The Death Penalty (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT)
Executions are necessary
Side Score: 47
|
 |
Life inprisonment instead
Side Score: 53
|
|
|
|
|
Capital punishment is not only a means to serve justice; it is also an incentive not to commit heinous crimes. I am all for forgiveness but the people who disserve death (because of mass murder, child rape, and torturing innocent people) are most of the time mentally incapable of correcting their so called habits. Also the way the death punishment is done is expensive and painful (basically drowning in your own mucus). I am all for a bullet in the back of the head, cost efficient and relatively painless. In conclusion I am for the death penalty because it serves justice and puts an end to the criminally insane mind. Side: Executions are necessary
2
points
As mentioned in the debate link below, until we can cure homicidal, antisocial, rapists and murderers, all we can do is protect society by removing these individuals. Side: Executions are necessary
3
points
Some people in this world are sick and they DO deserve to die. Society doesnt accept these kinds of people and it will only create unsettling tension if they were still alive. Murderers, rapists, ect. that are completely engulfed in crime probably can not be "cured" by treatment. Why should we waste tax dollars to keep these creeps alive? So they can eat, sleep, and cause more trouble, even in jail. Jails are becoming more overcrowded than ever. NO, dont criticize the justice system (even though it is flawed, but thats another debate) for prosecuting too many people. The simple solution to keep the jail numbers down is execution to the people that truly deserve it. Side: Executions are necessary
Oh please let's not even talk about society. Society didn't accept live-in relationships when they were a new concept. Society is yet to accept homosexuality. And you are asking me to trust this society. yes these people have killed people. Horrible things but does the haloed society have to do the same to them??? Kill them? And are tax dollars more important than the life of a man? Side: Life inprisonment instead
Putting them in jail for life also ensures that they donot kill again doesn't it? Unless you account for jailbreaks, in which case, people will escape regardless of there being the death penalty. A person who is to die a week later will obviously escape if he can today. Side: Life inprisonment instead
0
points
The death is the only thing which can compensate for the death. The death of killer is the only thing which can compensate for the victim's death. The victims had their future deprived. So we should deprive the killer of future. Why do we give the killer their future? In addition,do you want to pay your taxes to feed the killers? No way. Side: Executions are necessary
Is life in prison really a future? Plus, this isn't math. The 2 deaths don't cancel out, retribution is just another word for revenge, which is wrong. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Why sink to the level of the murderers? Why show people killing is wrong by killing them? Side: Life inprisonment instead
Exacution makes it so economically efficient instead of having the tax-payers pay for a rapist or murderer to have three square meals a day, television, shelter and even cigarettes if they want them in jail. Give them the death penalty. I dont care what anyone says, even murderers fear death. Side: Executions are necessary
Capital Punishment is there to prevent the killing of the innocent and to ensure that justice prevails. The whole purpose of capital punishment is to deter crime, which it has proven to do. Those who disrespect the law needs to be punished by the same law so that others will not even think of doing it when it comes to murder. Side: Executions are necessary
I recently concluded a debate where i combined theories with statistics to prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. You cannot ignore other factors that may contribute to the crime rate depending on the geographic location of where the death penalty is enforced. Statistics from the bureau of criminal justice showed that the death penalty when enforced more often deters crime and when hardly enforced, will have none or hardly any effect (s) on the reduction of crime. Side: Executions are necessary
i agree that death penalty is correct because tax and time waste for condemned person first The human rights of the victims is more important than the perpetrators of human rights. Life imprisonment can not be instead of the death penalty. death penalty gives us Awareness of crime Side: Executions are necessary
i agree that death penalty is correct because tax and time waste for condemned person Morality is'nt measured by cheapness but if your worrying about the condemned 's worthlessness, let them do force labor. first The human rights of the victims is more important than the perpetrators of human rights. Refuse being compassionate for the victim, they only urge you for vengeance. -Jimmy (the amazing dude from this site https://m.youtube.com/ And vengeance is another violence. . The most important thing is the peace between the oppressed and the oppressor, and this is what death penalty failed to give. death penalty gives us Awareness of crime Life without parole and force labor is already an awareness of crime, don't be too cruel. The only thing the government should do is to discipline the inmates and death penalty will fail the government's responsibility, For no one will learn if the lesson is being dead Side: Executions are necessary
