CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:50
Arguments:46
Total Votes:51
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Alternatives to Capital Punishment (The Death Penalty) (47)

Debate Creator

aveskde(1935) pic



Alternatives to Capital Punishment (The Death Penalty)

I've noted a crop of death penalty debates recently and they always amount to similar tired arguments, so I decided a better debate would be over alternatives to capital punishment. Assuming there were no death penalty, we would still need to deal with people who are a true menace to society, and building more prisons hardly seems like a good use of land and money. In this debate, what are some create ways you can think of to deal with the worst offenders in society?

Add New Argument
2 points

Hmm How does one get at this without sounding like a facists-technocratic-dictator :)

First thing to do, in terms of prioratizing our funds is not to put people in prison for things like just smoking or selling weed. So now we have loosened up to about 60% of our funding, with which we can try something else creative. I dont see how anyone can in any way try to get some of the assholes that are in prison to change, drugging them, having them talk to a psychiatrist, make experiments on them :) Some people are just assholes, and not in a charming Hannibal Lecter way but more in a dumb gorilla kind of way.

It seems that the biggest fault with prisons today is that the prisoners need to all be put in this one place. Im just rambling on here, but I would think a great big mountain valley forest area with huts spread miles apart and the whole area fenced off (in some cold place that nobody would want to live anyway - hence the size) and the prisoners held in by the promise that if they go outside a certain permiter they are allowed for Hill Billies sport hunting. Now before this starts to sound like a hippy wet-dream, I wouldnt mind seeing a few "controlled" experiments with ayahuasca out there, to make this a bit more Philip K. Dick-ish.

It seems more fitting to me that if we want people to fit in to society, that we put people who cant fit - out to prison, not in.

1 point

I was considering deportation to an out-of-society zone as well. However I favoured an island because land is easier to traverse back to society.

1 point

Better get a big Island then - the key to this is to have the prisoners as far appart as possible - so that not everyone who goes to prison turns into a serial killer-rapist

2 points

they get rapped by a 400 lb gorilla on Viagra and no lubrication

1 point

An eye for an eye. You shoot me in the leg, I shoot you in the leg with the same gun. (But the thing is, I couldn't shoot nobody. I would probably would drop the gun because i was crying to hard)

aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

That would make society filled with more killers though, because of the revenge involved. Would you really be comfortable living around people who have killed prisoners in revenge?

The Romans didn't have a prison system. Rather, if you broke the law, you got an appendage removed.

1 point

I'd hate to have lived there. I hear Saudi Arabia is like that now, however.

The punishment for petty theft was being beaten by members of the public armed with sticks. Anyone was allowed to join in.

1 point

Two words: Manual labor.

Wait, no.

Two more words: Australian deportation.

Wait, no.

Two better words: GLADIATOR ARENA.

1 point

Gladiator Arena. Nice. I would support that for capital crimes.

1 point

All of those options would improve the economy in the long run.

It would with manual labor improve infrastructure of a nation.

Australian deportation would lighten the load on tax payers offering more for either businesses or government programs.

Gladiator arena would boost economy through selling of tickets. However it should also have an option for volunteers who simply get a small part of the profits of people who buy tickets to the show.

1 point

Are there alternatives to Capital punishment? Yes. But, does that mean that the alternatives should not be punishment? No.

While I can’t necessarily reason a commensurate punishment for murder other than death, I do however have a proposal which might actually resolve the moral dilemma of capital punishment. I begin with a question.

Who should be responsible for the execution of a killer?

If it is the kinsman redeemer, the responsibility for blood redemption is his. It is not the responsibility of a DOJ; the DOJ is not any man’s kin. And neither is it a social responsibility.

And since the responsibility is solely his, it would be of utmost importance that he not murder an innocent person, otherwise he too can be punished by death for murder. Furthermore, as a responsible redeemer he alone is accountable for the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Or simply affirmed by these words: The kinsman redeemer is the Final judge, Final Juror, and Only Executioner who is both accountable and responsible for his judgment, irrespective the final judgment.

