costs Incurred for Death penalty Cases", A K-Goal Audit of the Department of Corrections, by the Legislative Division of Post Audit - A Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee, December 2003)

9) California - There are a few cost study numbers that are quoted, based, exclusively on analysis by anti death penalty folks. California considered a thorough, objective study by RAND, below, but rejected it. It was too expensive!

"Investigating the Costs of the Death Penalty in California: Insights for Future Data Collection in California, RAND Corp., 2/2008

http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2008/RAND_CT300.pdf

Sincerely, Dudley Sharp

e-mail [email protected], 713-622-5491,

Houston, Texas

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

Coming from New Zealand, another proud democratic country like america,we choose to give up the death penalty some fifty years ago, yet our murder rate is somewhat lower than the USA.Other democracys such as australia and britain have significantly lower rates per capita/head of population than USA. Obviously the system is flawed,perhaps the problem lies with gun control, the lack theirin?

Side: Let 'em live
LizBiz15(12) Disputed
1 point

On the contrary, The cost of the death penalty is much higher than other punishments. Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is the same for a Death Penalty case, only more so.

More pre-trial time,

More experts,

Twice as many attorneys,

2 trials instead of 1, 1 for guilt, 1 for punishment,

And a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in high security of death row.

It's also a well-known fact that people with resources get lighter sentences. They can afford better lawyers than others. This is just one fault in our legal system.

As the saying goes, Capital punishment means those without capital get the punishment.

Side: Let 'em live
izazovnog(322) Disputed
1 point

Yes, it may cost to execute, however you will be greatly reducing the cost of dealing with crime, as criminals will worry about dieing(for example, murder). The crime rate was higher after the death penalty than before it.

Side: Hang 'em high!
Aries(37) Disputed
1 point

Then you should reduce the costs of the execution. The only reason it is more expensive is because people make it more expensive with a overly complicated process.

Side: Hang 'em high!
Republican2(351) Disputed
-1 points

That's only partially true. The cost of execution is dependant on the state the prisoner is to be tried and executed in. Some states (such as Texas) have streamlined their court system to more easily accommodate execution. the current plan has been in place for 7 years now and with over 10,000 executions, there hasn't been a single false conviction. Texas' system of capital punishment is less than a quarter the cost of housing a criminal for life.

Side: Hang 'em high!
pix042(2) Disputed
2 points

I assume in what follows that we, the country or the state, execute only for the crime of murder, though many capital punishment adherents would use it for other crimes, such as child rape, treason, arson, robbery and even fraud.

I say this:

We show we are better than the muder convict by not executing him/her.

What does this mean? Well, the murderer (if he/she is truly guilty - a separate reason to be anti death penalty is that sometimes there has been a miscarriage of justice and the convict is innocent!) has shown no mercy by killing someone. If we, that is, the country or the state, extracts an eye for an eye (sometimes on a spurious religious basis) by executing the murder convict we surrender the moral high ground and lower ourselves to the morally bankrupt level of the murder convict. We make ourselves less by doing the same as the murder convict - that is, not valuing a human life.

I call for an end to the death penalty in the USA (it has happened already in Europe). It is barbaric for the above moral reason i have outlined.

Long prison sentences are the answer.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

just pointing out that you argue to eliminate the death penalty, but your argument is tagged as 'Hang 'em high'

Side: Let 'em live
LeahRose(8) Disputed
1 point

Excuse me but I believe what you are referring to is justice and letting the person sit in jail while our tax dollars are paying for him to sit there and not be rightly punished is so totally wrong

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

"People have, and will, be executed even though they are innocent of the crime."- there is no evidence of anyone ever being wrongfully executed in the United States.

"Unless we can come up with a system that almost always guarantees a fair trial with a correct verdict, I don't think it is right to put innocent people at risk."- ill answer this with another quote: "if government functioned only when the possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all." If its not right to put innocent people at risk, then why are people allowed to drive?

Side: Let 'em live
pix042(2) Disputed
1 point

I assume in what follows that we, the country or the state, execute only for the crime of murder, though many capital punishment adherents would use it for other crimes, such as child rape, treason, arson, robbery and even fraud.

Side: Hang 'em high!
Republican2(351) Disputed
1 point

"But it looks abit more like 60-70% accuracy at this point."

Where did you get these statistics? I can tell you for certain the accuracy is much higher than this.

Side: Hang 'em high!
mattshank(11) Disputed
1 point

I believe in the death penalty 100% too, but I’m disappointed in the non-needed politics behind it. I hear of plenty of obviously-guilty people in the news that committed absolutely deplorable acts that get only life in prison. As a citizen in a state that rarely utilizes the death penalty, I’d like to see THESE people succumbing to their damned fate. States like Texas need to be more conservative in their sentencing of the death penalty, and states like Pennsylvania need to be more liberal. The death penalty needs to become more equalized.

Side: Hang 'em high!
2 points

The death penalty doesn't need to become more equalized. The death penalty is useless deterrent from crime. Granted, someone, who bestows great harm onto a family for egregious acts, doesn't give the government the right to kill that person. The eye for an eye biblical crap is barbaric and outdated. All death penalty should be abolished. If anything, the death penalty is a easy way out for most of the criminals instead of living and suffering in a small cell with crappy food. Maybe instead of killing inmates, they should get rid of more privileges like going outside and visitation. The death penalty is saying that we give up on this person, and we enjoy watching people die.

Side: Let 'em live
dudleysharp(10) Disputed
1 point

Innocence

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:

"The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scam

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

"The Exonerated: Are Any Actually Innocent?"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/08/21/the-exonerated-are-any-actually-innocent---new-mexico.aspx

Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

"At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

"Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles

http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/ Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx

"A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

One, I will agree with you because you have a lot of likes.

Second, I agree with you.

Finally, this is the right choice for me.

Side: Let 'em live
5 points

The death penalty has no place in modern society. It is a primitive, ineffective system based on emotion rather than logic.

1- Cost - It costs way more to put someone to death than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives. About 10 times as much. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

2- Morality - If it's not acceptable for people to kill people, what makes it ok for the government to kill people? The state-sanctioned killing of a country's own citizens is a hallmark of third world nations. State run executions are done in the interest of political gain (usually occurs in dictatorships) or emotional fulfillment (such is the case in America). Either way, nothing is undone with the killing of a prisoner. To quote Gandhi: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

3- Deterrence - The fear of death doesn't deter anymore crime than the fear of life imprisonment does. The people who commit crimes that deserve such heavy punishments don't think about the consequences. If they did, then they probably wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. Also, the death penalty in the US isn't a painful, public spectacle. The criminals have no shame or pain to fear. The death penalty may have deterred crime in the 17 or 1800's, but it is simply out of place in modern society.

