CreateDebate


Debate Info

76
76
Pro-Death Penalty Anti-Death Penalty
Debate Score:152
Arguments:106
Total Votes:166
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Pro-Death Penalty (50)
 
 Anti-Death Penalty (52)

Debate Creator

monizmarco(8) pic



Should the death penalty still be allowed as a form of punishment?

Pro-Death Penalty

Side Score: 76
VS.

Anti-Death Penalty

Side Score: 76
6 points

It should be used more often.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

Go hypocrisy!

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
2 points

How is that hypocrisy?

Side: Anti-Death Penalty

This is my first flip flop. I was first anti death penalty, but if the evidence is concete, dealth penalty should be permitted via the decision of the victim or victim's family. The only way to deter murder is with death.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
Jace(4530) Disputed
3 points

The only way to deter murder is with death.

If the death penalty were an adequate deterrent then we would not have murder. Deterrence is a convenient social myth that lacks actual credibility. And if your concern is deterrence, then what difference does the victim's family's opinion make?

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
2 points

Wrong, very few people are executed from murder charges. Deterrence would be established with death row being 100% execution rate given concrete evidence.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
dkforizzle(175) Disputed
1 point

Punishment is a way to show people what is and is not acceptable so they might improve their lives. How can you even consider death as a form of punishment? The person who committed the murder would have no chance to improve themselves and be a morally functioning individual. Everyone has the right to help when they need it. Obviously if someone is disturbed enough to murder there is some psychological problem that must be dealt with so why not at least try? Why kill them because their brain isn't wired like ours or because some traumatic experience drove them crazy? Yes they deserve punishment, but death doesn't accomplish what punishment aims for. It's odd that people would give our government the right to kill people for moral mistakes instead of trying to help them. Would you agree that your code of ethics is based on GPGN (greatest positivity for the greatest number of people)? If this is so how can you call the government killing someone ethical? Death is negative. So the initial killing is negative and the killing of the murderer is also negative. The mourning of the victims family is ended with the death, but the murderers family is now mourning. This has only caused positivity for the victims family and people shouldnt be getting satisfaction from death anyway.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
2 points

(Note: I would have hit "clarify," as I don't disagree with most of what you said I'm just fixing one aspect of it for you, but clarifications don't always show up in the activity feed as often as disputes or supports)

All definitions of "punishement" I found went more or less along these lines:

1: the act of punishing

2a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution

b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure

3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

That was from MW but the top 5 search results for "punishment definition" all yielded almost the exact same description.

So, is there anything in there that states (or even implies) that the offender must live through his punishment? Or that rehabilitating or helping the offender is the primary (or alternate) purpose of punishment? No? I thought not. So I reject your first sentence because that's not what punishment is; its retribution, not rehabilitation.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
2 points

I must say I'm really looking forward to seeing how you turn this around into shaming me so completely I don't ever want to challenge another person, again. I want you to stop wacking yourself off, pull your hands out of your pants, and put your money where your mouth is, for once.

Or is this going to be the third challenge I issue to you that you run away from?

Time will tell.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

Sure, it is important to help those who committed crimes and improve them, but not when he took the life of another human being life, life is a natural right, and murder should never be tolerated.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

Meh, I think you're discounting crimes of passion. A scorned wife who finds out her hubby has been cheating on her since their honeymoon and flips shit and stabs her man to death with a pair of scissors probably didn't take the time to consider the possible sentence before she did it.

For a criminal planning out a murder I agree that the threat of death might do something to deter them, but there are a lot of crimes committed that are not premeditated like this, and in those cases a threat is pretty much worthless.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
1 point

No, I am not discounting crimes of passion, it is still murder, and it shouldn't be treated any less. The victim's life shouldn't be treated any less respect than a victim out of premeditated murder.

