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.
I'm pro-justice, which means doing what is right regardless of whether it involves life or death, which in the case of abortion is always pro-life and in the case of criminality always pro-punishment, which can be death. We have had this discussion multiple times already. It is not hypocrisy.
Your accusation of hypocrisy only works if the pro-life view maintained that all life is sacred and should be preserved.
However, the pro-life view does not say that. It says that all INNOCENT life is sacred and should be preserved. That's where the anti-abortion view stems from, that it is immoral to arbitrarily kill an innocent human being for whatever reason.
The death-penalty isn't about killing an innocent person. It is about punishing a criminal guilty of the highest crimes. It is about making society safe and removing the elements that endanger it.
This is consistent reasoning and there's no hypocrisy in it. Pro-life is about protecting the innocent, the death penalty is about justice and retribution.
This is about the pro-life view's compatibility with the pro-death penalty view. And the pro-life view entails that it is immoral to kill innocent people for whatever reason. That entails the unborn. Now, whether the unborn are people or not is irrelevant and will not change the general pro-life view that it is wrong to kill innocents.
This tread isn't about abortions. If you want to debate the status of the fetus, then make a new debate.
It is hypocrisy to say that you are 'pro-life', when you are also 'pro-death'. To distinguish between innocent and guilty is not a 'pro-life' standpoint.
The point is that 'pro-life' does not mean that people are 'for life', as the name suggests. It means that people are against abortions. Labels are dumb.
Yes, pro-life is exactly about establishing that it is always wrong to kill innocents people and that since the unborn are without guilt and are people - then it is always wrong to kill them. Just because some pro-lifers make asinine arguments - that doesn't mean that they represent the greater movement or that their arguments deserve attention while ours don't.
I merely give the case to my particular brand of pro-life, which I share with many others.
The general syllogism follows like this:
1. Killing an innocent human being is always wrong.
2. The unborn are innocent human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is wrong to kill the unborn.
This is irrelevant to the current discussion. This is about pro-life views and their compatibility with pro-death penalty views.
You, at the moment, are not arguing about the compatibility between pro-life and pro-death penalty. Instead, you are arguing about the validity of the pro-life view which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The truth value of an idea has no bearing on whether that idea is logically and normatively compatible with another idea.
Again, if you wish to discuss the validity of the pro-life view, make a new debate thread about it.
I didn't bring it up, you did... and I told you that it's a non-sequitur. You ignored that and told me once again that a fetus isn't a human - to which I once again I pointed out that your current line of argumentation is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
There is no inherent inconsistency between pro-life and pro-death penalty no matter how much you want there to be.
This is my last post here. You can have the last word if you want.
No, 'Pro-life', as we commonly use it, says shit all about innocent lives and all of that crap. It's only regarding abortions. The specific arguments that pro-livers use to justify this may use innocent lives, but very specifically, 'Pro-Life' is nothing more than a position against abortions.
I'm not saying that Pro-livers wouldn't generally agree with you, or that I disagree with you about innocent lives. I'm just against you defining 'Pro-life' as you wish.
Why is abortion unjust and retributive murder just? Why is the just response to crime always punishment? Seems to me "justice" could be an easy stand in for personal preference.
Also, if you are going to define the issue of the death penalty in terms of the action (punishment) rather than the result (life/death) then in order to be fair I should think you would need to define the issue of abortion similarly (i.e. as either pro-abortion or anti-abortion). You cannot have it both ways and maintain your credibility.
Why is abortion unjust and retributive murder just?
It's in the title: retribution. Abortions aren't performed to teach anybody a lesson or to equalize circumstances. A fetus hasn't done anything to be punished for.
It's in the title: retribution. Abortions aren't performed to teach anybody a lesson or to equalize circumstances. A fetus hasn't done anything to be punished for.
Retribution has very little to do with teaching a lesson (please note the high rates of recidivism and low efficacy of deterrence punishment has), and thus serves primarily to attempt to satisfy the personal feelings of others. Very rarely does punishment even begin to "equalize circumstances" and it is a self-satisfying practice at best. Retributive justice systems are a contradiction in terms, and it is well-documented that a non-retributive approach actually cuts crime. The question revolves around whether justice is defined as being primarily for the individual or for the society, and in my opinion the law is a social entity and serves a greater function.