4- Accuracy - No justice system is perfect, so it is unwise to assign punishments that cannot be reversed. With life in imprisonment, judicial mistakes can be rectified. With death they cannot

Side: Let 'em live
Kinda(1649) Disputed
2 points

Cost - Includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs. Without the trials and appeals, death penalty cases would be much cheaper than confining inmates for the rest of their lives.

Morality - When people kill people is usually isn't justifiable. When the government makes the decision it is based on evidence, logic and non-bias. Even if a person does kill another person justifiably it isn't their job to do it. In the same way it's not their job to arrest people, bank people's money, act as a defence lawyer etc. it is not their job to murder even in a logically, morally, calculated way. They should leave that to the government to make the decision and actions.

Deterrence - The fear of death doesn't deter because there isn't a fear of death.. there isn't even death. Read the statistics on the website you provided and you'll find that less than 5% of criminals get executed. With federal cases averages to about 27%. People know they aren't very likely to be put to death because they are able to appeal, reappeal, rereappeal, rerereappeal, rererereappeal, rererererereappeal and at worst they'll be put on death row but never executed.

The problem with the death penalty doesn't lie with the death penalty itself but how it is carried out. It should not be so easy to defeat and be appealed against. For something that's meant to be tough love.. it doesn't really give it. Not only would it reduce costs.. it would also increase the deterrence.

Side: Hang 'em high!
vassilgl(55) Disputed
3 points

Cost- "Without the trials and appeals, death penalty cases would be much cheaper than confining inmates for the rest of their lives." So are you saying that in order to prevent costs we should just kill people without trials or appeals? The fact that life sentences cost less is due to the fact that they are treated no differently than the general prison population and have limited appeals (this is because while the convicted person is alive, the possibility of a wrongful incarceration can be rectified, whereas death sentences cannot.). The whole point of unlimited appeals is to try to explore all possible evidence before an irreversible decision is made. If the death penalty were simply abolished, there would be no endless chain of appeals and therefore cost would decrease.

Morality - "When the government makes the decision it is based on evidence, logic and non-bias." The fact that the death penalty is considered makes the government inherently illogical in this aspect. There is no gain to be had by killing a person besides emotional satisfaction. No crimes are undone and there is no punishment or hope of redemption for the convicted. The government's job is not to satisfy the feelings of its people by killing the citizens many people would consider to be "bad."

Deterrence - "The fear of death doesn't deter because there isn't a fear of death.. there isn't even death." Since there is no fear of death as you say, why bother having a death penalty? The fact that there are limitless appeals brings us back to a first argument. You need to have unlimited appeals to make sure that the person who you are executing is the right person. The ability to appeal is very important in death penalty cases, and their existence is not a legitimate way to excuse the ineffectiveness of a death penalty system.

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

I disagree with all three of your points, but the most telling point is the one you ignored, accuracy. The fact is that we as fallible humans have yet to devise a system that determines guilt with certainty. Death is irreversible and an innocent person who gets executed won't even get the satisfaction of hearing you say "oops".

Side: Let 'em live
4 points

Disclaimer: This is a philosophy I am trying out. I have no guarantees that it is correct.

Justice in terms of punishment is something that humans have decided is necessary, but it's just a concept. A murderer being killed doesn't change what happened, it just satisfies people's need for revenge, and fulfills our society's concept of "justice". But what really happened? One person died, then another person died. That's it. Of course, we have guaranteed that the second person can't hurt anyone else anymore, but we can come close to guaranteeing that with a very high security prison.

To me, the system's job is one thing: To prevent a similar crime from happening again, not to fulfill a concept that we have invented.

Again, this is just a theory of mine. I may or may not believe it myself. But it kind of makes sense to me.

Side: Let 'em live
4 points

Justice is only a concept, but it's an important one. Punishing those who do evil creates a deterrent and solidifies the values that keep people behaving properly. It's one of the main things that allows us to function as a society.

Side: Let 'em live
3 points

I agree, but I guess my questions are: 1. Does the death penalty deter evil more than life in prison? and 2. Is it wrong to kill someone in the name of a concept we invented?

Side: Let 'em live

The death penalty is useless deterrent of crime because in the states that have them, they are not any more inclined to commit a crime because the threat of death penalty particularly if it is murder. The death penalty is scam because it assuages the self perception of vengeance in the victims eyes. It is a waste of time and money.

Side: Let 'em live
3 points

I think its indisputable that the only justification for taking a life is to save a life.

The death penalty is sometimes claimed to save lives through deterrence. However, with life in prison or pretty much any other severe sentence, the benefit to a murderer of killing someone is already far outweighed by the cost. Therefore, murderers are beyond rational cost/benefit calculation and adding to the cost will not create further deterrence.

Thus, it has been demonstrated that the death penalty is not justified.

Side: Let 'em live
3 points

Yes, the death penalty should be banned, I have no idea why they still invoke this penalty. You can see why the death penalty should be banned by looking at a single argument.

1. Some people think it is worse living in prison in life then dying.

2. Some people think it is worse dying then living in prison for life.

3. Therefore, dying and living in prison are probably morally equal.

4.Living in jail for life costs less money then the death penalty.

5. This money which goes to the death penalty which could be spent in prison rises the americans tax payments.

6. Whenever the death penalty is performed instead of life in prison, the American is paying more tax then he needs to.

7. The American should not have to pay more tax then he needs to because of someone else's actions.

8. Therefore, the death penalty should be banned.

A few figures to support my argument:

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

In addition, it is evident that the death penalty does not deter murder rates. In a chard found on: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty- have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout, it shows that the murder rate is higher in death penalty states in the last 15 or so years. The percent dwindles around 10%, which may seem small at first but is actually pretty large when considering all of the deaths. So death penalty somehow increases murder rates, maybe a survey will help us understand why. On blurtit.com, their is a survey that shows 55% of people would prefer the death penalty to life in jail. Why? because life in jail is a plainly bleak existence. So what are the reasons for the death penalty again? Oh yeah, their arent any.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

people should not be punished for making bad mistakes. if we did then wher would society be today?

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

In judicial administration, there are basically three types of punishments awarded to people who have committed crimes: the first is what are known as "reformative " punishments, in which the purpose of the punishment is to enable the criminal to reform himself. Punishments here would be in the form of community service,jail sentence etc..; the second is what are known as retributive , in which the punishment is in the form of public lashing, cutting off hands or legs etc., which is expected to work as a revenge and should satisfy the person against whom the crime is perpetrated; the third is what is known as "deterrent" punishment, whereby the object of the punishment is to deter any other person from committing similar crimes. Death penalty is usually a deterrent punishment, and it can be argued that many would-be criminals would be deterred from committing the crime if they know the penalty that would meet them is their death.