All life should be treated equally under the law, and those who commit the act of violence. No violence should be tolerated, and dismissing murder of a crime of passion is tolerating violence.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
Roblovesargu(61) Disputed
1 point

Ah yah crimes of passion. The reason we should ban guns. To easy to just shoot the cheater instead of thinking it through.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
Assface(406) Disputed
1 point

if the evidence is concete

And it so rarely is.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

Who do you think should be responsible for carrying out the death penalty? Should it be the government?

If so, I find it interesting that you would allow the government to take away the most valuable thing we own - and nothing more.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
2 points

I think death penalties should be allowed for harsh offenses. But I think there should also be a minimum of 10 years that the person must serve before they are actually put to death.

This way they suffer, have time to reflect on what they did. But it also allows for appeals, or new evidence to pop up, that may clear them of a crime they didn't commit. (This may not happen all the time, it does happen quite a bit)

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
2 points

we are spending an insane amount of money on bad people in prisons. who would rather use that money on prisons than on saving good peoples lives, feeding innocent hungry people, curing diseases, spreading access to healthcare, etc? you can save and improve thousands of good peoples lives for the amount of money that it takes to imprison 1 bad person for life.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

I believe we should have a death-penalty system similar to that of India. It is very rarely used, but when it it, it's to great effect.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

I'm for it in principal. My problem is the "innocent man" issue. If we ever have or ever will put an innocent man to death, then the death penalty is not a supportable principal. If you support the death penalty and concede that an innocent man could be put to death, you must be willing to put your name in the hat, with every one else, to have the government execute you by mistake.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

Yes. If a criminal does something so diabolical, he gave up his life. Like if the guy who did the Newton shooting survived, everyone would call for his death. I kind of like Oklahoma's and Texas' way; they still offer death by firing squad.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

Only in the harshest offenses, and maybe they should uh, cut the costs of doing the deed a bit, eh? The world has enough people on as it is; getting rid of a few bad eggs really shouldn't be much of an issue.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty

yes since that would highly discourage people in committing murder and rape. Lately, people have not fear in the life imprisonment since they have the magic of money and power. So death is the only being they can`t bribe or scare.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

We have to many being in jail and prison as it is and it's costing a lot, these people have murder others. They knew what they did and it's time to pay the price instead of them wasting money so they can live until they die.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Jailing someone isn't a penalty, it's just relocation of the individual into a closed environment. I would enjoy that if I knew that I would have a bad life outside. Why wouldn't I just commit a crime and let you, the citizens, pay for me, yes your taxes pays for my well being. Death penalty should be allowed for those who deserves it. In this day it would mean being charged with murder or more murders with undeniable evidences. Yes it is a long process, which takes years. Also now those you are to be executed in US, gets a last dinner; I do not see why you would deserve such a hospitality.

In the end I am for Death penalty. It should be allowed for though it solves little, it solves more than not being there.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

Yes, string them up and fry 'em! That is what should be done to the group of men who raped the girl in India and ended up killing her! Yes, they deserve the death penalty!

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

not only should the death penalty be retained but also televised so that we can all see the terror on their faces as they are locked into position.this is where the "real" deterrent lies."seeing is believing".whilst the "act'of killing a vile person is kept behind closed doors it will be relatively ineffective in western society.yes i agree that it must be years in the processing to avert the tragedy of getting the wrong person.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

Yes, the death penalty should be use as a punishment. I'm not saying it is an effective deterrent, don't really care if it is a deterrent. If your issue is maybe a person found guilty isn't really guilty, then that is a separate issue. Assuming a confidence in the legal system (which I don't necessarily have) the death penalty is very efficient. I would have to advocate that, after all allowed appeals were exhausted, all life sentences (proper life sentence, as in you can't get out prison while alive, not the life sentence = twenty years for a nineteen year old) are converted to death sentences. There is no reason for all the law abiding people should pay for criminals to live their life in a prison. (Prison isn't as miserable for everyone as it seems to be for you.) Now I'm not unreasonable, I think those that get a life sentence converted to a death sentence should get a choice of method of destruction, including heroin overdose, or any preferred method of death. Along with that, anyone that get convicted, without a doubt, of crimes even the anti-death penalty people think should be killed, they should be executed in some fucked-up painful-ass ways. Any suggestions?