In the particular case of legally sanctioned murder, I think it becomes further pertinent to consider the ramifications of state sanctioned and conducted homicide. If we value human life how can a state knowingly and deliberately take that life? How does that not violate its own principles and ethics? The only difference between the convicted criminal and the fetus (other than the scientific fact that the fetus may not even be viable to live) is that one has done wrong, however if we claim as a society to truly value human life then it should be unconscionable to take any human life regardless of the circumstances.
Furthermore, abortion is not about punishment. It is about female empowerment to have control over their bodies and lives, and especially so when the pregnancy is a consequence of non-consenting sex or endangers the life of the mother. There is a right to self-preservation and autonomy that is too over-looked.
Everyone's so eager to accuse everyone else of hypocrisy these days, as if that had any bearing on the truth of a single belief.
Even granting that failure to practice what you preach is an essential character flaw (ignoring that fact that it's pretty much universal and that calling attention to character flaws in place of an argument, no matter how significant, is literally the definition of ad hominem), it's impossible to know whether someone is a hypocrite without intimate knowledge of the bases of their belief. You can't just look at two opinions and say "that's contradictory." An infantryman could be a vegan and you wouldn't know whether he was a hypocrite unless it was certain that, for example, his vegetarianism was an expression of extreme pacifism and not just a health concern, and his participation in aggressive military action was disregard of that. And even then, you and he could quibble about what constitutes hypocrisy for ages and ages.
Failure to practice what you preach is dependent on what it is you're actually preaching, and the vast majority of people's opinions can't be boiled down to "THIS AND ONLY THIS FOR ALWAYS" no matter how much you'd like to belittle them.
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.
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?
Wrong, very few people are executed from murder charges. Deterrence would be established with death row being 100% execution rate given concrete evidence.
First degree murder involves planning, and generally when someone goes to the effort of planning to commit a murder they do not anticipate getting caught so the death sentence does not factor in their considerations. So long as the chance of being caught is not considered to be 100% then the death penalty is not a guarantee and thus not a successful deterrent. I also do not think that there is any way to actually bring the actual execution rate to 100%, particularly in a "timely" manner, without violating due process. There are reasons that some execution sentences are not carried out.
It is impossible to suggest that 100% execution rate wouldn't deter some or all first degree murder. Actually, if a state doesn't have the death penalty, it definitely factors into the planning because he knows that even if he gets caught, he has a win win situation due to the fact he can kill while preserving his own life either in prison or free man.
The violation of due process wouldn't be violated any more than it is now. Police and courts are so hung up on prosecution rates rather than truth and justice, which then distorts real justice.
It is impossible to suggest that 100% execution rate wouldn't deter some or all first degree murder.
While I maintain that most individuals who will commit murder will remain undeterred, I am willing to concede that there may be some who factor that added risk into their calculations and are consequentially deterred. However, I would argue that a life in prison is not an insignificant deterrent itself (considering some actually prefer the death penalty) as far as deterrence is possible and that a 100% execution rate only barely raises the chances of deterring someone. I do not think the meager gains of such a policy practice can outweigh the risks of a wrongful execution (which is a documented occurrence).
The violation of due process wouldn't be violated any more than it is now.
Existing dysfunction and injustice does not in any way make additional dysfunction or injustice permissible or right. You cannot simply add another wrong and dismiss its ramifications by saying the system already commits wrongs.
Excuetion would only be violent offenders.
Except for when it would be against the wrongfully convicted, and with a 100% execution rate there would be no recourse. Furthermore, execution serves only to satisfy personal emotions and focusing upon a twisted individual sense of justice rather than the larger social value of life is misguided. If the state and society claims to value human life, then the guilt or innocence of that life should not matter. The state and society should refuse to steep to unethical behavior and should actually champion its value of life rather than degrade it.
Psychopaths are the only people that 100% execution rate wouldn't deter, and there are very few. It is more about the respect of someone's life, and the death penalty is that, so it stands that the death and misery they caused would easily be justifiable for death. The death penalty is not about only deterrence, but also to say that life will be protected and murder will not be tolerated. Life in prison is an tolerance of murder. It is basically saying it is okay that you killed, so the burden of your life is in the hands of others to support
The death penalty is not an act of injustice or additional dysfunction, it is about protecting life from the act of unwarranted aggression.