Whether death penalty should be available as an option in a judicial system or not, depends upon the sensitivity of the society to the criminal acts. If some people in that society feel it is "worth it " to commit a crime, because they can serve some term in prison and come back into the society, then it may be necessary to put the fear of life ( death sentence ) into such people by showing that others who have done such crimes have been put to death.

The question of whether death sentence should be allowed to continue or not, is therefore dependent upon the society and in general a society that has evolved as a "civilized" society would not need such punishments.

America, has no doubt evolved as a civilized society, but it has terrible enemies who would work from within its society and this may be a reason for wanting to continue death penalty. But then, by awarding death penalty to such people, you make martyrs of them. Therefore life sentence would also serve as a better deterrent in such cases. So death penalty should be banned.

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

First off, killing by a person, an army or the state is wrong. Secondly, innocent people are found on death row periodically and some of them have been killed already. Life in prison would guarantee that innocents are not killed.

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

The majority of countries have abolished the death penalty. Most executions took place in these 14 countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, US, Pakistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Japan, Yemen, Indonesia, Libya and Sudan. I am against the death penalty because we have an imperfect justice system in the U.S. Mistakes are inevitable and not worth any perceived benefit. The debate was formulated using the word America but I think it more appropriate to say should the U.S. ban the death penalty since the U.S. does not have claim to all of America--North, South etc.

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

I think America should ban the death penalty because no man/woman has the right to kill anyone even if the have done something wrong, because i believe that only God should have the power to take people's lives.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

Exactly! No man, woman, or government has the right to take a life. No matter how justified it is. God is the only being with that power.

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

If one commits a murder, they are for sure the scum of the Earth. If one commits more than one, hell has been specially reserved for them. But in real life, who are we to judge whether someone should live or die. That's an awfully big responsibility on the judges. Rather they should be forced (if convicted of course) to contribute to society, while remaining in prison. You kill someone, fine. You still have the right to appeal, but you must work as a slave or close to that status for the duration of your sentence. It's illogical how we would just lock up a killer, to waste tax dollars rotting in prison, or to kill the person, doing unnecessary things like say giving the person antiseptics before a lethal injection.

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

The death penalty is not used for what it is supposed to be used for.

We will kill a man that shoots a man sleeping with his wife but we will not kill a man that has murdered hundreds of women because he can tell you where a few skulls may be.

Our Prisons house people that do not need to be locked up as they are not threats to society and then complain they had no room for the molester or rapist. Now they are back on our streets and will probably kill their next victim as we have seen over and over again.

Prisons are for people that can not function in our society without menacing other citizens and the death penalty is for those that have committed horrible murders against other human beings.

We can not change our entire prison system but we can stop executing people based on the fact they have nothing to give us in return for their life.

Examples: Scott Peterson is going to die on death row however Gary Ridgeway (Green River Killer) will spend life in prison because he could tell you where he buried someone 25 years ago. Scott Peterson deserves his fate but he could have received life in prison had he just killed a few more people.

If we are not going to use it for serial killers the why do we use it at all?

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

1.)the death penalty violates the right to life...

2.)the death penalty also is premediated murder,it demeans the state and makes society more violent!

3.)the death penalty is also discriminatory in its application what i mean is that through out the world the death penalty is disproportionately used against disadvantaged people .some condemned prisoners from the most impoverished social classes would not have been sentenced to death if they were from a wealthier sector of society!!!!!

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

"Why do we kill people for killing people to show people that killing people is wrong?"

-unknown

Well said.

Side: Let 'em live
Republican2(351) Disputed
1 point

The death sentance is not supposed to show that killing is wrong. People should already know that, and the ones who murder don't care that it's wrong. It's there to show people what will happen to them if they get caught killing.

Side: Hang 'em high!
2 points

Whats the point of punishing someone that killed someone by killing him. Two wrongs do not make a right

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

Those who committed horrible deeds should not be killed. That would be too easy a punishment. Would you prefer someone who killed five children for no reason dead, or in prison till the end of his miserable existence? I know my point of view.

Side: Worse than death
Republican2(351) Disputed
1 point

People who are desperate or deranged enough to murder are usually living a very difficult existence beforehand. Prisoners however, get a roof over their heads with comfortable beds, 3 meals every day, amenities like a gym, personal weight rooms, pools, arcades, billiard halls, you name it. The fact of the matter is that our current judicial system babies our criminals. US prison inmates live better than over half the world population and their only drawback (albeit a significant one) is their confinement.

Side: Hang 'em high!
2 points

I was going to exclude serial murderers, then realized this was an all or nothing question.

1. Murder is wrong. Period. Nothing justifies state sanctioned murder.

2. Depending on the person, many people are not the same 20 years later. Some murders are done spare of the moment, it doesn't make it right, but people can change. Crimes done in younger years may not be committed again as an older person.

3. There's no need for the death penalty. All you have to do is put them in with the general prison population and it will be taken care of - its all a matter of survival of the fittest and won't cost us a penny.

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

As of last week, here are the stats for US executions - top 8. Texas put to death Cameron Todd Willingham for example who was innocent and has had 41 exonerations since 1989 and many of those people were on death row. Again they were predominantly blacks.

Texas 465

Virginia 108

Oklahoma 96

Florida 69

Missouri 68

Alabama 50

Georgia 49

North Carolina 43

Not to put too fine a point on it, but all southern states.

Side: Let 'em live
Republican2(351) Disputed
1 point

Texas put to death Cameron Todd Willingham for example who was innocent and has had 41 exonerations since 1989.

One example of a presumably false execution. They are extremely rare. You are at far greater risk of dying from a car crash. Should we ban cars too?

and many of those people were on death row

Yes Texas tries very hard to administer a just punishment as often as it can, but the problem with this is appeals. When someone is being tried for a capital offense they are given appeals to higher courts, often up the supreme court, but of course they hardly ever make it there, so they sit for decades on death row enjoying their wide screen TVs, spacious cells, and personal weight rooms. This is the reason the death penalty is so expensive, and it's also why, after many trials, the defense is able to plant some seed of reasonable doubt, and a sympathetic jury exonerates them. Even when their actual innocence is very questionable.

Again they were predominantly blacks.

Of course they are. Blacks are committing a greater proportion of crime:

Number of white people in prison: 736 per 100,000

Number of black people in prison: 4,789 per 100,000

The numbers speak for themselves.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but all southern states.