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

Absolutely. If someone is found guilty of a heinous crime beyond doubt, the people should not be responsible to pay for them to live out their lives with more comfort, food, and medical attention than we even allow to our veterans and innocent homeless population. Our prisons are already ridiculously overcrowded and I do believe the death penalty could stop a lot of people from committing violent crimes. We need to crack down on hardcore criminals.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

I think we must need the death penalty.

First, it has effort of crime prevention.

A death penalty makes people scare and eliminate thinking of commiting a crme.

Second, a life sentence needs a lot of money.

Brutal criminals need many things to maintain their life.

We should give them daily necessity by our tax.

I think it's too begrudge to use our tax to them.

Our tax should be used to more valuable thing.

Third, they should not hope for same treatment.

A death penalty isn't for everyone.

It's only for brutal criminals like killers.

And They already do a violation of human rights.

So we don't need to protect their rights.

They are worse than a brute.

So we need a death penalty.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

It may surprise many that I would vote on this side but hear me out.

There is a fundamental flaw in thinking to say just because there are problems administering something that we then should ban it from being used ever. Flaws may be fixed, risks may be minimized.

I can grant to the opponents that the death penalty really doesn't deter many if any.

I can grant that too many minorities seem to get it relative to the national population.

I can grant that there probably have been some innocents put to death by mistake.

I can grant some of the techniques used to execute are flawed or cruel.

I can even grant that the criteria for imposing it should be soooo tight that maybe no one for 30 years would qualify for it.

But even after granting all that, it doesn't mean society must tie it's hands to never allow capital punishment under any circumstance. That's bogus. That's like if in the early days of surgery an edict was made there can never ever be another surgery because the way it was practiced then was so horrible and ineffective. Wrong. The processes can be re-thought, the decisions honed.

Indeed, there are a small number of people out there (hopefully a very very small number) who are wicked and dangerous enough that the world would be better off to remove them immediately. But yet there are some. There really are some people that bad. And the whole time you incarcerate someone truly that bad you are wasting resources, potentially endangering other prisoners, and definitely endangering guards. Yes, there are some people who do deserve to be executed. The option to do so should remain. It should be very hard to do it. It should be extremely rare. But the option should exist.

I also don't buy the hypocrisy argument that society can't kill a killer. Nonsense. We empower police to use deadly force within a parameter, and we empower the military to fight and kill. This is not hypocrisy, it's keeping order in a civilization.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
6 points

I am against the death penalty. There is no crime which justifies others to kill as a form of punishment, and it is ineffective as a deterrent to prevent crime.

The only time where a death penalty is potentially justified is where an individuals continued life is likely to cause large amounts of deaths in the future (so to protect other lives, not as a punishment), such as with OBL (attacks to get him, or terrorists attacks until he was released, and such), and where there is as close to certainty over guilt as possible. This is the only exception that I see as valid - all other state-dealt deaths are nothing other than murder.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
ShinSakuraNo(22) Clarified
1 point

So you are for death penalty in serious cases. Thus you are for death penalty.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
casper3912(1572) Disputed
2 points

No, because if that was true, so would this be: "so you are against the death penalty in serious cases, thus you are against the death penalty"

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
3 points

Human life needs to be valued above all other things. If someone is no longer a threat to the public, the government should not have the right to kill them. Once the danger is gone killing a person is simply murder.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
ShinSakuraNo(22) Disputed
1 point

The murderer didn't value it. So why should his or her be valued? Indeed they are no longer a threat if they are chained. They just know that if they wait, they could be threat again or maybe not depending on the reason of murder.

Indeed we are not them, we should value the life, including theirs. But then, aren't we simply being naive or just stubborn behind our moral code, which they do not oblige to.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
3 points

If someone is wrongly convicted of a crime and put in jail, they can be released if they're found to be innocent.