Not only is the wrongfully convicted miniscule in murder cases, but many of those wrongfully convicted cases really a byproduct of overzealous prosecutors, who are looking for catch phrases for future political office based on their conviction rate. Preserving the life of murderers is not valuing life, it is tolerating murder. Life is only a one time deal, and one taking someone's life is disgusting and perserve. Taking the life of an murderer is not unethical, it is moral, the right to life is a natural right, and anyone who defies this right must be punished. Some people can't be fixed.
It is more about the respect of someone's life, and the death penalty is that ... The death penalty is not about only deterrence, but also to say that life will be protected and murder will not be tolerated.
Death by execution is inherently disrespectful of life. You claim that life is protected, but the life taken by the murderer is already gone. You cannot protect against what has already happened, and killing someone else does not bring someone back to life (nor does it prevent them from killing any more than a life sentence). If you go back to deterrence then please actually refute my point about the merits versus risks/costs of a 100% execution rate.
Furthermore, saying that a life sentence in prison is toleration of murder is a massive stretch of the imagination; tolerating murder would be not responding to it at all. A life sentence is a response, and it is also one which affirms life uniformly. And sure it is at a cost to the taxpayer, but whether or not we execute someone should not be dependent upon the relative financial cost.
Not only is the wrongfully convicted miniscule in murder cases, but many of those wrongfully convicted cases really a byproduct of overzealous prosecutors
So in your view it is perfectly just to execute the innocent because they are already victims of a flawed system? That is sick and twisted. If you value life then you should care about the wrongfully convicted... no matter how miniscule their numbers. If they have not done wrong then it is innately unjust and immoral to execute them which is what your call for 100% execution would require.
Death by execution is inherently disrespectful of life.
No death by execution is not inherently disrespectful of life, there must be punishment and proportionality to every crime where it should be clear that the proportionate principle is a maximum, not mandatory. A criminal would only lose his right to life if he had first deprived some victim of that same right, furthermore, in libertarian theory, there would be no compulsion on the plaintiff, or his heirs, to exact this maximum penalty. If the plaintiff or his heir, for example, did not believe in capital punishment, for whatever reason, he could voluntarily forgive the victim of part or all of his penalty. The 100% execution rate solely depends on the plaintiff, not on the state.
If you go back to deterrence then please actually refute my point about the merits versus risks/costs of a 100% execution rate.
Already did this. The deterrence of proportionality in punishment to murder has merit more over than the risk and costs because those suspects will know the potential outcome if they commit this act. Only psychopaths will deterrence not work because most people value their life over others first so the deterrence of the death penalty is inherent. Eye for eye analogy, and not eye for eye lash.
So in your view it is perfectly just to execute the innocent because they are already victims of a flawed system?
Unfortunately, your misinterpretation far stretches beyond comprehension from my last post. There is no way that I believe it is okay to execute innocent people because of a flawed system. Way to twist the words. Wrongfully convicted cases are so small tiny, yet it is critically important to prove in court beyond reasonable doubt the murder, and again, most of the wrongfully convicted come from cases of overzealous prosecutors where there may be a lack of real evidence and only circumstantial evidence.
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.
(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.
Why do you punish your dogs? Is it to cause them physical pain for not following your rules that it can't understand? How could it ethically deserve such treatment? It has no way of avoiding it. People with common sense punish their dogs to show them the difference between what is and is not acceptable. Do good dogs shit in the house? No they don't. Punishing a dog is making it better. Do good kids act up in public places? No they don't. Punishment makes them better also. What is the purpose of a government? Good governments don't provide things to us to hurt us, but to make our lives better. The United States is good to me, because it gives me opportunity to make my life better. Government is in place (at least from a democratic POV) for the people. We are not here to serve the government, so killing people to make an example isn't even parallel to democratic ideas. A good democratic government makes its citizens lives better. If nations worked on rehabillitating murderers the technology and understanding of the subject would become better and better over time, which means that they would have done a good thing for all of humanity. What would a government gain by not punishing as a means of rehabillitating? My first sentence was not a definition of punishment, but another way of saying what we use it for. Punishment doesn't have to have that reason, but for the sake of countries and their citizens it is the most appropriate.
If your first sentence was a definition of "punishment" or a saying for what we use it for, either way it's wrong. That's my only point. Punishment, as a concept, encompasses killing the offender.