That's because they are mostly conservative, and conservatives don't see a problem with ending the existence of a murderer or rapist.

Side: Hang 'em high!
JulieD(17) Disputed
2 points

It doesn't matter how rare they are. One is ample enough.

Blacks are committing the majority of crimes? Umm, so the good ole boy white network no longer exists in Texas? Yeah right!

I've often wondered if conservatives lack the empathy gene. Personally, its not something I would brag about.

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

YES! USA is a democratic country

the only democratic country that still have death pentally.

the point of doing USA inpediant was to do the worlds most democratic country in the world.

and in a modern democratic society everyone have the right to live.

Side: Let 'em live

The Death Penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. It should be abolished.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

The death penalty would be great and very practical, but the duration of time it takes for a prisoner to eventually be executed is over a span of decades and there are hardly any peopleto be executed. That's how it is in America anyways. If the death penalty were to be in effect immediately when sentence, then it would be practical. But now? The whole idea sound far too vestigal and drawn-out. Make the guilty feel penitence for there misdeeds for the span of the lives, rather than going out in peace and closure after fifteen years of dwelling on it.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

yes it is true,they are also human being n they hav right to live

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

I believe that nothing you do can justify a person to kill you. So yes the death penalty should be banned.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

I would have to say that I support that they should live. Those people that have done something wrong should be given a chance to if they are truely repentant. It would also have to depend on the extent on the murder, whether it was an accident or non accidental, also the number of people slaughtered.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

so they can live every day of there life and thing about the persons life they kill it take them long to kill people on death row it take them three or more year to sat a day so why not let them live some people on death row or wrongful conviction so what about those people they can not die

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

If we continue to allow the death penalty, we are no better than the murderers and rapists that we punish with the death penalty. Killing the criminal would just make others angry, since there are other ways to take criminals out of the streets, like life sentences. Also, this could inspire modern-world vigilantes and gang members to have an "eye for an eye" mentality, which means that they will return violence and murder with violence and murder. They will think that if the government does it, it's right for them to do it. And what about the criminals' families? What will they think when they're family member has been murdered by the government? Criminals, as bad as they may be, do have families. The death sentence is just one of those things that makes the cynics right, it is a disgrace to fix a problem with murder.

Side: Hang 'em high!
Republican2(351) Disputed
1 point

If we continue to allow the death penalty, we are no better than the murderers and rapists that we punish with the death penalty.

They started it.

Killing the criminal would just make others angry, since there are other ways to take criminals out of the streets, like life sentences.

The death sentence has been used since the beginning of the United States, and rarely, if ever, has there been an occurrence in which someone avenges the death of a murderer or rapist. And life sentences cost a considerable amount of money. Execution does not.

Also, this could inspire modern-world vigilantes and gang members to have an "eye for an eye" mentality, which means that they will return violence and murder with violence and murder. They will think that if the government does it, it's right for them to do it

I will reiterate my previous argument. There has seldom if ever been any occurrence in which someone has violently avenged a murderer's death. And the death penalty has been around for a very, very long time.

And what about the criminals' families? What will they think when they're family member has been murdered by the government?

That's entirely dependant on the family's relationship with the murderer. But to say that we shouldn't punish someone because of what the family would think is impractical. the family would think the government is harsh if they were imprisoned or even fined because of their bias. That should not sway anyone's judgment.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

Not to mention the fact that the justice system is very flawed and people who are innocent somehow end up in prison under bullshit court trials all the damn time. I don't want to watch court recordings anymore. I'll faint at more outrages.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

I think the death penalty is an archaic and obsolete form of punishment, even for the crime of murder.

For the record, I think prison is no better.

Here is my take, and why:

1. There are so many ridiculous laws in our country, that virtually everyone is guilty of something. This kind of beaurocratic pressure lowers quality of life, and is one of the causes for increased agitation amongst people. Long story short, when the system fails to serve the people and becomes a totalitarian vampire, vicious crimes will undoubtably rise, due to frustration and perhaps even mental breakdown. Add to that extreme levels of police brutality in the last decade, is it any wonder so many people are reacting in a violent manor?

2. Does the system work 100% every time? Of course not. If even one innocent person is incarcerated or murdered (by the state), that is one too many.

3. Does prison work? Are inmates happy, well adjusted people when they get out? Or are they more angry, bitter, and violent?

When a person is in 'jail', they have to become more cunning, ruthless, and violent just to survive in there. Would you agree that putting an already dangerous person into a survival situation that requires more violence might make them even less equipped to deal with society once they get out?

4. I have to chuckle at the creative ways this government kills people. Electrocution, cyanide, ... What kind if sick people think up ways to kill those that commit crimes? I understand that families who have been victims deserve justice, but allowing the government to doll out murder is ridiculous. It would be more fitting if the victim pulled the trigger, so to speak.

I don't have all the answers, honestly, but a proper reform Center or perhaps even exile to an island might be a better solution. The best solution, of course, would be for society to realize it is on the brink of self destruction, and reform itself before its too late.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

Naughty children get punished. Naughty adults get killed. :D

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

There are no upsides to the death penalty. Once you kill someone, you can't say oops and bring em back after discovering they were innocent (and people DO go to jail innocent. If the prosecution cannot prove it beyond a doubt, the jury simple votes. How convenient. And the prosecution can use whatever stupid heart strings or bitchy rhetoric and appeals they want.). It gets swept under the rugs. And if it doesn't... the people who have killed the most under the death penalty will end up strapped to that bed too if they make it a capital offense to accidentally kill an innocent person.

Not to mention that the death penalty is more costly than simple life in prison in both money and time. The money saved could be used to help victims out.

Not to mention that it makes America look barbaric vs the many other countries that have banned it.

Not to mention that it seems to be applied inconsistently (women and whites get it less, and general instability in how its applied even THEN.

Not to mention that it makes more victims (the killer's family.)

Death shouldn't be a "penalty."

Sorry, but death penalty-ers are killers too, just like soldiers in killing games are. But it's easier to excuse death penalty killing than trying to make killing okay "because it was a war," (like that makes the loss of fathers and mothers and the physical torture alright? Get for real, sick freaks!)

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

It violates the Constitution, we get the wrong people some times and it is inhumane.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

I 100% percent Disagree with the Death penalty. It should be banned from every country.

My first point is why should anyone have the right to kill someone for killing someone, that is justifying what they had been punished for in the first place. If someone does kill an innocent person. YES they should be punished a life sentence in jail is an appropriate punishment for someone who has committed certain crimes NOT DEATH.

