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.
One instinct puts me on the side of the "no" argument, but another puts me on the side of the "yes" argument. In the end, I choose to side more with the latter instinct.
Please re-read the topic carefully before you answer. You should have chosen "no" as your side of the argument. But remember, the death penalty is given only to murderers, and there is no other reason for execution, especially in America.
Sure, life in prison would probably be rewarding enough. I mean, free education, free libraries, cable, oh, but I almost forgot...there are HOMELESS people out there struggling to fend off for themselves while these mass murderers are getting the full package. Pretty logical, right?
The USA is one of the few remaining first world countries that allow death penalties. Pretty sick stuff. In no situation should a government be allowed to take away a life of its citizens. It does not deserve that trust. Particularly the US government.
Why shouldn't the government interfere? There is a reason that they are government with a right to serve justice. The process of exception has continued for centuries and it should remain because that's what the killers deserve. The government is our only hope. We do not have any superheroes wandering the air so the government should protect the citizens by charging the offender with excecution. This will serve the criminal right!
Argumentum ad populum with a considerable dose of ethnocentrism.
What is "sick" about it? Why should no government be allowed to take the life of its citizens if the citizens at large confer upon it that permission, either explicitly or tacitly? If the people expect it then would it not be a greater violation of trust not to do it?
Yes and here is the legal backing for the argument:
The constitution protects from "cruel and unusual punishment" in the 8th amendment. Punishments that are unnecessary in any way are considered "unusual" and fall under this protection. Punishments in our legal system serve several purposes: deter the offender and others who see what penalty the offender suffered from doing the same crime, serve as retribution for the victims, and physically punish the offender. There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime more than life imprisonment. Because of this it should be deemed "unnecessary" and would fall under the offender's 8th amendment protections.
You may or may not find this argument persuasive but at least there is some common sense backing to it based on legislation and not opinion.
Oh really? I do believe that executions have its own flaws in certain ways, such as waiting thirty days until execution and a nice fancy feast before your death, but allowing them to live despite the mass amount of murderers... Do you think they are able to regret what they have commited while having a roof over their head and free food, right along with education? Try looking at your sense of justice instead of lookinh for ways to penny-pinch. Money does not account for a lost life.
Oh, sure! Letting them have some NBC and free HBO SURE does let them off easy. You should be aware that in certain prisons, they let off criminals easy. On top of that, you get free food! There are even recreation centers and libraries. I see what sense you're making here. As you can see, the life in prison penalty can be repealed, thus the criminal can go have his freedom and become whatever they want. SURE, having murderers out on the loose seems like a rational idea, right?
Some people simply derserve to be put down. They are evil and un-redeemable wastes of human space.
The only problem with the Death Penalty in America is that it is not used enough, or carried-out as quickly as it should be. Nobody sentenced to Death should have to wait for more than 30 days on Death Row.
Florida and Texas do the best job, but teven they need to ramp it up a little.
I also think that Child Molesters should be put to death. I think the Execustions should be Televised, or carried-out in public, like inb a Town Square. Tell me this wouldn't be a dterrent! LOL.
The vast majority of the LibTards who are against Capital Punishment have never been victims of violent crime. Like everybody here on CB who is anti Death Penalty.
Seems to me we have a largely pampered, young, and liberal crowd here. Lots of babies like Instig8or; Cap Con, still living at home and having mommy wash their skid-mrked undies.
Capital punishment is not a deterrent. Not only is there no evidence to suggest that it is, but it does not follow from rudimentary criminology and psychology. If it is a crime of passion then the person is not thinking of consequence, and if it is premeditated the person thinks they have thought it out so as to avoid being caught.
Even if capital punishment actually did deter crime, that is hardly enough reason no its own to adopt it as a form of punishment. By your own logic, why not punishment slander with execution? Or virtually any other offense?
What we do know reduces violent crime are things like socio-economic stability, accessible mental health resources, substance abuse rehabilitation programs, etc. Yet people who support the death penalty usually oppose anti-poverty programs, public mental health infrastructure, rehabilitation over retribution, etc. Which suggests their arguments are post hoc rationalizations rather than actual reasons.