Haha you can't even make another point!? Look how bad you are! It's wrong? Haha you took a definition from a book and I gave you a thought out, logical understanding of what punishment is used for and it's place in government and I'm wrong? The question is should the death penalty be allowed as a form of punishment. I said no and gave an argument as to why. You dismissed what I said on the basis that my explanation of punishment isn't a dictionary definition? What came first? Language or dictionaries? Language. So people used the method of punishment to teach people for thousands of years and eventually the idea was voiced in the english language. For reference they put it in a dictionary. What I said and the definition are pretty much the same thing, I just expanded on the idea. YOU FUCKING SUCK AT DEBATING BRO. Punishment as a concept DOES encompass killing as a possible form of punishment. I gave an explanation of why that particular form of punishment doesn't have a place in government. Specifically democratic government. You don't have a point dude, because you fucking suck. My first sentence is not wrong. It is a conclusion that i gave sufficient arguments to follow to. it wasn't an assertion, but thats what you treated it as. You don't actually debate points, you take a great argument and try (in vain) to find contradictions in it because you can't get me in one yourself. You said "Learn to finish your debates or get the fuck off my site." I shoved your point down your cock sucking throat and you have nothing. Absolutely nothing? I wasnt even online when you wrote your latest rebut and you couldnt even take a second and think of an actually good point or counterargument? Why don't you get the fuck off of this site, take a couple classes on logic and forensics, and then actually pose a challenge. Slut.
You gave me a possible application for the word punishment, and expanded upon what the concept of punishment means to a society. You also said that punishment is essentially rehabilitation and that death can't be said to be called a punishment. So I gave you a textbook definition of punishment to show that punishment, as a word and as a concept, very much includes killing the offender in question.
When deciding if something should be allowed as a form of punishment I think it's important to establish what "punishment" is, no? If you alter the definition of "punishment" to mean essentially the same thing as "rehabilitation," and then say death can't be considered a punishment because it doesn't rehabilitate the offender I think that's faulty logic.
I didn't dismiss you're entire argument, the part about "should it be allowed," I just clarified the bit about "form of punishment."
People used the method of punishment to teach people for thousands of years and eventually the idea was voiced in the English language, yes, and death was also used as a punishment for thousands of years before it was a dictionary definition... so what?
What you said and what was in the dictionary were actually not the same thing at all and that was my beef. You said punishment is a way to teach people to be better and benefit society and that this does not include death; the dictionary says punishment is a penalty and/or pain, suffering, rough treatment, and sometimes death.
If you decide to ramble on about the concept of punishment, none of it relevant to the original clarification i made, of course I'm not going to address it in my dispute. I hardly see how this makes me "suck" at debating; I never disputed the random, vaguely-on-topic points you made in the first place, so why would abstaining from disputing them indicate i need to take classes in logic or forensics?
I was disputing your implication that punishment is exclusively "a way to show people what is and is not acceptable so they might improve their lives" and that death cannot be considered a punishment under this definition; that's all. You prattled on about dogs and about the relationship between the government and it's citizens but I didn't disagree with any of that at all and I still don't.
You try so hard to find things that you can do and say to boost your own ego, put down others, boast your extensive education, and suggest others educate themselves. I can't think of any reason you would do this in such abundance unless you yourself are insecure and uneducated. People who are actually confident and learned don't generally feel the need to ram those things down other peoples throats.
As for me, throw all the crude insults you like. I've got thick skin and I don't take any insult throw at me by some random troll on the internet seriously. I told you to get the fuck off my site because assholes who talk themselves up while talking down others but refuse to actually debate the issues ruin this site. That's about as vulgar as I've gotten. You've been a jackass hellbent on putting me down, much more so than actually demonstrating these amazing debating skills you keep talking about. Look at this debate. You latched onto the fact that my reply was short and I wasn't disputing much of your original post and tried to turn it around and blow it up into some kind of indicator that I'm an ignorant moron. And in place of actually rebutting my argument at all, you threw out a couple red herrings, attacked a few straw men of your own creation, and then degraded this conversation with pointless and childish insults and petty slanders.
I made an argument for punishment's place in government and simple human interaction. I gave arguments supporting the view and all followed logically. You dismissed what I said based on the definition of the idea of punishment. I will hopefully show you how this is NOT good argument.
Let's pretend that we are arguing whether hoses should be used to squirt random kids that we dint know. I say "We should not be able to do that, because squirting little kids does not accomplish what hoses are used for" and then I go on to describe how hoses are used every day and what they are for and why that does not permit us to use it in the way I am debating.You say "Well your idea of hoses is wrong, because the definition of hose is 'a rubber tube that squirts water'. The definition is not 'gardening tool' or 'car washing tool' so your conclusion of why we shouldn't squirt kids with hoses is invalid.