My second point Is there are allot of cases out there now where people have been wrongly convicted and have been in prison for a life time before new evidence had been found to let the certain person convicted to be released. I feel having being given a death penalty and certain individuals knowing there not guilty could be one of the worst things ever and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

My last point is how a character can change and how sorry people can be, I met a man in Jamaica while i was working there a few years ago he had been prosecuted in America and had spent 15 years in Jail after committing second degree murder, Gang affiliation, drug trafficking and armed weapons. This man had come out of jail and was clearly a reformed character and i don't think i know any other person i can trust,confide in and get along with better. DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Supporting Evidence: Wrongly Convicted stats (researchnews.osu.edu)
Side: Let 'em live
1 point

I do not believe in the death penalty. I believe that humans should not be in control of life, something that they didn't create. Also i don't think that we should be able to take away something we can not give, therefore i believe in life sentencing to prison. This way, they are still not out roaming the streets and are serving a penalty, but not death, Humans should leave life to God and stop trying to take it into their own hands.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

I believe that the person should be able to choose if they want to be killed or spend their entire life in prison

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

The death penalty is final. This means that the court has to be 100% sure of a guilty verdict. Consequently, the death penalty does not account for the possibility of new evidence emerging which could prove vital for proving a man's innocence. The death penalty does not account for the error of forensic technology (e.g. DNA tests). This uncertainty makes it impossible for a court to be 100% sure that a human being is worthy of the death penalty therefore the death penalty should not be a punishment used by the government.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

They are still people despite of their sins. Humans dont have the rights to take other lives.

Side: Let 'em live
-1 points

Dude i thnk you should ban it. That could be considered Cruel and Unusual Punishment, it could mess with the persons mind.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

okayyy for those of you that dont know, to execute one person costs more than keeping them in jail for 50 years so rethink that...

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

you should keep them and then if they dont die kill em off...

Side: Let 'em live
Republican2(351) Disputed
1 point

It most certainly does not. Bullets cost about 20 cents a piece. A 6 foot length of rope is about 2 dollars. 700 joules of electricity is about 10 cents. What is costly is the ridiculous system of appeals that puts them on death row for 10-20 years awaiting appellate or even supreme court jurisdiction.

Side: Hang 'em high!
rabbit(30) Disputed
0 points

it dont cost more if you use a rope............ you can buy that pretty cheap.....

Side: Hang 'em high!
12 points

I'm from Australia, and too often I've had to witness murderers and rapists being released onto the streets. In my opinion, those who perform those acts of their own free will deserve to die. It's not eye for an eye. It's to protect all other eyes.

I also believe child-bashers and animal-bashers should receive a death penalty.

I have met too many victims...and lost many friends, I have no sympathy for monsters

Side: Hang 'em high!
6 points

animal bashers?? people who hurt animals should be killed too?? maybe we should start with what crimes warrant the death penalty.

I think your argument is part of why the death penalty should be abolished. The government makes errors in releasing people who are still dangerous and in capturing people who are actually innocent.

Side: Let 'em live
dacey(1046) Disputed
4 points

TO JUST IGNORE ME ,

NO , I WONT JUST IGNORE YOU .

I am disputing you because you asked for it !

I believe the death penalty should be used only in cases that are proven guilty without a doubt. As in the case of the scum who raped and tortured and murdered ,nurse Anita Cobby in 1986.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/cobby/1.html

Anita Cobbys' RAPISTS AND MURDERERS JUST TRIED TO RECENTLY APPLY FOR BAIL. THEY SHOULD OF BEEN PUT TO DEATH, A LONG TIME AGO.Certainly they should not be allowed to be released!

IF YOU THINK THEM DOING THEIR TIME HAS PAID FOR THE CRIME , THEN I THINK THAT YOU DONT THINK MUCH AT ALL.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

YES IT WAS A BIT WHAT , WHAT HORRIBLE WHAT I SAID ,THIS WAS AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO ABOUT WHAT HE DID? and WHAT ABOUT WHAT HE DID?

ps Just Ignore Me

Side: Let 'em live
4 points

Absolutely True!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like the sudden release of convicted child rapist Dennis Raymond Ferguson ....CAN I TAKE THIS MOMENT TO SAY TO HIM IN CASE HE JOINS THIS SITE-- ( THE FUKD' LAWS CAN ONLY KEEP YOU SAFE FOR SO LONG ARSEHOLE , YOU ARE OUTVOTED. AUSTRALIANS HATE YOU AND WE HATE YOU WITH A PASSION. AS I SAID , THE FUKD' LAWS PROTECTING YOUR HEAD ,

WONT STOP THE ONES , WHO WANT YOU DEAD. YOU WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS ACCEPTABLE , WE HATE YOU!!!!!ps. STAY OFF OUR BEACHES PRICK ! ) SORRY princessplop ----- i agree with you. That mongrel does deserve to die. If you see him before i do , get a good one in for me , ok. Thanks ... i will stop now.

Side: Hang 'em high!
WhiteDevil(11) Disputed
1 point

Could you please develop an aquaintance with lower case lettering? Your post is, if you will, incherant.

Side: Let 'em live
LizBiz15(12) Disputed
1 point

Those people may deserve to die but it's nobody's job to kill them. I have no sympathy for monsters either but better to have them rot in jail with regret than be set at ease.

Side: Let 'em live
Euori(24) Disputed
1 point

What does them being released have to do with the death penalty? You could simply vote for them like, NOT being released. You're a killer too, and not just of killers, of people who simply committed abuse. Killing everyone else just makes more people depressed and sad. It's more loss of life, of parents and family. I don't know why you think you should be seen as cooler than them.

Not to mention that it's completely irresponsible. Would you like to receive the death penalty for people that turned out to be innocent that you soberly murdered? No? Didn't think so, bitch.

Side: Let 'em live
0 points

Animal-bashers? I can understand execution for a murderer, but for killing an animal? That is lunacy. Animals are killed for food, what difference does it make if they are killed for a different reason?

Side: Hang 'em high!
princessplop Disputed
1 point

I believe i used the term 'animal bashers'...not farmers or slaughterhouse workers.... I mean people who think its okay to kick a dog or tie fire crackers to a cats tails. I actually like steak.....and I am not a hypocrite! Those animals get put down humanely....not tortured and beaten for days on end. I am for veggos by the way.

