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.
Sure, the death penalty establishes a zero recidivism rate, yet it also applies for those who are innocent, it takes the life of innocent people of committing a crime again. Oh, wait innocent people commit crimes.
In American court, the chances of executing someone who did not commit the crime are almost non-existent. There are so many safeguards against executing a person that it can almost NEVER happen. In fact, nobody has ever been proved to have been wrongfully executed in the United States. Convicted killers, however, have killed more people after they were released from prison. Robert Biegenwald, for example, was convicted of killing an additional four people after serving just eighteen years in prison. I guess the question comes down to this: would you rather take away any chance that murderers have of killing again or would you allow them to have a chance at getting back into society again?
Convicted killers, however, have killed more people after they were released from prison. Robert....
Well, if they are convicted killers, then maybe the prison shouldn't have released them. Maybe they should be punished for committing the crime. How about life in prison instead of eighteen years without parole. Wow, what a ingenious idea?
A list of men who were exonerated while being on death row who would have been executed.
That is not a list of people whom the United States judicial system has failed, but a list of people the system has saved. You may argue that if those people have come so close to being put to death the chances of others who have not committed a crime being put to death must be high. I believe, however, that those examples show how the system works even better. The safeguards, which I mentioned in my last reply, are now proven to work. They actually have saved people. That list is an example of how difficult it really to execute a person who is not guilty.
maybe the prison shouldn't have released them.
Regardless of what you think the system should be, convicted killers will still probably be released from prison. Execution is the best way to make sure that they can not kill again.
The safeguards, which I mentioned in my last reply, are now proven to work. They actually have saved people. That list is an example of how difficult it really to execute a person who is not guilty.
These safeguards that you refer to as what makes the death penalty so costly. That is why these men fight teeth and nail in order to stay alive protected by their constitutional right. If convicts believe their innocence, appeals through life imprisonment is much more justifiable because it is easier to atone for a life imprisonment as opposed to death.
Regardless of what you think the system should be, convicted killers will still probably be released from prison.
Life imprisonment without parole is more effective than execution, and it is cheaper. California estimates life imprisonment costs 63 million wheras the death peanlty costs 137 million. Costs
Not only it is more expensive, but it is less effective. States with the death penatly have a higher murder rate than those states who don't. Deterrence
I believe the extra money is worth what is offered in return.
Life imprisonment without parole is more effective
Nothing is more effective than just eliminating the murderer. You can not have lower deterrence than that.
States with the death penatly have a higher murder rate than those states who don't.
I think you are looking at that the wrong way. I think it is more reasonable to suggest that they have the death penalty because of their high murder rates.
I believe the extra money is worth what is offered in return.
Well, at least the state that I live in is free of blood on their hands.
Nothing is more effective than just eliminating the murderer. You can not have lower deterrence than that.
Wrong, rot in prison or hard labor.
I think it is more reasonable to suggest that they have the death penalty because of their high murder rates.
That doesn't make sense.
So, in order to stop murder, murder is the only solution. That is some logic.
Since murder is viewed as wrong, it generally makes more sense to eliminate the death penalty because murder rates are generally lower in those states.
The first twenty states with higher murder rates all have the death penalty. That is far from a deterrence.
We are way too easy on the killers. I mean a needle and their favorite dinner, say good- bye to their family. What kind of non sense is this? The victim was probably shot and shoved into a garbage bag. Or raped and then killed. Much more painful.
It's illegal to make it painful. Eight Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
I agree with you but what you are saying but it won't convince anyone into bringing capital punishments back and i consider terrorists to be murderers in my country an adult way of imprisonment is used on 16+.. if you look at my previous argument I talk about letting them die the way they killed their victims. And Please excuse me for my mistakes.
Only those that killed more than 3 people?!?!?! Wtfreak type of sense does this make? What if you saw someone with a knife stabbing people to death, and you had a gun, what would you do? He slits the first persons throat "Ok that was only 1. I can only kill him if he kills three." He stabs the second one in the gut and leaves him in a pool of blood. "That was 2. 1 more to go." Then finally after he throws the third dead in the pile with the other 2 you would pull the trigger. Or would you not shoot at all? Just call the cops and let him continue his carnage until the cops get there?
ok the death penalty exactly to the victim death. BTW if someone shoots two the man will still suffer but not death that was what I meant with my old statement its not what you think.
I also believe, in all cases, it should be the victim — not 'society' or 'its' district attorney — who should bring charges and decide on whether or not to exact punishment.
In the court of law, a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and not guilty beyond no doubt. There is a difference, and since without a confession, it is unfair to put someone to death by only a reasonable doubt.
I don't think that killing people as a form of punishment is setting a very good example to the rest of the world - if the public start to see authorities giving people death penalties, everybody will just think that killing is ok and it will be a vicious circle! The best way to get through to people, i think, about what they've done wrong in society is by teaching/encouraging/inspiring them, not killing.
Exactly, this is how the government says one thing but does something different. How hypocritical? Murder is wrong, yet justified when the state does it.
"Murder is wrong, yet justified when the state does it."
I quote "The liberal thesis that capital punishment is brutal because it condones murder is fallacious because it takes the isolated act of killing the murderer out of context."~Murray N. Rothbard
If we killed more people that were guilty of their crime more people would not want to commit the crime because of the circumstances. If they don't care about the circumstances they are insane.
"i think, about what they've done wrong in society is by teaching/encouraging/inspiring them, not killing."
So you want the government to brainwash them?
Are you kidding me? What planet do you live on?!
"Oh, you killed someone but we're not going to punish you at all you just have to go to therapy."
Personally, I believe that everybody deserves to be killed for the sins they have committed though humans do not have the right to judge who deserves to die or not, only God does. If you give the power of life to a human not only could it be abused, but it could take away the value of life. As Stalin once said, 'one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic' and I think this holds true. Also, where would we draw the line? Who gets to decide who dies? How will we check for innocence effectively? There will always be mistakes in the system and a mistake with regards to the death penalty is an irreversible mistake.
