CreateDebate


Debate Info

58
63
For Against
Debate Score:121
Arguments:70
Total Votes:129
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For (37)
 
 Against (31)

Debate Creator

Irina(34) pic



Death Penalty

Is death penalty justice or revenge?

For

Side Score: 58
VS.

Against

Side Score: 63
4 points

Well, I'd rather my money go towards a bullet for a child-rapist than his food, water, and room for the rest of his life.

Side: For
3 points

If you kill someone else, you should be killed.

Side: For
Irina(34) Disputed
5 points

Is it right to inform people that killing is wrong by killing? Per se it is killing too.

Side: Against
steve789(207) Disputed
3 points

That's not the point, the point is that they should recieve retribution for the crime they commited

Side: For
canteenkenny(62) Disputed
2 points

A question for you. Is there no difference, in your understanding, between the act of the State for executing Ted Bundy, and the multiple murders committed by Ted Bundy? Look up his story before you answer. The two are worlds apart and can not be compared by reasonable people.

Side: For
Dremorius(861) Disputed
2 points

Such an "unenlightened" way of thinking.

What if they could be proven innocent in the future?

Anyway, it costs more money to murder another human being than to keep them behind bars.

Side: Against
steve789(207) Disputed
2 points

Well, its not murder, its retribution...& I agree with you about costs, but if we could fix that, then we should use the death penalty.

Side: For
3 points

the death penilty should be brang back becouse if we catch som one like kony we can sentans him to death

Side: For
3 points

People that kills can not learn from their mistakes. They had their chance to live and not kill. Ah lets see, well lets say one of your family members got killed by a some guy or some serial killer. Would you want justice for that person? YES! YOU WOULD. I don't get how people can say they are against when the killers will do the same again. Give one perfect reason why they shouldn't die? What do you think once they get out of prison, etc will not do it again or something like that?

Side: For
2 points

kill them all. I've been thinking about this for awhile and i think it's best we rid them from the world.

Side: For

It should be brought back, although I would condone it for serial killers. Like, Jack The Ripper should be killed. The Zodiac Killer should be killed. But we must be certain they are guilty.

Side: For
1 point

The death penalty should be bought back in ALL major cities as a punishment but the capital's highest courts should be the only court which gives the sentence. If a human being denies another human being of their own human rights, then why should that one keep their human rights? It's not right.

Side: For
1 point

Yeh, he raped and killed all those women and girls... what a waste of talent that he could have used. And it all started with watching pornography

Side: For
1 point

I am for the death penalty. Yeah, someone that committed a horrible crime could live with their sins? But I don't believe that's good enough for people that had someone hurt in their families? I know it wouldn't be good enough for me, I would want justice to be served & just living with a sin would NOT be good enough for me. If someone killed or raped, etc.. Someone in my family, honestly I would want that person to take the death penalty. Sometimes you have to think, "What if I was in this situation?" I know it is wrong to murder in so many ways, but if someone does it, they're going to go to hell anyway. So, would you rather sit in a prison cell and rot, or have it just be over with? Either way there isn't going to be a good life in store for you. So, death penalty is the legitimate answer to some harsh crimes that people commit. Remember, it was their choice. Not yours. So, when someone gets the death penalty, they chose their own fate by committing the crime.

Side: For
1 point

----bitch shut yo uqly ass uhpp or ill beat yo ratchet ass

Side: For

It should be brought back, although I would condone it for serial killers. Like, Jack The Ripper should be killed. The Zodiac Killer should be killed. But we must be certain they are guilty.

Side: For
1 point

At the moment we are in a credit crunch and we need all the money that we can get. Spending money on looking after a few thousand people a year will NOT save money, whereas just shooting someone would (it would be even cheaper to just throw them in a pit and let them starve to death, but that is a VERY desperate measure).

Side: For
1 point

if you kill someone you should have to pay the same price. an eye for an eye, end of discussion. if someone killed you wouldn't you want them dead?

Side: For
1 point

If they did something bad they need to pay for their crimes. Not just sitting in a cell.