Side: Hang 'em high!
lonewolf 821(7) Disputed
1 point

to put animal bashing in context with the original arguement, murderers and serial killers are profiled in their early years by animal crulety, thats how they start! clearly shows a lack of empathy to life or suffering of others, even on a small scale.Im a meat eater by the way,though i do not condone the suffering of animals in any form

Side: Let 'em live
8 points

iv heard a arrangement of points being said on the side of wanting them to live. such as it cost more?!?!? are you crazy, maybe if you use top secret unknowing area 51 stuff for every death sentence to kill them. but these sickos who liberals say "o he did not mean to decapitate the little girl then hide it in his closet" or "well just because he killed a person out of anger dose not mean we must kill back in anger" these people who defend murders make me sick. it is more expensive to pay for the prison fine or the mental hospital find for these criminals to get the easy way out, and to watch them end up doing the crime again. not only are we bringing justice to these wrong doers, we are protecting others from future crimes they may do. i guarantee you if the shooter at fort hood lived, you would hear every left wing nut job in your community praise him as a hero and say he was just in his acts. yes are Court system is pretty missed up. but it dose not stop the act of bringing justice to some one who commits murder, i mean its pretty obvious if they did the crime or not, outside witnesses can tell you that most of the time, and as for accidental death crimes, we have protection for people who end up in theses unfortunate situations, we don't just kill every person charged with murder.

Side: Hang 'em high!
Liberal(6) Disputed
7 points

In fact mudkipz, many people would prefer the death penalty of life in jail. An the people put in jail have a very small chance to get out, next to none in fact. I don't think you understand that life in jail means LIFE in jail WITHOUT parole, so they cannot committ further crimes. In addition, the way you talk about liberals sickens me, you are the kind of person that intelligent conservatives rue, people like you give them a "bad name".

Side: Let 'em live
7 points

It is the perfect punishment for the worst crime. An eye for an eye does not make the whole world blind. It just makes two people blind at a time. ;)

Side: Hang 'em high!
2 points

By killing a murderer, it is not only he who suffers. It is everyone he knows, especially his parents. In this way instead of stopping sufferings, it prolongs them. Can you prove that killing a murderer is beneficial?

Side: Hang 'em high!
6 points

Besides the fact that it gets rid of that member of society once and for all (Do we really want to keep Charles Mansons in BTK Killers alive in jails with the chance of escape?), I believe the death penalty has deterred at least some people from committing murder.

Side: Hang 'em high!
6 points

If someone is bad enough to be considered for the death penalty then they must have had sure evidence that they are guilty if they are then they shouldn't deserve the right to live among people they could kill

Side: Put'em in the ground
Joelsteele(9) Disputed
3 points

Why would you prefer people to be killed rather than jailed away from society so that their harm is neutralised?

Side: Let 'em live
Republican2(351) Disputed
4 points

It puts a lot of strain on the prison systems and they aren't always held there like they should be. Execution makes more financial sense if it's done correctly.

Side: Hang 'em high!
Sulith(508) Disputed
2 points

Oh yeah so our tax dollars pay for there asses to live in our prisons?

No thanks our tax dollars are the ones feeding and bedding there asses

Side: Hang 'em high!
MisterGuy Disputed
3 points

Many, many people have already been exonerated AFTER being convicted of a capital crime. Just because the prosecution says that you are guilty doesn't make it so.

Side: Let 'em live
Republican2(351) Disputed
5 points

Those instances are EXTREMELY rare. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than being falsely convicted.

Side: Hang 'em high!
fepdebate(7) Disputed
1 point

just because someone is believed to have done something wrong doesnt mean that they are bad people who deserve to die...what if that happened to you? A person who happens to look like you rapes a woman and you are accused, u should die?

Side: Let 'em live
5 points

Some states (such as Texas) have streamlined their court system to more easily accommodate execution. the current plan has been in place for 7 years now and with over 10,000 executions, there hasn't been a single false conviction. Texas' system of capital punishment is less than a quarter the cost of housing a criminal for life. This is the way the justice system SHOULD work, however, year after, liberals in the government keep lobbying for measures that will make it harder and more expensive to execute. I for one don't feel like paying one cent of my tax dollars to go to keeping these people (if you can call them that) alive or pay a ridiculous fee to execute them. America should be streamlining it's justice system, not allowing the liberals to complicate it more.

Side: Hang 'em high!
MisterGuy Disputed
1 point

"with over 10,000 executions, there hasn't been a single false conviction."

LOL...TX has only legally executed 1,196 people my GOP friend. Also, Texas has executed persons who were, in fact, innocent. One notable case involves Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004 for murdering his three daughters in 1991 by arson, but where a 2009 article in The New Yorker, and subsequent findings, have cast doubt on the evidence used in his conviction. In 2009, a report conducted by Dr. Craig Beyler, hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the case, found that "a finding of arson could not be sustained". Beyler said that key testimony from a fire marshal at Willingham's trial was "hardly consistent with a scientific mind-set and is more characteristic of mystics or psychics.”

BTW, once again, you've offered exactly ZERO evidence that anything that you claim is actually true.

Side: Let 'em live
Republican2(351) Disputed
3 points

you have presented ONE case of false execution. Even if there has only been 1,196 people executed (which I find very unlikely) One false conviction does not justify your case. Give more referances.

Side: Hang 'em high!
4 points

Pro-American thoughts - Enforce the death penalty and do not allow it to be disputed as easily.

Anti-American thoughts - Ban the death penalty altogether so that convicts get more rights and America takes one step closer to hell.

All in all I'm for the death penalty. The reason it is not such a strong deterrent is because it is so easily disputed. If it was used more liberally then it would be a LOT stronger as a deterrent. Giving people life sentences is worse than killing them. Economically, morally, ethically etc unless ofcourse there's a strong reason for it. Innocent people will be put to the death penalty.. and even though I don't want this.. it is for the greater good.

Side: Hang 'em high!
MisterGuy Disputed
2 points

"Anti-American thoughts - Ban the death penalty altogether so that convicts get more rights and America takes one step closer to hell."

Wow, calling something "Anti-American" without any direct evidence is a pretty weak "argument".

"Giving people life sentences is worse than killing them. Economically, morally, ethically etc unless ofcourse there's a strong reason for it."

Life without parole costs the justice system WAAAY less than death penalty cases do. I agree that having to live with your horrible crime for life without the possibility of parole is horrendous, but I have little sympathy for those that are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't think that all liberals "love" criminals, because we really don't.

"Innocent people will be put to the death penalty.. and even though I don't want this.. it is for the greater good."

Who's "greater good"???

Side: Let 'em live
Kinda(1649) Disputed
5 points

Wow, calling something "Anti-American" without any direct evidence is a pretty weak "argument".

Don't take that too seriously dude....

I dunno how to post links to posts.. but I've made a post disputing sirius's post on this debate about how and why death penalty cases are so much more expensive. The reason why killing them is better is not just the economic benefits but also the deterrent it causes.