How many redeemers will rush to a hasty or false judgment if doing so means they can be killed for murdering an innocent person? Not many.

Contrary wise, how many redeemers will rush to a hasty or false judgment if doing so means they acquit a blood-thirsty murderer who is hell-bent to murder others? Not many.

(If there is a societal burden on the question of Capital punishment it should be founded upon the redeemer’s necessary responsibility, accountability and sound judgment.)

This shall suffice for now.

aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

Who should be responsible for the execution of a killer?

The issue I have with the kinsman taking this role is that the kinsman will not have the facilities to draw evidence, convict a suspect, etc. Most murder victims are average people and so the murderers would be facing repercussions from individuals ill-suited to the task of determining guilt, and performing punishment.

lawnman(1106) Disputed
1 point

Granted, but that is not universally true. It is particularly true. For there are many killers who admit their crimes. Furthermore, we know killing a murderer is exceedingly easy; especially when the redemption is of no urgency. Consequently, how many killers want to live the remainder of their lives not knowing the day, hour, place or how the redeemer will have his just vengeance?

I would also add that a society which embraces kinsman redemption invokes fear in any would be killer.

Kinsman redemption is not without its ills or problems though, but it certainly offers no security for killers; unlike our current system for punishing killers.

Albeit, that is the underlying reasoning why I chose the terms; Final Judge, Final Juror and Only Executioner; thus implying the mandate of a fair trial which precedes the kinsman’s final decision.

1 point

Hard labor is the best idea. Instead of spending millions of dollars on government labor, just use these guys to build and clean shit. Also, instead of hiring others to make stuff for prisoners, have the prisoners make their own food and clothes.

In fact, this is not too uncommon. The main problem is that human rights activists are against actual HARD labor (like chain gangs and such). So what prisoners do when it comes to work is currently very limited.

Also, stop making so much shit illegal.

Side: Hard Labor
1 point

Alternatives -

Should be beneficial to society.

Should be used as a warning to other criminals

Should be a fit for the crime

Hard ass fucking labour. Not where they go to public areas and clean toilets and shit.

Make them mine diamonds in Sierra Leone or something. Make them work fucking hard. Make them beg for death

Side: Hard Labor
1 point

So you support in other words a form of indentured servitude to repay one's debt to society?

Side: Hard Labor
1 point

Hell yeah.

It's not just about repaying one's debt to society. It's punishment too.

Side: Hard Labor

The current system is good. Lock them in prison and solitary confinement.

Side: Hard Labor
1 point

Life in prison.

The ideas are not listless in the form of being viable.

Hard labor sounds good, however it puts people out of jobs. Even though people don't want to be tarring roads, or roofing homes, or flushing sewers, people still do these jobs for an income. Giving away jobs to those who have broken the law in the severity as deserving the death penalty, do not deserve to take away jobs that are so hard to find.

There really is no solution, you have the death penalty that is prone to make mistakes. You can't take back death.

Side: Hard Labor
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

I was personally looking for alternatives to life in prison too, because this just wastes money and land with all the people imprisoned anyway.

Hence hard labour or menial work would be better in my opinion because at least this way, the convicts would be earning their keep.

Side: Hard Labor
DaWolfman(3322) Disputed
1 point

Well let me repeat myself

Hard labor sounds good, however it puts people out of jobs. Even though people don't want to be tarring roads, or roofing homes, or flushing sewers, people still do these jobs for an income. Giving away jobs to those who have broken the law in the severity as deserving the death penalty, do not deserve to take away jobs that are so hard to find.

Side: Hard Labor
1 point

An eye for an eye

Side: Hard Labor
Kinda(1649) Disputed
1 point

......leaves the whole world blind.

- A very wise man.

Side: Hard Labor
1 point

if a man got capital punishment his life came to an end.......so an alternate way should be as longer till his/hr death. ie a punishment [can be prison or hard labour] anyway it should exist till death...