Side: For
1 point

Maybe it is good, but only if death penalty prevents future murderes, but it is not the fact that it will be so, maybe others, who know that person, even their relatives or close people want to revenge, and they unfortunately can become murder too

Side: For
1 point

Definatly as long as they are guilty (They should go to extreme levels to make sure they are innocent of the crime)

Side: For
1 point

Keeping people locked up in cages apperently cost to much. The death penalty is cheaper. it's called a rope or chain and a tree.

Side: For
1 point

The death penalty is good for this country because it puts bad people out of their misery. People shouldnt be allowed to suffer. The government shouldnt make people spend the rest of their life in prison or jail because that would be a cruel and unusual punishment. The food that the government serves to prisoners and people in jail is not good enough. Lethal injections should be given to all prisoners and people in jail so that they wont have to suffer anymore.

Side: For
0 points

I have a proposition:

Only use the death penalty on people who approve of it...

-

Oh, and don't give government assistance to those who don't approve of it. In other words, no tax exemptions, welfare, unemployment, etc for republicans.

-

And don't allow people who are against marriage (Christian republicans) to become married.

Side: For
steve789(207) Disputed
2 points

"Only use the death penalty on people who approve of it..."

If I ever kill someone, they should kill me --won't happen--

"Oh, and don't give government assistance to those who don't approve of it. In other words, no tax exemptions, welfare, unemployment, etc for republicans"

Good, I don't want it (I'm not a Republican)

"And don't allow people who are against marriage (Christian republicans) to become married"

What? Christian Republicans are not agianst recognized marraige...but I am...people who don't believe in it but love eachother deserve the same rights as those that do...lest your talking about the banking "right" in that case they shouldn't have to combine anyones bank account if they don't want to.

Side: Against
0 points

If their is a known penalty of death for crime and a person still chooses to commit the crime, how is it unjust?

Side: For
Liber(1728) Disputed
1 point

You commit a crime, but you do not agree to accept the consequences decided for you by a judge; if that were the case, you'd give yourself up, and I can't see (though I've never followed the annals of American crime) a judge giving a death sentence to too many people who have willingly surrendered themselves without a fight. Typically, is it not meant for those who are dangerous and beyond help?

Side: Against
5 points

There is nothing that any human can do which warrants the loss of any human life.

Side: Against
alec1824(14) Disputed
1 point

I do not think that the death penalty is necessarily "justice" because notions of right and wrong are terribly subjective. However, in principle, the death penalty may be useful for removing members of society who show evidence of severely damaging it in the future. An example may be a psychopathic serial killer who shows no signs of recovery and who would only put more stress on the people and/or resources provided by society. If the goal of the legal system is to preserve the order and create a higher probability of order in the future, then the death penalty is certainly a feasible solution to corrupt members of the state. Then again, I suppose it depends upon what one's goal is....If moral standards are at stake, a logical solution cannot be found.

Side: For
Dremorius(861) Disputed
3 points

1. It costs more money to execute someone.

2. They might be innocent and could be saved before they die.

3. It is a barbaric act and two wrongs don't make a right.

Side: Against
Liber(1728) Disputed
1 point

the death penalty may be useful for removing members of society who show evidence of severely damaging it in the future.

Collectivist!

One can "severely damage" society in more ways than simply killing a few people. None should be killed.

Side: Against
3 points

I'm also against death penalty because no one except God has the right to take person's life. I think it's violence and violation of human rights. And we are not always sure whether a person has committed a crime or not. For particularly serious crimes the best punishment would be life imprisonment or exclusion from society for a long time.

Side: Against
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

I'm also against death penalty because no one except God has the right to take person's life. I think it's violence and violation of human rights.

Do you feel that God can be benevolent, if he is violent & violates human rights?

Side: For
1 point

I didn't understand the second part of your question? can you clarify your question?

Side: For
3 points

Killing a person to prove that killing a person isn't right. Logic just rolled in it's own grave.

Side: Against
2 points

I am against death penalty. Firstly, we haven`t power to take away person`s life. Secondly, I think that death penalty it is a easy way to end life for person who committed terrible crimes. This person should live with this sin and think about it.