1
point
Many believe that the possibility of winding up on death row is a powerful argument against committing a capital crime (i.e., murder. The last execution in the US for a crime other than homicide, in this case, robbery, occurred in 1964). If indeed the death penalty is a significantly stronger deterrent than the usual alternative, life in prison, then a case could be made that the existence of the death penalty is likely to save more lives than it takes, and that the lives saved are likely to be those of innocent people. A variation of this argument is that, regardless of how effectively the death penalty might deter potential murderers in general, it is 100% effective in deterring executed murderers from repeating their crimes. If there is good reason to believe that a particular convicted murderer might kill again, given the chance, then the alternative to execution would be a long, perhaps lifetime, prison sentence, to protect the general public. For such people, costly prisons are needed, and it is necessary to have prison guards whose working lives are spent in proximity to very dangerous individuals. In effect, for each killer so sentenced, we are sentencing prison guards as well. If not needed for such work, these guards might serve society in other useful and less onerous occupations. In primitive societies lacking formal mechanisms for apprehending and punishing criminals, it is common for families, or broader kinship groups, to try to avenge the killing of members. This is generally undesirable as it can lead to endless cycles of killing. An important function of a criminal justice system is to head off such reactions. But, in the case of particularly horrific murders, the families of the victims sometimes feel that anything short of death would be grossly inadequate punishment. So the death penalty might be considered as satisfying the need for justice, or, in some cases, vengeance, on the part of people who lose loved ones to brutal killers. Side: Executions are necessary
|
Is it fair to kill humans just because it costs money? Is money suddenly more important than human life? I was taught human life is the most important thing in the world. Maybe I learn wrong.... First death sentence is just motivated by revenge, without it having any real justifiable reason. Putting a man in jail is as effective towards preventing him from committing further crimes as is killing him. Secondly, when you kill a man, you kill him. You can't revoke death so if you killed him wrongly, you still killed him. I doubt a man or woman is very useful when dead. Side: Life inprisonment instead
2
points
And just as murderers have been released and re-offended, so too have innocent people been executed (http://www.innocenceproject.org/). When we kill, no matter what the supposed reason (justice, deterrent, etc.), we are no better and committing the same wrong we seek to redress. Side: Life inprisonment instead
It costs up to 50% more to give someone the death penalty than letting them live out their life in jail. Also, I find it to be nothing more than a revenge tactic, and a way to leave more space in prisons. It doesn't matter if the culprit is dead or still alive, what they did is irreversible. Side: Life inprisonment instead
1
point
No it costs more to keep them alive forever. & if it is expensive to kill them then it should be cheaper. What is the point of keeping them alive forever? it doesn't do us any good. It just uses up our tax money that we worked hard for. & if we execute them then we won't have to worry about them raping & killing innocent kids anymore. Also if we keep them alive forever that will give them more time to escape. Side: Stop wasting our tax money
1
point
I started a debate about a week ago and have entered into another debate on the same topic, this will be the third. In all three i make the same agruments. Personally I think the Death Penalty is getting off easy. Given the choice of having to spend my entire life in prison or the Death Penalty I'd choose the Death Penalty any day of the week. Another reason I would not favour the Death Penalty is, it costs on average $90,000 dollars a year however it costs near $37 million dollars to execute a person. If it was a simple and cheap procedure I'd perhaps agree however when a state is paying $37 million for one execution I simply cannot agree with. Side: Life inprisonment instead
1
point
