Debate Info

The Death Penalty SHOULD be Death Penalty SHOULD'NT be
Debate Score:28
Total Votes:30
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 The Death Penalty SHOULD be (8)
 Death Penalty SHOULD'NT be (11)

Debate Creator

DebateNate(6) pic

The Death Penalty should be be legal in the United States

The Death Penalty SHOULD be

Side Score: 10

Death Penalty SHOULD'NT be

Side Score: 18
3 points

I never believed in the death penalty...until I joined this website, now I'm quickly beginning to see that when people disagree with you, sometimes it's best just to kill them...Or at least that's what a trendy liberal safe space jelly fish would say! Damn you liberals make me want to projectile vomit chunks of lazagna onto chenk uygars face!!!! How can you support the death penalty? You deserve to die for supporting the death penalty!

Side: The Death Penalty SHOULD be

Absolutely. We need to create a society where your actions have consequences, and those consequences need to be demonstrative enough so that it creates a standard for others who may or may not be an offender.

The main problem with the Death Penalty is that inmates on Death Row stay there for years (sometimes decades). Raymond Riles has been on Death Row for 41 years. These individuals who remain on Death Row are soaking up money (remember, they are provided with free healthcare; consistent meals; and various amenities), space, and are being preserved under the theory that just maybe they weren't guilty, even if there is definitive and conclusive proof of their guilt.

The annual average taxpayer cost to keep one prisoner incarcerated in the United States is $31,286. In New York, that number comes in at as high as $60,000. The middle-class, working public should not be responsible for bettering the lives of those who have already given up their societal rights.

[These stats come from the Vera Institute of Justice.]

Side: The Death Penalty SHOULD be
1 point

The way I think of this is, people escape from prison/jail sometimes. What if they're a serial killer or mass murderer? If we don't have the death penalty, they are now able to harm so many more people. If we have the death penalty, it may also get rid of some criminals and prevent new ones, because people will be scared of death.

Side: The Death Penalty SHOULD be
3 points

We have executed multiple innocent people.

The punishment for mass murder is death.

Therefore the system should be put to death.

The logic just doesnt follow. You should only be able to have a death penalty if you have a 100% perfect legal system that never convicts the wrong people. and our system is FAR from that.

Secondly, the death penalty may actually violate the 8th amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Basically when we use punishments were trying to accomplish certain things, namely: provide retribution for victims, punish the assailant, and deter others from committing crime.

The deterrent factor is important. If i know im going to get life in prison for a crime, im less likely to do it after weighing the costs vs benefits. If i know im going to get killed for a crime, im less likely to do it after weighing the costs vs benefits. However, does the idea of death deter more than the idea of life in prison? There does not seem to be any evidence that it does. And if it doesnt serve its purpose more than life in prison then the death penalty is unnecessary. And the term "unusual" in the text of the 8th amendment has been interpreted to mean "unnecessary" (among other things).

so to break it all down the death penalty does not, by any evidence, seem to deter crime more than life in prison. Therefore it is unnecessary. Therefore it is unusual. Therefore it is a violation of the 8th amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Side: Death Penalty SHOULD'NT be

It's counterproductive because it doesn't teach morality. It only teaches power. It teaches that it isn't OK for you to kill people, but that it is OK for the state to kill people. In fact, I don't think the strongest argument against it is even morality in the first place. Firstly, it costs more to execute someone than keep them in prison for life (bizarre, but true because of the long appeals process) so there's the economic incentive. Secondly, it clearly doesn't work, does it? The US doesn't have less violent crime than other civilised countries. In fact it actually has a lot more of it.

Side: Death Penalty SHOULD'NT be
1 point

Hello D:

Nahhh.. You don't teach people not to kill by killing somebody..


Side: Death Penalty SHOULD'NT be
JaceCarsonne(84) Disputed
1 point

It teaches you of a world where your actions have consequences. And those consequences should be reciprocal of your original actions. You take away someone else's right, you lose your right to be a human being.

Side: The Death Penalty SHOULD be
2 points

It teaches you of a world where your actions have consequences.

Killing you teaches you a lesson? How much educational value do you think a person receives from being killed?

1) Your premise is a textbook false dichotomy because it implies that unless you die you do not suffer any consequences.

2) Society gains precisely nothing from punishing crime after it has been committed. Focusing on post crime punishment instead of pre crime prevention implies policy makers either do not want to tackle the root causes of crime or they believe it is inevitable. If it is the latter then killing people for something which will happen whether you kill them or not is pointless and stupid.

Side: Death Penalty SHOULD'NT be
1 point

I don't think the death penalty should be legal, I mean you don't teach someone not to kill by killing someone.

Side: Death Penalty SHOULD'NT be