If someone is wrongly convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, you cannot bring them back to life if they're found to be innocent

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
VecVeltro(412) Disputed
2 points

Well, you can't give wrongfully convicted people back their time either. If someone was released after innocently serving 15-25 years - then no amount of monetary compensation will give the man his lost time back. Should we refrain from putting people in jail, because they could potentially waste the majority of their life in there?

Honestly, if you're going to reject a govermental state security policy on the basis that it may end up killing innocent people, then you should also be consistently against similar policies as well. You'd essentially have to be a hard-core pacifist. Can you support a war against terror if it may end up killing innocent civilians? Clearly, if the loss of innocent life is such a tragedy and even the slightest chance of that happening is enough to condemn the policy - then we can't ever use lethal force for any reason, because there is always a chance some innocent guy may be caught in the cross-fire.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
Cuaroc(8338) Disputed
3 points

I'm sure almost anyone would take being wrongfully jailed for 15-25 years then wrongfully being executed.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
2 points

An eye for an eye makes everyone blind.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
1 point

it is not an eye for an eye. it is about giving the fair punishment people need since life imprisonment is a sham and people always get away with it.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
2 points

I just have one argument to say I am against is that when we allow to use the death penalty, what do we differ from the criminals?! We do the same action, we make the same decision - take a life!

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
1 point

There shouldn't be death penalties anywhere in the world. Just enforced slavery. At least that way's productive...

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
ShinSakuraNo(22) Clarified
1 point

Unfortunately that cannot be done as the prisoners retain some of their ''rights''. Should prisoners be stripped off their rights is another debate, but then isn't death penalty a solution to get rid of some prisoners in the most productive way, after all they do live off our taxes, including victims?

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

It's 2013! Capitol punishment is a relic of the past. Besides, if someone raped and killed my daughter, I'd prefer they suffered the rest of their life in jail being man-raped by a bunch of rednecks and neo-nazi's than just be given the easy way out.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
Thoughtz(2) Disputed
1 point

Wow, a lot of fallacies here.

1. You are generalizing. Not everyone that goes to prison gets man raped. Hell, he might even be the one raping people in prison. But you're incorrect to think that going to jail guarantees a life of butt rapes.

2. Why are you assuming the murder was non white? lol raped by red necks and neo-Nazi's?

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
Taqwacore(667) Clarified
1 point

Who said anything about the murderer being non-white? I know I didn't say that. I think you've jumped the gun and just assumed that, when talking about crime, someone is talking about non-whites. White people are just as inclined toward criminal violence as non-white people.

Why target red necks and neo-Nazi's? Because they love to butt-fuck and they're usually pro-capitol punishment.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty

Guess so. He's not coming back

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
1 point

I think that if the murderer wants the death penalty, they should be allowed it if the victim's family agrees- but for crimes of passion and misunderstanding, no death penalty.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
1 point

THE DEATH PENALTY IS WRONG

ONG FOR SEVERAL REASON

FOR ONE IT GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO COMMIT MURDER AGAINST ITS CITIZENS NUMBER 2 MURDERS ARE USUALLY NOT PREMEDITATED AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE TREATED AS MANSLAUGHTER NOT INTENTIONAL THIRD IF SOMEONE IS KILLING SOMEONE EXCEPT IN SELF DEFENSE IT MEANS THEY HAVE A PROBLEM AND NEED PSYCHIATRIC HELP

ALSO IT DECIDED BY MEN AND WOMEN THAT COME INTO THE COURTROOM WITH BIASES WITH IDEAS AND MORALS WHO ALREADY HAVE DEFINED OPINIONS AND AREN'T NECESSARILY RECEPTIVE TO A DEFENSIVE ARGUMENT AND THERE IS ALSO THE INNOCENT TO CONSIDER SOME PEOPLE SAY THE LOSS OF INNOCENT LIFE IS STATISTIC LY ACCEPTABLE BUT COULD YOU SAY THAT IF IT WAS YOU UP THERE?NO! TAKING A LIFE FROM A MURDERER IS MURDER SO WHAT DOES TAKING THE LIFE OF AN INNOCENT MAKE YOU? EVEN BY AMERICAS MORAL STANDARD IT WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE THOSE WHO SENTENCE WORTHY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ,IF YOU LOOK AT OUR LAW SYSTEM YOU REALIZE SOMEONE WHO KILLS SOMEONE WHO KILLED THEIR RELATIVES IS PUT TO DEATH AND ISN'T THAT JUST WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS GUILTY OF

?

