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.
A guy catches your grandchild, ties them up, rapes them, skins them alive, sets them on fire, and dumps the ashes in your front yard. The cops catch him. Death penalty or a box of chocolates?
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
Like I said before. Liberals have put so many restrictions on the death penalty, that it is not as effective as it used to be. If we had speedy trials and executions, it would definitely prevent murders, if for no other reason than those murderers are dead and can no longer kill. Do you have any idea how many murders are committed by repeat offenders? Then we send then to prison to learn how to be better criminals. Justice has lost it's teeth, and it's all because of bleeding heart liberal scumbags, who would rather murder babies before they have a chance to be born.
So you are saying that when someone plan on committing murder they not only take into account whether they would be executed, as opposed to serving life in prison, but whether or not the execution would be speedily carried out or not? And that they would only be dissuaded from murdering if the execution is soon after? (But not if the execution is a few years after?).
Is this your argument? I dont want to misunderstand.
All I'm saying is that rational people pay attention to the consequences of their actions. Granted, most of them think they will never be caught, let alone executed. I never claimed that executions eliminated murders, but they DO have an effect. The data supports this.
I never claimed that executions eliminated murders, but they DO have an effect. The data supports this.
Why are you still saying it supports it when I have proven the contrary? I dont understand.
Your article mentions a slight increase in 1 year. I have shown evidence of a much larger decrease across a number of years that suggests that there is no correlation between number of execution and murder rate.
You have proven nothing. We both have statistics backing up what we say. But ask yourself this. If you were planning on killing someone, would you kill them in a state with, or without, the death penalty?
You showed how there was a very slight increase 1 year where there was a ever so slightly more executions than the previous year. I have shown this was an anomaly.
If you were planning on killing someone, would you kill them in a state with, or without, the death penalty?
That is not the choice. The fact that your hypothesis seems so out of this world should tell you something.
All I'm saying is that rational people pay attention to the consequences of their actions.
Also.. yes people pay attention to the consequences of their actions but there is no difference between the risk life imprisonment and and the risk of executions in terms of whether someone decides to commit a crime. As you alluded to, it is detection rate that dissuades crime.
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.
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.
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?
I wasn't talking about you. I was addressing the topic. First degree, or premeditated is rare, but it requires planning. It also gives the person time to calm down and reconsider. I believe that these are responsible for the decline after executions occur. Most murders are committed during the commission of a crime. Not much you can do about that. But if someone is planning to kill someone else, they have time to think about the consequences. You cannot tell us that the death penalty has not dissuaded many of these people from following through.