CreateDebate


Debate Info

50
48
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:98
Arguments:64
Total Votes:120
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (34)
 
 Disagree (29)

Debate Creator

Mr_Bombastic(132) pic



The death penalty decreases the number of murders committed.

You'll need to copy and past the url. Hyperlink isn't working for some reason. Damn Microsoft Windows to Hell!

http://abc7news.com/archive/5954192


Agree

Side Score: 50
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 48
3 points

The Yard Arm needs to be put back in place. 30 days and then you meet the mortician !

Side: Agree

It would also help if we televised all executions. People need to see the consequences for murder.

Side: Agree
LoveU(272) Disputed
1 point

It would also help if we televised all executions

It will give the government a bad name for letting the citizens become a witness to their cruelty

to see the consequences for murder

Your reason of "justifying killing by killing the people who kill" doesn't sound right so it should'nt be supported

Side: Disagree
3 points

The spectre of receiving a lethal injection would, in my opinion, deter many would be murderers.

Turf and drug related gang warfare accounts for the majority of violent homicides in the major cities of the world, from Russia to the U.K, and the United States.

The totally unacceptable murder statistics in such U.S, cities as Chicago Detroit and Miami are rising at a time when overall crime is falling.

We all know that there are different categories of crime, and each case should be judged individually on the circumstances and nature of the crime with only certain classifications carrying the death penalty.

I feel these should include, premeditated murder, murder of a police officer, murder as a result of gang warfare, death caused by rape involving gratuitous physical assault to the victim.

I'm sure there are a number of other categories of murder which would warrant the death penalty but the aforementioned will suffice in the meantime.

There will always be those who will say no to all and every proposal of positive action to stem the shocking and ever escalating rise in murder in the U.S.A.

These are the negative members of the ''NO BRIGADE of PROGRESSIVES''

They follow the motto of their patron Saint ex President ( inertia) Obama,''whatever you do, do nothing''.

That must be one of the most pleasant sounding phrases around at the moment; ''ex President Obama'', with the emphasis on the ex.

Side: Agree
LoveU(272) Disputed
1 point

-Nice argument but let me ruin it

-China has the highest rate of executions yet

Switzerland where death penalty is forbidden has the lowest crime rate

--ofcourse criminals including turf gangs naturally do violence,

same to the not-so unnussual violence done by the government

-Death penalty is not positive rather a negative action(killing)

which has positive results such as prevention.

-you may mean 'Deter murder, ascend killing

Side: Disagree
2 points

Actually I believe that to be true, either by removing the person who would have made more murders or by deterring others who don't want to face the punishment. But it's not absolute. Just because it deters some doesn't mean it deters all. Nor do I think deterrence should be relied on as the main justification for having a death penalty. To me the only justification you need is that there indeed are some people out there who are so terrible the world is better off if they have zero chance to ever hurt anyone ever again.

And with that said, I think it should be a rare punishment, hopefully a last resort, and only if there is no shred of doubt about the crime. Heck, it may be so hard to put people to death that only a couple have it actually happen to them. But for those couple, as terrible as they are, it should be an option still on the table. Not simply banned.

Side: Agree
LoveU(272) Disputed
1 point

removing the person who would have made more murders

If we do it then we're a killer

.

some people out there who are so terrible the world

Terrible-ness can't be lessen if we're being terrible.

.

zero chance to ever hurt anyone ever again.

You despised them if they hurt someone when death penalty do the same.

.

no shred of doubt about the crime

We should be conscious about the government's killing first.

..

Can't dispute the rest of your claim, nice job.

Side: Disagree

If you can read this and still believe that the death penalty does not prevent murders, then you are denser then uranium.

Side: Agree
seanB(545) Disputed
2 points

This is a perfect example of selective interpretation. During the 1990's when death penalty states saw a decline in murder rate per capita, nearly every state in the US also saw a decline in murder rate per capita -- including those without the death penalty. Consider also that non-death penalty states, during the years from 1990 - 2000, saw a sharper decline in murder per capita, by about 25% on average over the decade. If the death penalty was the catalyst for this decrease in murders, then why did non-death penalty states see a greater average decrease in murder rates through the same period? Consider also that, currently, states with the highest numbers of murders per capita are the death penalty states, and that 10 out of the 12 states with no death penalty, have murder rates per capita below the national average. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/us/absence-executions-special-report-states-with-no-death-penalty-share-lower.html )

From 1990 to 2015, the number of murders per capita was on average 30.4% greater in death penalty states when compared to non-death-penalty states; also note that in every single one of these years the number of murders per capita in death penalty states was higher than the number of murders per capita in non death penalty states. ( https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates )

This shows conclusively that in the past 25 years, death penalty states suffer significantly higher numbers of murders per capita, and that they also show a smaller decrease in annual murders per capita when compared to non-death penalty states.