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
1 point

WHY SHOULD SOMEONE ELSE HAVE TO DIE THIS MEANS THEY HAVE A PROBLEM NOT THAT THEYRE KILLERS IF THEY DO THIS THEYRE USUALLY MISSING CERTAIN MENTAL INHIBITORS AGAINST KILLING AND THAT MEANS THEYRE SICK

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
Cuaroc(8338) Clarified
1 point

Just so you know very few people will take you seriously if YOU WRITE IN ALL CAPS.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

no there shouldn't be a death penalty aren't we essentially playing god we do not have the right to take someone Else's life no matter the crime thats just what i think

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
1 point

absolutely not. its that kind of mentality that helps aggressiveness linger on by showing that its ok for you to hurt someone who may slightly hurt you or greatly hurt you for that matter. while i'm not against self defense, imagine if you heard a story of someone who had self defended himself and knocked the other guy out to the point of unconsciousness, but instead of calling the police he decides to finish him of with a couple of blows from Maxwells silver hammer. people who are already contained in prison cells cant hurt anyone in normal society so why go the extra step to kill him? if he does pose a threat to prisoners inside you could still even then lock him up in permanent solitary confinement. it seems so unnecessary to have to kill someone, just as long as there is at least a bit of reason to keep them alive whether it be 24/7 solitary confinement or simply putting them in prison. as long as there is a way to keep them alive without them hindering other peoples rights them you should keep them alive. they still have a life to, and for all we know they could make a total spin and become a rehabilitated individual, they could even help rehabilitate other prisoners in a prison as well and do good now where they could not do good before.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
1 point

I'm inclined to belief, that every crime should have a following punishment, however, from my point of view if government will support such verdict as capital punishment it will not reduce crime rate among people. Moreover, death penalty is just deprivation of life of offender, consequently, not right decision to overcome a real existing problem, it's just eradication of a person. In addition, capital punishment affects plenty of people and ,obviously, their psychology, which can lead to following offenses.

Thereby, it is a significant aspect in favor of prohibition of this form of penalty.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
ShinSakuraNo(22) Disputed
1 point

How would you then punish a serial killer? or a hitman? If according to you every crime should have a following punishment.

Side: Pro-Death Penalty
1 point

Well, the death penalty is something like not giving criminals a second chance, so i don't think it should be allowed, unless for serious crimes like murder

Side: Anti-Death Penalty

Well how can you say this is moral,the State has no right to legalize Death Penalty mainly for it is irreversible;Better show mercy and give the culprit a second chance.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
flewk(1203) Disputed
1 point

If the culprit murders people, his victims' conditions cannot be reversed either. So what happens when he kills again? A third chance?

If you a kill a person on purpose or through recklessness then you should be punished. You have taken away someone else's life. As you have pointed out, that is irreversible. The criminal's freedom is forfeit. Instead of taxpayers paying to keep them alive or to execute them (death row costs more), they should just be put into labor camps where they can actually contribute to society.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty

The Death Penalty cannot bring someone back who was wrongfully executed.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty
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: Anti-Death Penalty
1 point

There is absolutely no justification for killing someone. Whether they were horrible people, murderers, terrorists, traitors or serial killers, they still shouldn't be killed. The taking of human lives, is the worst crime that exists, which means that the government itself is committing this crime. The death penalty is the biggest example of why there should be a radical reformation of U.S laws.

Side: Anti-Death Penalty