The reason why it's not successful in America is because most of the cases are not given death row and those that are haven't been executed. There's no action behind the words i.e. when a parent tells the kids they'll get beats if they jump on the bed.. and after they jump on the bed they don't get beats.. they'll ignore the threats.

"Innocent people will be put to the death penalty.. and even though I don't want this.. it is for the greater good."

Who's "greater good"???

Firstly there has been no proof that an Innocent man has ever been placed on death row.

Secondly there will be a place and time that somebody innocent will be executed, but you cannot stop the whole system due to one wrong execution. If it is a regular occurance then ofcourse... but in general an anomaly should not be a preventer.

Side: Hang 'em high!
4 points

find a tall tree and a short rope. its time to go back to the old day's when it was safe to walk the sreets at night

Side: Hang 'em high!
MisterGuy Disputed
3 points

We can NEVER return to the days of vigilante justice, which was MUCH more capable of hanging the wrong person than our current system is.

Side: Let 'em live
4 points

The death sentence is a good thing. Well if the crime is bad enough they should be killed. not for like steeling or anything but murder and terrorism and stuff like that the person should be. also i dont think they should be held in prison for years after the trial because they are going to be killed so we might as well kill them soon so we dont have to pay for them with our taxes.. (our taxes pay for prisons)

Side: Hang 'em high!
3 points

They shouln't. Most of the time it is murderers. They kill people. Ever heard of the phrase, "Treat others how you wish to be treated"?

Side: Hang 'em high!
Hillary4Prez(3) Disputed
1 point

First of all, I'll bet you that murderers probably don't live by that phrase. They're murderers, for heavens sakes. Similarly, that phrase as applied to capital punishment would read as, "Only execute others if you wish to be executed yourself."

Side: Let 'em live
3 points

They killed someone, why should they get to live in the luxury of prison, with all the food, tvs, computers, etc. that they want? Some prisons are horrible, but you guys should really read the 'News of the Weird' by Chuck Shepherd - he writes about all the weird things that happen, not just in prison.

Side: Hang 'em high!
lonewolf 821(7) Disputed
1 point

Look at it this way, would you rather have a criminal locked in a small cell with other,in some cases far more dangerous criminals, for life looking over their shoulder,where they dont get many of the basic freedoms we take for granted or access to their loved ones, or quickly put to death? Death penalty is too good for them!

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

I think that it is possible to exonerate people after they have been tried and been convicted as guilty. I think that even though it never happens, it can.

Criminals should live all their life thinking about what they have done, and even if the state does not recognize it, they can repent in their heart.

I don't think we should ban the death penalty, but should be used very sparingly.

Side: No But_
MisterGuy Disputed
1 point

"I think that it is possible to exonerate people after they have been tried and been convicted as guilty. I think that even though it never happens, it can"

...and it already has happened...many, many times.

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

To be very frank and brutally, terribly awfully honest... we'd be better off without so many bad people, (yes, bad acts make bad people) and our population's getting kinda high...

Side: Hang 'em high!
2 points

As a society we are losing the ability to know right from wrong. If someone kills a cop, or hacks some family with a machete then that person deserves to have his own life ended. Period.

And when people give such a lame argument like "there is a slight chance some of these people may not be guilty", then for me it shows a complete lack of spine on their part. They would rather be noncommittal than do what is right.

Using that type logic, why send them to jail then?

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

And when a cop shoots a person that did not kill someone and it is justified how do you figure it is okay.

because they have a badge?

Side: Hang 'em high!
mister253(10) Disputed
1 point

And when a cop shoots a person that did not kill someone and it is justified how do you figure it is okay.

because they have a badge?

Side: Hang 'em high!
Hillary4Prez(3) Disputed
1 point

Even if someone deserves to die (I'm not going to get into that debate; it's a purely ethical argument that can't be won), the ten or so prison workers per execution that have their lives ruined or ended because of the execution don't. According to EJUSA, "Corrections officials, haunted by the experience of putting people to death, have committed suicide, turned to alcohol, or suffered mental and physical health problems." These are innocent people that take their own lives because of the broken justice system. No matter how you look at it, that's just plain wrong.

Side: Let 'em live
2 points

if you can take a life without good reason i say an eye for an eye

Side: Hang 'em high!
2 points

I say kill 'em, they're a waste of the federal budget. llllllllllllllllll

Side: Hang 'em high!
Euori(24) Disputed
1 point

You retard, IT COSTS MORE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN TO PREPARE PEOPLE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.

Would you like to be killed for the accidental oopsies when people turn out to be innocent? Irresponsible as FUCK. I seriously want everyone on the "hang em" side to be convicted of something they didn't do, be saved in the last moment, and feel a hallejujah moment.

Side: Let 'em live
1 point

I don't want my tax money keeping a serial killer alive, ENOUGH SAID !!!

Side: Hang 'em high!
2 points

i don't want my tax money used to kill someone who was wrongly convicted.

Side: Let 'em live
mister253(10) Disputed
1 point

You already do. In Washington State there are 2 serial killers serving life in prison cause they could tell you where more bodies were.

Side: Let 'em live
fepdebate(7) Disputed
1 point

not all are serial killers, and it costs more money to kill these people then keep them in prison for 50 years

Side: Let 'em live

i THINK we should keep the death penalty but for very strict reasons and crimes,if someone goes on a killing rampage and rapes people then yes death penalty for just one murder no probably not but even when you give them life so what i mean they can still appeal for bail,porrole or whatever.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

the prisons are overcrowded as it and why prolong someones life who took someone elses i mean they don't deserve to live out there life. why was the person they killed undeserving of there life???? the average cost of an inmats healthcare is $50,000 which is 5 times more than they spend on students!!!!!! why do me and you the tax payers have too pay for these basterds healthcare it makes no sense to me. of course you cannot base your desision completely on the expens's you must consider that if someone is going to be put to death they had to do something pretty bad. take scott peterson for example he cut his pregnant wife up and dumped her in a lake should he live????

Side: Hang 'em high!

Why should the public have to pay for a murderer to live for the rest of his life in a guarded, high-security cell. What is the point? Many people say it is more costly to give the death penalty due to the number of appeals. Why? Why should people who have been convicted be aable to appeal over and over untill he can no longer afford to appeal. It is insane. One appeal is enough for one man. If he looses at that the Hang 'em High!

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

The death penalty right now is to easy even I think. Come on couple of shots? No way! That is way to easy. If we still hung people I could guarantee that there wouldn't be as many people doing things to get the death penalty!!

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

Why should we be paying for there asses to live in prison?

Better off dead.

If we keep them alive people who ARE killers can just keep on doing it without getting worried about getting killed.