You cannot really say, with any degree of veracity, that Capital Punishment is not a deterrent in The USA, or that there is no evidence to suggest it is.
Why do I claim this?
Because it has never been implemented as I believe ity should be so as to BE a deterrent. Like I said in my OP: use it far more often. Nobody sentenced to death waiting for more than two weeks before execution.
And let's make thos executions public. or televised. Let;s have an Execution channel.
Crimes that should merit Capital Punishment: Murder; forcible rape; child molestation or abuse; drug dealing; Financial fraud that robs thousands of their savings, a la' Bernie Madoff.
Do all that, daily, publicly. And then, if there is not a significant down-tick in those crimes after, say, one year, I will accept the notion that Cap Pun is not a deterrent. But until such time, I cannot say it isn't.
And why do the countries that practice what we think are Draconian forms and rates of Cap Pun have crime rates so much lower than us?
There are and have been other nations where capital punishment is exercised precisely as you suggest. Notably, these have tended to be authoritarian states with little regard for thorough due process or human life. Additionally notable is the fact that there is no evidence their crime rates were any lower, and in fact the historical trend is towards lower crime even as the death penalty becomes increasingly less popular. Most of our Western counterparts have dispensed with the death penalty, some of them quite a while back, and not only is there any evidence that their crime rates are higher than ours or those which employ the death penalty with even less restraint but they have some of the lowest crime rates in the history of the world. I do not think it is coincidence that these nations also have the highest rates of overall happiness and outrank us on most if not all quality of life metrics.
There are other nations which have and still do implement the death penalty as you suggest it ought to be implemented. There is no evidence that any of these nations experience a deterrent effect, but we do know these nations are authoritarian regimes with little to no regard for due process or the value of human life. That is the predicable outcome of any system which dispenses with legitimate trial, appeal, proportionality, and etc.
Notably, those nations which have done away with the death penalty entirely enjoy some of the lowest rates of crime in the history of the world (certainly lower than US rates). It is not coincidence that they also outrank the US and other high crime nations on almost any quality of life metric.
P.S. Your link establishes single incidence correlation, not causation. If you want me to respond to the other arguments, then make them yourself.
Don't you just love the hypocrisy of the Left? They are the most radical supporters of mass killings through abortion and these are the same people saying they care for a convicted murderer's life. Babies are innocent and these people have the nerve to say nothing while they are exterminated.
Have you watched these phonies protesting and doing all night vigils before an execution? How many vigils have you seen from those on the Left at Abortion clinics? Can you even imagine the total misplaced compassion? They are beyond hypocritical. They are what becomes of a person's sense of judgment without the wisdom of God.
As it says in the Bible, the world's sense of right and wrong is totally backwards where good is spoken evil of and evil is lifted up as ok.
I am inclined to agree, although it goes both ways I should think. It is just as inconsistent for a conservative to value the life of a baby but not of a convict. Of course, both sides rationalize their discrepancy - liberals by arguing that the baby is not a human life, conservatives by arguing that our right to life can be forfeit through our alleged actions.
There is no inconsistency. Pro life Conservatives never said it was all life that deserved protection. We believe in innocent life having the right to life. Not mass murderers. Huge difference. The idea of execution is to save future innocent lives taken by that murderer.
That is precisely my point. You claim that the life of the child has value because life has value. But you then have to justify those cases where you do not value life, and you do so by introducing the idea of innocence and just deserts (just as liberals justify their inconsistency by defining life to exclude the unborn fetus).
Tangentially, capital punishment does not save lives. There is no evidence of deterrence, and life in prison is just as preventative as execution for specific persons who have already killed.
Maybe you are ignorant of the prisoners and guards in prisons who are murdered by prisoners who should have been executed.
We say all life has value but when a person takes another's innocent life, he forfeits his right to life. These are laws created for the express purpose of protecting the innocent.