Side: Hard Labor
1 point

Hard Labor was once used in the Auburn Prison System and also the Pennislyvania Prison System and i have to admit even though i am a fan of the death penalty that i find the Elmira Prison System and the Auburn Prison System very helpful. These facilities used hard labor, vocational training and prison silence as a form of punishment with the exception of the Elmira Prison System which did not use prison silence and had every modernised facility to accommodate young people.

Side: Hard Labor
1 point

Do you know if these systems were profitable or at least covered the costs of sheltering these people?

Side: Hard Labor
sayyad99(773) Disputed
1 point

Well actually, 30 prison facilities were designed after the Auburn Prison System and many legislators found it better than the Pennslyvania Prison System because in the Pennslyvania prison system, various methods were used in order to make prisoners feel low about themselves. The Auburn Prison System is also cheaper than The Pennslyvania Prison System to maintain finacially so i am guessing that it was cheaper on the taxpayers. The Elmira System was widely known for reforming young offenders by providing them with an education, gym, sports facilities, libraries, etc.

These systems do cover the costs of sheltering people with the exception of the Pennslyvania Prison System which was expensive to maintain. In terms of profit, i dont think there will be any profit because taxpayers pay to house and maintain these prisoners.

If, they had the Fee System, which is no longer in effect, then money would have been saved. In this system, rather than the taxpayers paying for prisoners, the prisoners, their families, friends and estates were required to pay to house and maintain them in prison. This however did not work out because the profit gained was going in the pockets of the jail keepers who were responsible for maintaining the jails, who in turn would find the cheapest ways to maintain the prison facilities, did little to improve prison conditions and pocketed the money for themselves. If this system had still existed then profits could have made from the prison and then go towards maintaining prison and doing other stuff.

P.S I accidentally hit the dispute tab but i meant to hit the support tab.

Side: Hard Labor
1 point

Well actually, 30 prison facilities were designed after the Auburn Prison System and many legislators found it better than the Pennslyvania Prison System because in that prison system, various methods were used in order to make prisoners feel low about themselves. The Auburn Prison System is also cheaper than The Pennslyvania Prison System to maintain finacially so i am guessing that it was cheaper on the taxpayers. The Elmira System was widely known for reforming young offenders by providing them with an education, gym, sports facilities, libraries, etc.

These systems do cover the costs of sheltering people with the exception of the Pennslyvania Prison System which was expensive to maintain. In terms of profit, i dont think there will be any profit because taxpayers pay to house and maintain these prisoners.

If, they had the Fee System, which is no longer in effect, then money would have been saved. In this system, rather than the taxpayers paying for prisoners, the prisoners, their families, friends and estates were required to pay to house and maintain them in prison. This however did not work out because the profit gained was going in the pockets of the jail keepers who were responsible for maintaining the jails, who in turn would find the cheapest ways to maintain the prison facilities, did little to improve prison conditions and pocketed the money for themselves. If this system had still existed then profits could have made from the prison and then go towards maintaining prison and doing other stuff.

Side: Hard Labor
1 point

If a person facing execution avows himself to be reformed and is sincerely prepared to repay with the "equivalent" of his life but without society itself breaking the "Thou shall not kill" code, he could be allowed the alternative of volunteering to risk his life in life-saving operations such clearing land mines - contributing in the more extreme situations where the risks cannot be further lessened despite training, devices, dogs, etc. There would be a probability of being killed rising with increasing participation in such high-risk life-saving operations. The sentence need not be indefinite - contributing to the probable saving of x number of lives should suffice. Rather than kill or not kill, society's debate would be over the value of x. Those for a harsh approach might go for a high, (perhaps unachievable) number; on the other hand, risking one's life for others even once is a valuable contribution. But it would be democratic to implement a median value of x arrived at by the population. This approach is somewhat an extension of the concept of hard labor but here the person repays with a closer "equivalent" than just work. There would be no conflict of taking jobs that others might require. The sincerity of the person is put to the test; we might avoid killing really reformed individuals.

Side: clear riskiest land mines
1 point

Alternatives to Capital Punishment (The Death Penalty) AGAINST

Side: clear riskiest land mines

The only alternative is life imprisonment. I think Capital Punishment is cruel and inhumane.

Side: clear riskiest land mines