Except living luxuriously in a nice US prison.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

Americans SHOULD NOT ban the death penalty! If and when the people who are accused get convicted i believe they should have to suffer the same way their victims did!!!! They should suffer the consequences that fit their crime!! If you kill someone or hurt a child i believe you should get the death penalty!!!

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

for those of you that say yes to band the penalty think of this, imagine any one of your closest family members or friends being murdered by someone you never knew and never met, that even the person who was killed. your first response is, that person should die, of course. also remember this "The punishment, must fit the crime" "You ended the life of this woman, therefore we the people shall end your life" be in a situation where you lost someone closest to you, then say that person should live.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

No. Some people totally deserve the death penalty and I would hate it if they were released.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

I think we should HANG 'EM because they are they not only deserve it but they would save the tax payers alot of money, money we desperately need to keep building our economy.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

There are many people on this earth who don't deserve to live.

If we have the chance of killing them.... why not :D

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

I say kill 'em, they did something to have their privilege of life taken away from them.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

I say kill 'em, you don't want KFC or Wendy's to go out of business do you?

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

Would you keep a murderer in your house? That is the same thing when you keep a murderer in society. Most of me hates the death penalty because i will always have sympathy. I don't believe humans have the right to kill other humans. Because we are not God but i know God is understanding and kind. And in our shoes, we would agree to the death penalty because it meant saving more lives than just one. He allowed his Son to die on earth so he can save us all from harm. And he kicks Satan out of Heavan. These two examples is revelant to keeping the death penalty open.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

People today are not held accountable for their actions. If a person MURDERS another person. Why on Earth would they be able to live? Eye for an eye? People always want excuses and to point their fingers at someone else. People should be held accountable. If a person steals someone else's car shouldn't they get in trouble? If a person KILLS someone else. That victim has a family, that is a father, brother, sister, mother, cousin. That victim is someone's world, and the person who killed them gets to live to see another day? He gets to go to prison and eat 3 meals a day, shower, sleep under a roof. NO NO NO! They should be held accountable. HANG EM HIGH

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

back in the day they did it like we should do it now...eye for an eye tooth for tooth. that outta put a stop to it

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

The death penalty is given for a reason. It is the harshest punishment for the harshest crimes. It is justice.

I sometimes feel people have forgotten exactly what justice is.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

Well the death penalty is completely moral in all aspects. If you kill some one your life should also be taken from you

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

I see the death penalty as a very good fear-inducer for criminals, so I say keep it.

Side: Hang 'em high!

It saves money, it's much beter then paying to let a murdering rapist live.

Side: Hang 'em high!

No, as when a person does an immoral act, they should be punished... If your parents don't teach you discipline... Who will?

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

No.

For people who have committed crimes beyond a reasonable doubt like:

1) hard drug dealers,

2) rapists,

3) dangerous stalkers

4) murderers (who kill without a reason)

5) violent gangsters

6) hate crimes/hazers

7) corruption (stealing from the public, putting money ahead of safety)

8) decisions based on bias

Kill them. History has shown that simple talk doesn't work. People will lie and defend their bad actions and blame it on the victims. Keeping these criminals alive will increase tax rates and costs to the general public, increase the money that goes to lawyers, increase the likelihood of them escaping, fan groups etc ...

A sped up death penalty will fix all this. Furthermore, a quick death is more humanitarian than imprisoning bad men. Of course, the people in jail should have a choice.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

I completely support the death penalty. Disgusting and demented human beings who murder other human beings don't deserve to continue their lives. It should be ended just like they ended their victims, without remorse. In fact, I would go as far as to support the death penalty for rapists and sex offenders, although it would have to be after a few offenses. Both murderers and rapists are garbage human beings, they both think the same and have no feelings for others. Both crimes go hand in hand, a rapist would be the same person to kill someone and a murderer would be the same person to rape someone.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

The only punishment for the death and killing of another with malicious or evil intentions is death. The same can be extended to rapists and child predators, since both have the same mindset and are often both used in the same crime.

Side: Hang 'em high!

What the hell, why is this an argument. If they killed your family i dont think you would want them to be alive. Why does the public get to decide this. The public should not be paying to keep serial killers alive. The taxes we pay everyday go to our prisions to keep them fed. Honestly if they are put on death row it probably means they would have no problem re commiting this crime. I dont know why we shouod just trust the laws we have now, they are there for a reason.

Side: Hang 'em high!
1 point

No we should not ban the death penalty in fact make it worse. Criminals get off easy these days. If a man rapes a woman what is their punishment? Community service if you jaywalk that is what happens to you. Can't you see this is unfair

Side: Hang 'em high!
0 points

Capital punishment is what is keeping America alive. Without it, we would all be dead. Of course, no state really enforces it with the appeals and the parole and stuff that basically lets murderers scape by while people who didn't do anything get accused, tried, and convicted for nothing~! V

Side: Hang 'em high!
MisterGuy Disputed
5 points

"Capital punishment is what is keeping America alive. Without it, we would all be dead. Of course, no state really enforces it with the appeals and the parole and stuff that basically lets murderers scape by while people who didn't do anything get accused, tried, and convicted for nothing"

Your argument here is completely convoluted, and you just contradicted yourself over the course of just two sentences! How could it possibly be true that "capital punishment is what is keeping America alive" if basically (in your opinion) "no state really enforces it"??

If anything, this kind of "argument" is an argument for abolishing the death penalty, since it isn't used uniformly across the entire country. It certainly doesn't seem like the portions of the USA that don't have a death penalty are "dying".

Side: Let 'em live
xander(438) Disputed
4 points

Most other first-world countries don't have the death penalty, but have lower rates of crime, just pointing that out.

(I'm for it for moral reasons, against for practical, in case you were wondering.)

Side: Let 'em live
lonewolf 821(7) Disputed
1 point

Most of these countries like mine choose to outlaw death penalty did so out of moral convictiction, cant you see the irony/double standard of of killing a killer? unlike what some think here, prison is no picnic,or hotel for that matter,unless you share your home with violent offenders that is!

Side: Let 'em live
-1 points

I agree with you again veronica. If we didn't have the simple threat of death for murder, then people would commit that crime more often. I thought that we should of hanged Sadam Husein high in the court yard of the white house then let the Middle East have him to drag his head thru the streets on a pole!!! Just my personal opinion~! C

Side: Hang 'em high!
MisterGuy Disputed
5 points

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the death penalty deters crime. The rest of your "argument" here is merely vengeance disguised as "justice".

Side: Let 'em live
Cerin(203) Disputed
3 points

If the death penalty deters murder (as you claim) then why does Europe have a lower murder rate even though they've outlawed the death penalty?

Side: Let 'em live