You have no proof that capital punishment does not save lives. I'm sure it does not save lives when an insane person kills, but when sane people kill for money, etc. it does make a difference. There are actually people who do not kill during a robbery because of the more extreme punishment. I know there have been many murders in prisons so please do not say that life in prison without parole is the answer to never killing again.
I cannot prove that capital punishment does not save lives, but since I never claimed otherwise I do not need to do so. My point is that if you cannot prove that capital punishment saves lives then your overall claim that capital punishment is just is not defensible; you have no reason to support it. There is literally no evidence at all that capital punishment uniquely saves lives.
Yes, murders happen in prisons. This does not mean that the people committing the murders are the same people convicted for murder who would qualify for capital punishment if it were legal. It also does not mean that the murders would still not happen while the convict was waiting for execution. It is also more an argument for better personnel training and stronger security, not for capital punishment.
With respect to deterrence, not only is there no evidence that it works but basic psychology can explain why it would not. Most crimes are crimes of passion, which means that the criminal is not thinking about consequences at the time. The rest are premeditated, which mean the criminal has planned their crime and thinks they will get away with it so the consequences do not matter.
Most importantly you still have not given any reason to think that your ideas of innocent life and just deserts are themselves valid. You have only repeated your belief that they are. Why does it follow that killing means you forfeit the right to life? Why does a potential threat to another's life make it okay to kill someone?
Now listen to the words you just wrote...... "I cannot prove that capital punishment does not save lives, but since I never claimed otherwise I do not need to do so. My point is that if you cannot prove that capital punishment saves lives then your overall claim that capital punishment is just is not defensible; you have no reason to support it. There is literally no evidence at all that capital punishment uniquely saves lives."
Now can you grasp what you just said? You basically said you can not prove that capital punishment does not save lives(which is the basis for your entire rgument), and then you say you do not need to prove it....BUT I must prove how capital punishment does save lives!
WOW! Talk about havng your cake and eating it too. I believe it's time to stop this debate.
I told you that criminals who rob banks have said many times that they do not want to kill people if they can help it because of the added punishment. Capital punishment is a deterrent.
Ugh, here is an example of fromwihtin not understanding what a person wrote.
Now listen to the words you just wrote...... "I cannot prove that capital punishment does not save lives, but since I never claimed otherwise I do not need to do so. My point is that if you cannot prove that capital punishment saves lives then your overall claim that capital punishment is just is not defensible;..."
...You basically said you can not prove that capital punishment does not save lives(which is the basis for your entire rgument),
Jace never made the claim you say he makes, the basis of his argument is that your argument is unsupported. Jace does not need to show a point contrary yours, he is showing your claim is baseless. His second sentence you quote clarifies this for crying out loud. His first sentence is pointing out the strawman you keep attacking, that is not his argument it is what you have constructed.
Even when you quote a person you continue to argue against a strawman. You are either being willfully deceptive here or you are not reading critically. This is a good example of why you should not be taken seriously.
Thanks for proving my point once again. It's like listening to a broken record hearing people on the Left trying to explain their position even when that position is obviously wrong. It's like you all go to school to learn how to spin how up is really down.
It's just like Activist Judges who tell us abortion is a privacy issue and how banning a people's freedom of religious expression is constitutional, with absolutely no proof of that claim.
I said no such thing. I said that I am not making any claim at all, and therefore do not need to prove anything. You, on the other hand, have made a claim and I am challenging you to prove it. That is the entirety of my argument.
I have already explained why your assertion about criminals robbing banks does not make sense, and again that is a claim you have not proven. You have not replied to that, or any other point, which makes your argument baseless. You have no actual proof or you would have provided it by now. You are right, though, that this thread is over; it was over the moment you posted yet another claim you could not prove.
No because if someone kills someone. They have no right to still persist in this world therefore the offender must be aware that it is an equal punishment.
Exactly. And not only that, keeping murderers in jail only gives them a roof over their head, free food, cable, and an education. Instead, people living in poverty are left out and forgotten, barely making dollars a day to fend off for themselves. The government does not need to waste so much money on such criminals, for the other half of the earth that decided murdering should be done, the same should be done back as retaliation.
