Should the Death Penalty be Abolished?
Yes it should
Side Score: 16
Winning Side! |
 |
No it should not
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the death penalty should be abolished as it is inhumane, hypocritical, and is often proven to be inaccurate. The death penalty does not deter violence, but condones it. In order to combat violence and crime in the world as a whole, you can't use the same exact method that is being deemed immoral, unethical, and unfair. Side: Yes it should
1
point
I believe the death penalty should be abolished as it is inhumane, hypocritical, and is often proven to be inaccurate. The death penalty does not deter violence, but condones it. In order to combat violence and crime in the world as a whole, you can't use the same exact method that is being deemed immoral, unethical, and unfair. Thanks for saving me the trouble of putting this argument forward. Side: Yes it should
The concept of the death penalty is pure hypocrisy. There has been no proof to show that the death penalty deters violence, in fact, it actually condones it. There is a lack of evidence proving that the death penalty is more effective in combating crime and violence than a prison term. Furthermore, Grant McClellan, publisher of “Capital Punishment” states: “the motives for the death penalty may be revenge… There is no way one can tell whether the death penalty deters murderers from killing”. In addition to that, some might say that crime rates are not lowered once the death penalty is abolished, however, Canada actually witnessed a 44 percent decrease in murders across the country 27 years after abolishing the death penalty. This goes to show that eliminating capital punishment from the law system can have an effect on the nation, despite it not being instant. Side: Yes it should
The death penalty should be abolished because it is inhumane. Killing a human purely for the actions they have committed is simply unethical and immoral. Some might argue that there are ways to execute the person without it being painful however there is no ‘humane’ method of killing someone. In 2006, the execution of Angel Nieves Diaz was deemed ‘humane’ as his life was taken through lethal injection however, it took 34 minutes and required two doses. The nature of these methods of killing continues to condone and perpetuate violence in society and fails to reduce the pain the families of the victims’ are already enduring. Side: Yes it should
The death penalty is often proven to be inaccurate. In 2004, a Texan man named Cameron Todd Willingham was executed due to the belief that he allegedly set a fire that killed his 3 daughters. However, after further investigation post execution it was revealed that he was indeed innocent and did not set the fire that resulted in the death of his daughters. Executing someone is an irreversible action that can not be redeemed. Killing someone and later discovering that they were innocent and were charged for a crime they did not commit is simply unjustifiable. Side: Yes it should
Hello l: Seems to me that when 350 death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence, we're doing something WRONG.. excon Side: Yes it should
|
I believe the death penalty should not be abolished considering it does not lower crime rates once abolished, it is not a cruel punishment in relation to the crime the accused person has committed, and last but not least many people believe that it is inhumane; however, taking away an innocent person's life is inhumane. Therefore the death penalty simply reciprocates the already taken actions and is just a form of retribution. Side: No it should not
Anyone who is sentenced to a long period of time in jail can escape. Some ways might be illegal and other ways would be through good behaviour and then put on parole. However, murderers, rapists, and other criminals that have not been sentenced to the death penalty still have the option of committing new crimes once their jail time ends; therefore, society is not protected from this threat and the environment becomes less safe. There have been multiple researches completed that provide evidence that the risk of becoming a victim in such immoral crimes is reduced in the presence of the death penalty. Joshua Marquis, a direct attorney, states that “for each actual execution, about 17 murders are prevented” which in the long run can help decrease crime rates if the death penalty is still present. Isaac Ehrlich, a Buffalo Distinguished Professor of Economics, researched the correlation of capital punishment and crime rates in the 1970's. Ehrlich concluded that the presence of the death penalty had a strong deterrent effect on crime rates. Later on, more research on this topic was completed by Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. The results of both of these researched exhibited a strong correlation of how the existence of the death penalty does in fact lower crime rates. https://sites.google.com/site/
http://sites.pccu.edu.tw/i-say-you-say/ Side: No it should not