That is a bad argument, because you are describing what is it, not what its proper use is. I was arguing punishments proper use with humans not what is punishment. The definition of punishment includes killing or obviously we wouldn't be debating whether or not it should be actually used. I was saying that assuming the way we use punishment is acceptable, to teach, it would then be unacceptable to kill because it does not fit the bill of proper punishment, because it doesn't teach. It was part of my argument so you cannot dismiss it as a conclusion until you show my arguments to be faulty. You did not do this, you just said what punishment is.
There wasn't faulty logic until you made your second point. Why do people even question whether death is an acceptable form of punishment in the first place? Because there are acceptable and unacceptable forms of punishment. What makes a punishment acceptable or unacceptable? Well what makes a car acceptable? If it preforms the job of an automobile efficiently if at all. What makes anything acceptable? If it accomplishes the goal it is meant to accomplish. I made arguments as to what we want to accomplish by using punishment and my conclusion was to teach. I then went on to say how death does not teach and therefore should not be allowed as a form of punishment. I didn't alter the definition as rehabilitation, i concluded with the points that I gave that we use punishment to teach right from wrong. People in prison have done wrong and if we want our prisoners to be an asset to the country we must teach them right from wrong so they can be productive and positive. This is their rehabilitation. I did not say that punishment was rehabilitation. i was saying how their punishment should be considered a rehabilitation if we want any hope of turning their life around. Everything logically follows, you just cant stop thinking that the identity of something completely dictates its uses. Your argument for the hose would be "We should squirt little kids because hoses squirt."
You didn't clarify anything, because you suck.
Death was used as a form of punishment, but that doesn't mean that it SHOULD have been used. That is what I was arguing. What I was saying is that you cannot use an English description of an ancient concept and say that since the English description has it this way there can be no interpretation of its uses and practicality. Thats stupid.
This next point of yours is a grade A example of how awful you are at this. Your "beef" was absolute bullshit. Punishment is a way to teach people to be better and benefit society and this was backed up by the arguments that I gave. Death should not be included as an acceptable form of punishment and this is also backed up by the arguments that I gave. I never said that death was not a form of punishment. I concluded that it wasn't based on my points, which you did not argue at all. Death is a form of punishment, but not an ACCEPTABLE form of punishment, because it does not accomplish what we use punishment for, learning. I said that the definition and what I said are the same, because the one who is being rehabilitated is still being punished with suffering or pain and it is accomplishing the goal of them learning right from wrong. Death does not accomplish this and is therefore unacceptable. How do you not get this?
As for your next point, here we go. To win a debate you need a judge. What does the judge actually judge? Whether each party argued and defended well enough. You did not argue any of my points, only my conclusion. You argued against my conclusion with another conclusion, but to argue a conclusion you have to first argue its points so that the conclusion is invalid. You do not even understand what debating is! The fact that you didn't debate the points means that my conclusion is still valid because it followed from logical points. Your conclusion was valid until I argued against your points. Try to understand that I haven't been arguing against your conclusion, because I have said a million times "death IS a form of punishment" I have been arguing your points though, which are all of the reasons as to why your conclusion is right. You have to argue points to win you idiot. You say that my points are vague and random, but you haven't even been able to dispute them! You dispute my conclusion based on YOUR own conclusion which does not even make fucking sense. Think of an argument like a building. How to demolition teams take down buildings? They crumble the foundation, because without a foundation everything falls. If they tried to destroy the whole building from the top down they would be disappointed because everything under the top that is demolished will stand because it has a strong foundation.
It wasn't an implication. It was a conclusion that followed from valid points. I didn't ever say that that is what punishment is. I did say that it can be considered that based on my arguments, which were logical and fine. I didn't prattle you fucking twat, I gave arguments to support a conclusion. You really anger me with your style of debating because you dint even understand how to win. You suck, thats why you need a forensics class. I never said that that is exclusively what punishment is, because you used the word exclusively yourself. I made the point that as far as our uses punishment should not include death.
And your next point which is another pile of dog shit. I say things to fuck with you because I dint like you and if you could see all of the points I make on this site I'm usually respectful and nice, but you are a fucking retard and for making me seem unskillful I will prove that you are. I also fuck with people who give awful, uneducated arguments, so I guess you're a 2 birds with 1 stone situation for me. You think just because your argument gets a point on this website that it actually deserves one, but they really don't.