How does this fit into your hypothesis?

Side: Disagree
1 point

I hate death penalty's so you can tell the gov. To bite me.

Side: Agree
1 point

death penalties are the reason less murders happen.

So go kill yourself!

Side: Agree
1 point

death penalties are the reason less murders happen.

Yet doesn't really decrease killings.

Side: Disagree
WormPod(58) Disputed
1 point

A mass murderer plans on killing 50 people. We kill him. We prevented 50 killings....

Side: Agree
3 points

Imagine if what he said was true:

A guy takes a knife from the kitchen draw ready to kill the person that has made him so angry but then he pauses "Oh shit, this year there was 10% more people executed for murder than the year before!!! I was okay with spending a life in prison for this crime but being that its slightly more likely I might be executed I should put the knife down!". Wow that was a close one!!!

Side: Disagree
2 points

Sure it may discourage some murders from taking place, but for every person/people killed, one more is added to the death count because of the death penalty. Also, most murders are caused by anger or frustration. Statistics aren't going to stop an angry, psychotic, murderer.

Supporting Evidence: Why People Murder (time.com)
Side: Disagree
2 points

I oppose the death penalty not because it's immoral but because you can't trust an organized crime agency like the government with that kind of power.

Side: Disagree
WormPod(58) Disputed
1 point

If you drop the death penalty, and the government wants you dead, you will just wind up dead by other means.

Side: Agree
TheMask(131) Disputed
2 points

Yes well, in a perfect world there would be no government.

Side: Disagree
1 point

The difference in murder rate between 1999 and 2000 is negligible. There was no "skyrocketing".

https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

In general there is no correlation. See:

https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low for homocide rates.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/sep/21/death-penalty-statistics-us for executions.

If you can't interpret these graphs then I suggest youre as dense as Osmium ;)

Side: Disagree
outlaw60(11723) Disputed
1 point

The difference in murder rate between 1999 and 2000 has what to do with the murder rate of 2017 ?

Side: Agree
Atrag(5348) Disputed
2 points

Runtime Error line 102: Failure to load article http://abc7news.com/archive/5954192/

Side: Disagree
1 point

Hello:

Murder is a crime of passion.. Most times, it does NOT involve forethought.. If it DID, then the death penalty may very well deter murder.. But, murderers don't consider the consequences of their crime, so the death penalty wouldn't DETER it.

excon

Side: Disagree
1 point

Did it ever occur to you that the reason the murder rate drops is because people who might be considering doing it might think twice after hearing about new executions? The fact remains. Whenever someone is executed, there are an average of 74 fewer murders.

Side: Agree
excon(6315) Disputed
2 points

Hello Mr.

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I agree with you.. The problem is you don't know what a crime of passion is..

excon

Side: Disagree
outlaw60(11723) Disputed
1 point

The Ex-Con says murder is a crime of passion yet you have zero facts !

Side: Agree
excon(6315) Disputed
2 points

Hello again, o:

The "outlaw" says I have no facts, yet HE has no facts to back up his claim about my facts..

See??? We BOTH can play your stupid game..

excon

Side: Disagree
WormPod(58) Disputed
1 point

Murder is a crime of passion? Always? No one ever plans out a murder?

Liberals often use the phrase "if it saves one person" until they need to scrap the concept temporarily.

Side: Agree
excon(6315) Disputed
2 points

Murder is a crime of passion? Always? No one ever plans out a murder

Hello W:

ALWAYS????????? No.. Did I need to SAY that?? Not in my world.. CLEARLY, in the MAIN, murder, IS a crime of passion. That is just SO.

excon

Side: Disagree
-1 points

Wrong. Murder is SOMETIMES a crime of PASSION. I don't know the statistics, but many murders are planned in advance. These are the ones who will stop and think. Is this really worth it? And, once again, look at the number of murders committed by someone who has already murdered someone else. Do you even know how many? Do you even care?

Side: Agree
excon(6315) Disputed
2 points

Hello again, Mr:

Dude! You really have a reading problem.. I said MOST TIMES it does not involve forethought.. That's the same as SOMETIMES...

Plus, you can STOP talking about ME, and talk about the ISSUE. Or, do you want me to talk about YOU?

excon

Side: Disagree