I do agree that the death penalty should only be used for the most extreme crimes and mainly directed towards the people who do not improve or add any positivity to our society. However, such punishment is not inhumane if a person has committed murder because by doing so they have forfeited their right to live since they took the life of someone else. Certain crimes that are committed are too violent or offensive, so for those people the threat of imprisonment, even if it is for an extremely long time, isn’t a sufficient enough restraint. Therefore, once the criminals are let out there won’t be anything that would prevent or discourage them from committing crimes or assault since the restraint of just being imprisoned for a certain length of time doesn't bother them. Criminals, especially those who are murderers, should be executed in the same way that they killed an innocent citizen. Some might argue that instead of executing someone they should be imprisoned for life, but the cost of that is much higher. Additionally, if someone is imprisoned for life instead of put to death for gruesome crimes, there is still the risk of them attacking or being involved in violent behaviour towards guards or other prison inmates which adds to creating a more dangerous environment. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ http://www.debate.org/opinions/ Side: No it should not
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Washington. A total of 110 executions have been carried out in the state and its predecessor territories since 1849. All but the most recent three were by hanging. As of 2017, the Washington State Department of Corrections lists eight men on death row. You have problems now FRAUD !!!!!!!!!!!!! Side: Yes it should
Capital punishment is legal in the U.S. state of Oregon. The first execution under the territorial government was in 1851. Capital punishment was made explicitly legal by statute in 1864, and executions have been carried out exclusively at the Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem since 1904. Leftist don't oppose the death penalty do they FRAUD Side: Yes it should
Some people argue that the death penalty can be proven to be inaccurate and some people are blamed for a crime that they actually never committed while the real criminal is free. It is possible to adjust certain procedures and laws that would determine that the correct person gets sentenced to the death penalty and is executed. Even though there can be mistakes made, once it comes down to such heinous crimes, there obviously needs to be enough evidence to convict the person. So once the procedures and certain laws are made more accurate and precise, the death penalty wouldn’t be pushed upon someone based on little authentic and factual evidence, resulting in false conviction. Furthermore, the number of innocent people that have actually been executed is an extremely small number, and in every state in the United States of America that “allows capital punishment, murderers found guilty get a series of appeals that result in an average 12-year delay between sentence and execution”. This also includes certain DNA testing that is able to establish with precision whether or not the convicted person is in fact the killer. However, comparing this to the hundreds of innocent lives that have been taken away since loads of convicted murders have been set free, is drastic. https://sites.google.com/site/ Side: No it should not
The majority of the rationale for opposing the death penalty I can agree with while still concluding it shouldn't be banned. It may not be a deterrent, may be applied unequally, may result in the wrong people executed, may result in many court appeals, may sometimes be cruel and unusual, etc. But all those problems are administrative. It is not inherent that the process has to be that way. If applied extremely rarely, after overwhelming evidence or confessions, in a consistent safe and quick way, then it could still be performed. And to be frank I've never bought the hypocrisy argument that society is no better than the killer if it executes. Not true. If after a fair trial and a jury of peers they decide execution is fair then that is not the same as one wicked individual deciding to rape and mutilate multiple women before killing them. Not even close to comparable. The main reason why I still support it is I do believe there are indeed some individuals in this world who are so horrible and so dangerous society can only be served by ending them. And I don't mean some guy who makes a bad decision during an armed robbery. If you have a convicted criminal who raped and mutilated and left a wake of death and misery, and the evidence is overwhelming and they confessed, and they actively attack other inmates or guards, and show no repentence and instead vow they're going to keep doing it again and again until they're dead, then you've got a very rare situation indeed but you've also got a piece of sh!t menace to the world who holds no redeeming value to continue to breath and eat. In my view executions should be so rare and so no brainer that you only see one or two a year and public and legal sentiment in their cases should be overwelmingly agreeable to doing it. But you know what, you can't do it, if you just blindly declare we can never ever have a death penalty. Side: No it should not
some will say dont punish death with death but just the fact that criminals who commit horrendous crimes can continue to even breathe the same air as us is a crime in itself. i believe terrorists should face the death penalty and child rapists should face the death penalty. i do 100% believe these people do not deserve to live after committing such acts. it should be a penalty that criminals are so scared of that they won't commit a crime to start with. Side: No it should not
1
point
i believe terrorists should face the death penalty The problem with that is who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter very much depends on who you ask. As far as the Nazi regime was concerned, the French Resistance were terrorists. The people being labelled as terrorists now by US and Israeli sources weren't being called terrorists back when they were being used by the west to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, nor indeed when they were used by President Clinton as a proxy force in the Balkans. Side: Yes it should
|