Side: Against
3 points

i am against the death penalty.if we legalize the death pemalty then what is the difference between the crimer and us.we will do same sin what ever they did before.in this way we can not finish our crime in stead of the violence will go more.and also may be innocent people will get the death penalty through the short of evidence.

Side: Against
1 point

They don't have to be sentenced to death until the evidence and conclusion is completely inescapable.

Side: For
2 points

those sentenced to death penalty have no 2nd chance to learn from his mistake, and whatever he did, his life should not be taken as it would cause grief to his family.

Side: Against
5 points

And there are cases where people were executed and then were proven innocent after their death.

Side: Against
3 points

I am against death penalty. How many innocent people were sentenced to death? The good example is Chikatillo. About 5 innocent persons were executed before death penalty of real criminal.Death penalty is sacral victim, but it is not the punishment!

Side: Against
2 points

There's been like a million debates like this, but again.

1. It costs more money to put someone to death than to keep them in a maximum security prison for life.

2. For those who say, "make it cheaper to kill them" it is impossible to do so while still guaranteeing basic human rights, like an attorney, judge, and jury of peers, in any way which would give the system any chance of discerning the innocent from the guilty.

3. For those who say "we need to make sure they don't kill again" no one in the history of maximum security prisons has ever escaped a maximum security prison, so it's not really an issue.

4. The death penalty has never been shown to be a deterent to murder. Places with it have no more or less murders on a broad scale, than those who do not... and in fact compared to most Countries (as opposed to states of the US) we see countries who do not have it, also have less murder... probably more to do with higher standard of living and higher happiness index in these countries, but worth noting.

5. As for revenge, okay, I get it. It's not a state's place to make that decision for an individual though, nor mine, being a tax payer contributing to the cost of another's revenge.

6. MOST IMPORTANT! We kill the wrong person all of the time. As any state, just killing the wrong person one time should make everyone rethink the policy, states do it every year though, sometimes dozens of times in a year. This is quite barbaric and unjust to the extreme.

Side: Against
canteenkenny(62) Disputed
1 point

1. ...but again, this is patently incorrect. The endless, state paid appeals cost big bucks, but the execution is relatively cheap.

2. Attorney, judge and jury are given for everyone, no matter the crime. This adds no extra cost to a death penalty case.

3. Are you kidding. Many have escaped. And, they can murder without escaping. Murder cops, murder cons, etc. And that happens amazingly often. Probably 20 in the place I work just in the years I've worked here.

4. The Penalty is ALWAYS a deterrent. That murderer will never kill again. Anyway, who says punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, except possibly for the convicted. It is simply punishment for crime committed.

5. It should NEVER be revenge. Revenge and punishment are worlds apart, and should always be so.

6. This argument holds water. If we can not prevent the innocent from unjust punishment, we should not have the death penalty. Can we though? I think so.

Side: For
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

1. ...but again, this is patently incorrect. The endless, state paid appeals cost big bucks, but the execution is relatively cheap.

Without appeals you cannot assure a fair trial. Everyone has a right to appeal a sentence, especially if it is a death sentence, especially considering the number of innocent people it turns out we kill. This sounds less like you are interested in killing the right person, and frankly more like you just want to close your eyes and cover your ears when we do kill the wrong person. That's what it sounds like anyway. I find most who support the death penalty have some level of denial about the facts when it comes to the number of innocent people who receive it.

2. Attorney, judge and jury are given for everyone, no matter the crime. This adds no extra cost to a death penalty case.

See above.

3. Are you kidding. Many have escaped. And, they can murder without escaping. Murder cops, murder cons, etc. And that happens amazingly often. Probably 20 in the place I work just in the years I've worked here.

You are talking about regular prison. I'm talking about maximum security. I assure you none have ever escaped maximum security.

4. The Penalty is ALWAYS a deterrent. That murderer will never kill again. Anyway, who says punishment is supposed to be a deterrent, except possibly for the convicted. It is simply punishment for crime committed.

You've failed get below cosmetic surface of any of the thought process which would lead to the conclusions put forth here. So much so it is hard to tell where to start:

A) Life imprisonment in a maximum security prison would be an equal deterrent to the individual who first committed the crime, however that is not what I was talking about nor what that term is generally used to mean in this instance. Deterrent in this case is referring to deterring others from killing. This too is shown not to be the case though as I first stated and which you've not refuted so I'll not go into it again.