You told me to get off this site because I didn't finish a pointless debate. I debate the issues but you don't. Every point you have made I have rebutted just to find you saying your conclusions over again as if the fact that they exist make my conclusions irrelevant. You don't argue my points, you argue my conclusion. Look up "how to debate well" or "how to properly debate" and you'll see that you don't even do it right. that is why I don't treat you with respect because you think that my arguments are bad out of your own ignorance. You are a joke. You have not had a point this entire time that I have not been able tot rebut, but you don't even rebut my points. You're an idiot and I will call you that as long as you show me you are one. Learn HOW to debate before you claim how people SHOULD debate. Idiot fuck. I have demonstrated my amazing debate skills, you are just so fucking thick headed and ignorant of logic and forensics that you cant see it. Suppose two people are boxing and two people are watching them. One of the watchers is a boxer and wants to be the best and the other knows how to win a boxing match but cares nothing of boxing itself. They watch the whole fight. It is 5 rounds and there is a bigger and stronger guy and a smaller, leaner guy. The bigger and stronger guy wins the fight by knockout and the smaller leaner guy is out for the count. The whole fight the guy who doesn't care about boxing is looking for the knockout and cares nothing of the technique that goes into it. The guy who is a boxer who is watching was not looking for the knockout. He is a boxer and wants to be the best, so he is examining the technique of each fighter and tries to learn from what he sees. When the fight is over the guy who was watching for the knockout says "Wow that bigger guy must be a better boxer, because he won" while the boxer who was watching is thinking "That smaller guy had a better technique and applied better form. The big guy just threw heavy strikes without form and one of the hundreds of swings actually landed and won the fight." He would conclude that the smaller fighter was a better fighter because he knew what he was doing. The ignorant one would think that the bigger one was better because all he knows is that a knockout wins. He doesn't know what good technique and form are because he doesn't care about boxing as much as the other guy. You are the ignorant guy thinking that one good point will win the fight. I am the boxer who knows technique and form and utilizes it. You say I prattle and ramble, but its just because you don't understand that I am using technique that you don't even know about. You are the ignorant watcher thinking that every kidney shot is useless because it cant give a knockout. You suck dick.
There may come a time where I actually need to dissect this and address some of the relevant points you made (it's hard to sift them out through all the off-topic bullshit), but that time isn't now. It would be pointless for me to try to win any debate with you (or even make any points) when you have this obnoxious, easy-out strategy you have repeatedly used every time you get cornered. So I thought this might be an interesting opportunity for me to use your own arguments against you and see how you handle them. I'm interested to see how you would address your own arguments if they were being used against you and not by you. So, without further adu, here's what it's like to argue with you:
Honestly I don't ever care about what I wrote I was just writing it to write it's just what I thought on the subject. Little shit. Really my debating skills are so far beyond yours it's not even funny. Ignorant fuck. If I wanted to I could put a little effort into this and completely destroy you. Whore. You clearly need to take courses in economics and cooking. Uneducated moron. You don't even debate the issues you just pussy out. Vagina. If I wanted to I could rebut every point you made so thoroughly you'd be ashamed to show your screen-name anywhere on the internet. Crack baby. But I don't want to cause honestly I don't every really care about this pointless debate. Hypocrite. You're so bad at debating I don't know why the fuck you decided to come to a debate site... what the hell were you thinking? Shithead. I don't even give a shit about the death penalty, I was just making a point. Stupid. Pick an actual topic you can actually defend and I will tear you a new asshole. Asswad.
So yeah, I think that pretty much covers it. Gratuitous insults, shameless boasting without ever backing my boasts up, and pussying out of a debate on the ground that "I don't care;" that's what it's been like "debating" you, so far. I personally find it kind of irritating. Whats the point in engaging in a debate with someone if as soon as you make a valid refutation they chicken out and run away while at the same time telling you how much better than you they are? It's maddening. Once I see how you like a taste of your own medicine (and, indeed, how one is supposed to reply to a shitstorm of vulgarities and empty boasts) then I can get around to actually addressing your post, for what it's worth.
Challenge me then you fucking pussy......................................................................................................................................
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?
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.