Personally I think the Death Penalty is getting off easy. Given the choice of having to spend my entire life in prison or the Death Penalty I'd choose the Death Penalty any day of the week. I would assume that if you ever committed a crime horrid enough to warrant capital punishment, you would not want to live with the guilt for the rest of your life. There in-lies the punishment. But to the mind of a criminal, it's an easy break. Most people who are deranged enough to murder or rape simply don't care about the evil they've done, and would be just fine serving a life sentance. In fact, for some criminals, prison life would be preferable to the circumstances they lived in before their arrest. however it costs near $37 million dollars to execute a person. It most certainly does not. bullets cost about 50 cents, and then you just have to pay to dispose of the corpse, which could also be very cheap: just dig a hole away from any aquifers and be done with it. Or let it be buzzard food. There must be a distinction made between court costs and execution costs. The main issue with this is court costs. As of now, most states allow for limitless appeals, even all the way up to the supreme court. This is not constitutional. The constitution tells us that a defendant is entitled to ONE appeal to a higher court. not 50. Courts have the authority to grant further appeals if they so choose, but they are not bound to do so by constitutional law. That is the core of the issue. Side: Executions are necessary
If you believe that we are giving up hard earned money to help murders live in prisons, prevent people by being murderers in the first place by helping them set the course of their life to a positive one. And for those who have already crossed the line, they need more insightful and caring detectives, that were trained to be clever with people, to bring out their heart of gold. And that alone will rehabilitate prisons. Just sentence the murderers to uncompromisingly hard, painstaking labor for rest of their lives that helps pay for prisons, for all of the pain they have caused in the process of killing their victims. Labor should be enough to discourage killing. Do you really want to undergo torturous work without any fun? The only things murderers need is salvation and correction, not the cruel justice of doom inflicted upon them. Side: Life inprisonment instead
1
point
1
point
1
point
Who are we as humans to decide whether another should live or die. We are basically committing the same sin as we are reprimanding. Sure, I know some people are sick and will never change with psychological treatment. And when those people commit sick crimes that are unforgivable to society, they may deserve to die. But I think giving someone the chair or injecting them to die is kinda helping them. Its an easy way out of jail. Some people in jail for life want a way out, they attempt suicide regularly. Helping them die is helping their wishes. After all, in jail, specifically death row, youre not human. You are told when to talk, walk, sleep, eat. There is nothing you can control by yourself, except of course, when to escape through death. (suicide). Side: Life inprisonment instead
2
points
1
point
Then that would cost thousands of our tax dollars! What is the point of keeping them alive forever? it doesn't do us any good. Keeping them alive forever gives them more time to escape. If we execute them then we won't have to worry about them raping & killing any innocent kids ever again. Side: Stop wasting our tax money
1
point
It costs $90,000 dollars a year to keep someone imprisoned, it costs $37 million dollars for an execution. It wastes far more money killing them because what punishment are they recieving, none really. They get 'put to sleep' there's no punishment or suffering which they deserve, life imprisionment with no chance of release can. Side: Life inprisonment instead
In judicial administration, there are basically three types of punishments awarded to people who have committed crimes: the first is what are known as "reformative " punishments, in which the purpose of the punishment is to enable the criminal to reform himself. Punishments here would be in the form of community service,jail sentence etc..; the second is what are known as retributive , in which the punishment is in the form of public lashing, cutting off hands or legs etc., which is expected to work as a revenge and should satisfy the person against whom the crime is perpetrated; the third is what is known as "deterrent" punishment, whereby the object of the punishment is to deter any other person from committing similar crimes. Death penalty is usually a deterrent punishment, and it can be argued that many would be criminals would be deterred from committing the crime when they know the penalty that would meet them is their death. Whether death penalty should be available as an option in a society or not, depends upon the sensitivity of the society to the criminal acts. If some people in that society feel it is "worth it " to commit a crime, because they can serve some term in prison and come back into the society, then it may be necessary to put the fear of life ( death sentence ) into such people by showing that others who have done such crimes have been put to death. The question of whether death sentence should be allowed to continue or not, is therefore dependent upon the society and in general a society that has evolved as a "civilized" society would not need such punishments. Side: Life inprisonment instead