B) You are incorrect though in your assertion that no one says it is a deterrent. That's actually the main argument death penalty proponents use in most cases, as incorrect as it is. Okay though, you want it to be punishment. Show me how 1. death is worse than life in prison. 2. how punishment of individuals who are never going to be a part of society again improves society. (Hint: you won't be able to prove either point).

5. It should NEVER be revenge. Revenge and punishment are worlds apart, and should always be so.

Ah. You seem to feel strongly about this. Please explain the difference than. (This is a trap btw, you're going to have to contradict one or the other of your earlier statements in order to separate revenge from punishment).

6. This argument holds water. If we can not prevent the innocent from unjust punishment, we should not have the death penalty. Can we though? I think so.

How would you go about it then? And how would you know you've not "punished" an innocent person?

Side: Against
2 points

If you want my selfish opinion i would say "no" because death would be an easy way out. If someone kills my child, my parent, my siblings, my love, i would want them to pay the price. I do believe in second chances. Even thirds. But if they don't show signs of guilt or wrong doing, then let them pay the price in prison. I find it heart felt a little to put "life" in captivity but i got no other choice because i don't want them on the streets. I don't want them to potentially hurt me again. I don't even want them to hurt others.

The act of suffering is much worse than being dead.

Is the death penality justice or revenge? This is really perceptional but i don't believe that those who do seek the death penality on others have justice instead of revenge or have revenge instead of justice. They have both and they both go in the same hand.

This is my opinion. I believe you asked for it and here it is.

Side: Against
2 points

To be honest I do think that death penalty should be, but I think it is stupid in the way that it isn't sever enough for a murder or serial killer. It is a easy way out of trouble for them because once they are caught they know their lives are screwed. I know this will sound barbaric, but I believe in torture. death is to easy, you want them to regret what they did, killing them will only stop it. Make them regret it the rest of their life, don't just give them life time. Torture him till he will literally beg for a bullet in his mouth. It is a human as it gets because we humans, like it or not are barbaric as hell...!

Side: Against

The Death Penalty is revenge. It relies on an eye for an eye.

Side: Against
1 point

Imagine that someone has just emerged from court and they are to be shot the next day. When they are about to be shot just think what would be happening, some unlucky person would be dealing with the fact that they were going to have to take someone's life. Is it morally justifiable to ask someone to take the life of another? No!

So when you get past this obstacle the truth emerges that the person was, in fact, innocent and the court made a mistake. What happens then? Over 200 Americans were falsely convicted last year, that means over 200 people would be shot for doing nothing wrong.

To me it sounds a bit dodgy.

Side: Against
1 point

I totally against for this statement because Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment; therefore the principle inherent in the Clause that prohibits pointless infliction of excessive punishment when less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates the punishment.

Side: Against
1 point

Unless, you use something painless, perhaps a guillotine............................

Side: For
1 point

The Death Penalty is illogical for 2 reasons:

1) The Death penalty kills ppl to punish them. It just reflects on how society is incapable of solving problems and have to result to means such as death sentence to instill fear to deter crime. However, what it is essentially doing is "killing" someone. It is not a reasonable punishment as we're not benefiting the society in anyway. Why not just have therapy, or even life-imprisonment, when offenders can still have a chance to turn over a new leaf? Why are we depriving society of people who are potentially capable of helping it?

2) Death Penalty is irreversible. In the case of false-accused criminals, the criminals would not be able to justify themselves as they are already hanged. Life imprisonment still give them light at the end of the tunnel, where after a few years, if concrete evidence is found, they can be released back. By imposing the death penalty, we are risking ppl's life. People who are potentially capable of helping immensely in the society are at stake.

Side: Against
1 point

Everyone has the rights to life, whether this person is a peace or a criminal.

First of all, what about prisoners, they did the crime and of course they are deserve to die, BUT nobody has rights to kill them, because they are people, they are someone's child, and maybe someone's parent. Government should think about their relatives, and give chance to live them, the more they work out their crime.

Side: Against