Murder should never be tolerated because it is a natural right? What gives us the right to live? Because we have the ability? We have the ability to do a lot of things, but don't have a right to do them. Like murder for instance.. Also, is life better than death? People make sure they have their God given rights so that they can do as they please, within reason. If we cannot experience death, how can we know that it isn't something we want? If it was something we all wanted you can pretty much guaruntee that it would be a "natural right", but since we don't know what happens after death who can say that they don't want it. People only fear death because it is an unknown experience. So what I'm saying is that the only reason you claim that people have a natural right to life is because it is the only mode of existence you know and you assume that it is the best and most important mode. What you say is a natural right is just a bias to what you know. Without life being a natural right your argument loses a lot of weight. I guess the question is why is life, objectively a natural right? Also, why shouldn't murder be tolerated? Death could be a paradise of eternal bliss and you wouldn't know that keeping people alive is actually not what they would want had they had a choice. Assuming that death is even negative at all is faulty, because you dont know what death is..
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.
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.
You misunderstand my point and/or I expressed myself poorly.
You said that the death penalty is "The only way to deter murder," but in crimes of passion the criminals don't think about the possible consequences of their actions before they act, so the threat of the death penalty would do nothing to deter them from murdering someone.
I do think it deters premeditated murders.
I do not think the punishment should be any less severe for a crime of passion.
Then apparently it's also a reason to ban scissors, automobiles, bleach and the like; too easy to stab/run over/poison/etc the cheater instead of thinking it through.
No it's not. Again, I dare you to try and kill me with scissors. The guy who stabbed 20 ppl in a school in China is a perfect example
Try sneaking bleach into my food without me noticing.
Find a scenario where I'm standing in front of your car
This is not easy. Stop pretending. You wanna fight? Ill give you a car with scissors all around it that sprays bleech and ill take a gun. We'll see who wins.
The guy in China is apparently a moron. I know three places I could stab you with something as small as a box cutter and kill you within 30 seconds. It's just a matter of a simple understanding of human biology. Scissors would be overkill.
I could probably sneak bleach into your food, but that's because I'm a savage chef; not everyone would be able to do that, so I take your point.
As for finding a scenario where you're in front (or behind.... or nearby and exposed, really) my car, I'm amazed you think this would be an infrequent occurrence, particularly for two people who are theoretically dating. People in general walk in front/behind/around my car on a daily basis; my girlfriend even more so than most people.
I'm not doubting a gun would be a more efficient way of killing someone (like a machete would be easier than a box cutter), so of course if you gave me a car with pointy objects on it spraying bleach and you had a gun you would probably win, just like if I had a machete and you had a box cutter I would probably win, but my point is if you want to ban or restrict something because it can be used to kill someone you have to make a very long list of things you want to ban and you cant just single out and stop at guns.
I don't think he'll be starring in any action films certainly but the point is, if he had a gun at least 10 or so of those are dead.
Not everyone is as skilled as you with a box cutter, which is terrifying btw. Chances are very few people studied where too stab people. But everyone can point a gun.
A car from an in park position is most likely not going to kill or even really injure you unless you stand and looked stunned at it.
You're right. Many things can be a weapon, but few if any of those things would be ONLY a weapon. Guns serve no other purpose but too kill.
Perhaps. A gun is a more efficient weapon than a knife. Are guns where you draw the line? Anything as or more deadly than a gun should be illegal and anything less deadly is okay?
It's not a matter of skill with a box cutter or studying where to stab people. Well, kinda; I work in the medical field and I've seen lots of horrifically wide and deep wounds (including gunshots) that people live through just fine and I've seen my fair share of small, inconsequential injuries that hit something important enough to kill you. Between that and studying human anatomy (because I was trying to get certified as an EMT and not because I was "studying where to stab people") I have a pretty good idea of what kind of lacerations it takes to kill someone, and I can tell you it's not much.
Judging from the numerous incidents that some jackass unloads 2 clips at full auto into a crowd and manages to hit nobody (or something along those lines) it's clear anyone can point a gun, but not everyone can use a gun to hit their intended target. Kind of like everyone can hold a knife, but actually using one to kill someone is a little more tricky.
And a unloaded gun with the safety on locked in a box under the bed is not likely to kill or even really injure you unless you stand and looked stunned at it. It requires a person behind it with the will and intent to pull the trigger and hurt you. Similarly, yes, a parked car won't do much to hurt you, but one with a person in it driving 60mph straight at you sure as hell will.