"Retribution is just another word for revenge, and the desire for revenge is one of the lowest human emotions — perhaps sometimes understandable, but not really a rational response to a critical situation. To kill the person who has killed someone close to you is simply to continue the cycle of violence which ultimately destroys the avenger as well as the offender. That this execution somehow give 'closure' to a tragedy is a myth. Expressing one’s violence simply reinforces the desire to express it. Just as expressing anger simply makes us more angry. It does not drain away. It contaminates the otherwise good will which any human being needs to progress in love and understanding." Raymond A. Schroth, SJ Jesuit Priest and Community Professor of the Humanities at St. Peter's College Sep. 5, 2008 I agree with this guy. Retribution isn't possible, this isn't math, the two deaths don't cancel out. But, at the same time, I think that people who have taken someones life may deserve to lose their own. Let the punishment, fit the crime. Unfortunatelyy, it is almost impossible to prove 100% that someone actually murdered another person. If someone get executed, then exoneration isn't possible. Many people have been exonerated off of death row within weeks of being executed. Imagine if they weren't proven innocent until after they were executed? If they are put in prison without possibility of parole, they can be exonerated. We can't eliminate the problem of innocent people being, at least, partially punished. But, we can eliminate the possibility of innocent people beingaccidentallyy put to death by the Criminal Justice System. Comparative advantage! Also, I believe that being locked up forever is much worse than being put to death. Especially if you can't have visitation, I'm not sure they get in or not in prison without possibility of parole (which is a long name:). Plus, there's the money argument. It's not that putting someone to death cost less than keeping them in prison, its the process of getting them to death row. "In the course of my work, I believe I have reviewed every state and federal study of the costs of the death penalty in the past 25 years. One element is common to all of these studies: They all concluded that the cost of the death penalty amounts to a net expense to the state and the taxpayers. Or to put it differently,the death penalty is clearly more expensive than a system handling similar cases with a lesser punishment. [It] combines the costliest parts of both punishments: lengthy and complicated death penalty trials, followed by incarceration for life... Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death penalty case, only more so: • More pre-trial time... • More experts... • Twice as many attorneys... • Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment. • And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of death row." Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center Testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado State House of Representatives regarding "House Bill 1094 - Costs of the Death Penalty and Related Issues" Feb. 7, 2007 I'm not saying that money is more important than lives, I just believe that the fact it costs less money is an extra advantage. You know, the one you list under 'advantages' but not under 'harms' ? :) I hope you are all legit debate people so you understand what I'm talking about. My overall stance in the argument is that we should abolish the death penalty, or only use it in extreme cases, such as terrorists and such. As Benjamin Franklin said, "It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free, than one innocent man to be convicted.” (not that I think all the criminals should be on the streets, but I do think you should be innocent until proven guilty.) Side: Life inprisonment instead
Fox News, “Just or Not, Cost of Death Penalty Is a Killer for State Budgets” Published March 27, 2010 By Ed Barnes http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/ “Overall, according to Dieter, the studies have uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole. That expense is being reexamined in the current budget crisis, with some state legislators advocating a moratorium on death-penalty trials until the economy improves.” This is an extension of my last post. So, life in prison without possibility of parole is more just, and costs less. The job of the Criminal Justice System is to serve justice, so we are maximizing the goals of the Criminal Justice System. The saved money is just an extra advantage. Popular opinion seems to believe that the death penalty would save money. After all, it costs the government millions to keep prisoners alive, fed, and in prison. However, that is simply not true. Death penalty trials are dragged out for much longer, which means we have to pay more legal fees while still paying to incarcerate the prisoner. Side: Life inprisonment instead
1
point
-1
points
-1
points
Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment!Ban capital punishment! Side: Life inprisonment instead
|