Why do you reject all the other things guns can be used for? I mean come on, we don't debate like that. You can't just reject numerous alternative uses for a gun - hell, who am I kidding - those are the primary uses for a gun; gun owners use their guns to put food on the table far more often than they murder people, and the same goes for self-defense and entertainment. Murder is actually a relatively uncommon, alternative use for a gun compared to the things I listed, and you refuse to acknowledge those things even happen. What am I supposed to do with you?
There are already restrictions on the type of knife you can carry.
Here's where I draw the line. When every rational unbiased person as well as statistic tells me that a certain weapon is doing much greater damage then the small amount of good it's doing. I draw the line there.
And for the record. Just because you know where to stab someone. Doesn't mean you'll be able to. It's a lot easier to avoid a knife than a bullet.
Again yes cars can be used to mirder a person. But it's much more difficult. You didn't actually even make an argument on that point.
No amount of a guys who want to catch their own meat. Or people who want to put holes in targets is worth all the bodies piled up on the freedom to do so. Think about the fucking selfishness of that. "I don't care that people are dying, I like to sports shoot".
The only argument is for self defense. And the statistics show, you're not safer with a gun. So if you're not safer. It's not defense.
Just type something along the lines of "girlfriend boyfriend (or wife husband) cheating ran over car" into google and you'll get pages and pages of news reports of scored individuals deliberately chasing down and running over their significant others, sometimes maiming them, othertimes killing them. I'm not "pretending;" a car is a 2000lb + death machine and it's very easy to kill someone with a car.
Bleach was a general term for inedible things, poison, or allergens that could be used to weaken or kill someone over time or instantly; if you do a corresponding search on google, you'll find plenty of cases where girlfriends poisoned boyfriends and wives poisoned husbands... oddly enough it doesn't happen much the other way around, but it still happens.
I don't think I need to provide any support for my claim that people get stabbed with sharp objects on a regular basis.
So yeah, all of these things can be used and have been used to kill people. This is easy.
You can type in "monkey at ikea" and you'll get pages of google results. Doesn't mean it's happening a lot.
Ok instead of addressing the lunacy of all these individually. Let me say, if you add up all of the deaths by these objects together it wouldn't be half of the gun murders. And they serve purposes outside of murder.
Hardly fair. The Idea Monkey is an internet personality, and a rather unique one. With all my examples you can find numerous examples of different people in different places at different times doing what I described, not one odd, unique, isolated incident.
Let me say, if you add up all of the deaths by these objects together it wouldn't be half of the gun murders.
Roughly 1820 + 37,200 + 41,800. I think you said gun murders were what, 10,000? And you call me paranoid. You're 4 times more likely to die from a car crossing the street than from a gun in any situation, and you're calling for bans and restrictions on guns, not cars.
And they serve purposes outside of murder.
Guns do serve a purpose outside murder (including preventing murder), you just refuse to accept that fact. They provide entertainment, a means of providing food, and self-defense.
The point is, you can find multiple pages on almost anything online. It does not make it prevalent. And don't try to avoid what my point is by being fake literal.
I'd like to see where you got these #'s. because I'd be willing to bet that those numbers are deaths not murders. The gun death total is much higher. Gun murders is 10,000. Again. Nice try.
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)
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.
Crime prevention by doing violence? Sounds not right. We should'nt kill for vengeance, money and to scare people . We should never consider killing as justice, guilt exist at this action. Yes maybe they are brutal but we are no different to them if we do the same thing that they did to the victim. We violate our own human rights as of the government also kill innocent and intently take other people's lives.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
The death penalty shouldn't be banned as it deters crime. Since people who have done heinous crimes will be executed, other people who intend to commit more crimes will be afraid of the consequences and avoid committing crimes. Therefore, the death penalty shouldn't be banned.
I see the argument that the death penalty could possibly be used on innocent people, and I totally agree we should only use this penalty when there is full undeniable evidence. People may say that life sentence doesn't let the criminal get off free, but death is the ultimate punishment and you at least have a life in prison, unlike the person you murdered for no reason.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I am against death penalty. I believe in what we call “restorative justice”, in which criminals have a second chance to regret their crimes and live another life - because all humans deserve to live. Death penalty chooses no person - even if you’re innocent of the crime. When an innocent is sentenced to death, there is no way to reverse the life that you had taken away. Life imprisonment is more humane because stripping your liberty and rights to live in the outside world is enough for the criminal to think what he’d done.
