CreateDebate


Debate Info

71
72
Indeed Nope
Debate Score:143
Arguments:75
Total Votes:165
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Indeed (39)
 
 Nope (37)

Debate Creator

Republican2(349) pic



If the death penalty was cheaper than imprisonment, would you be for or against it?

Currently, the death penalty is on average a good deal higher than life imprisonment mainly because of all the court costs. But if it were more cost effective would it be an acceptable form of punishment?

Indeed

Side Score: 71
VS.

Nope

Side Score: 72
3 points

Kill the bastards!

They commit so heinous a crime as to warrant death, then death ought be given.

Side: Indeed
LoveU(348) Clarified
1 point

Kill the bastards!

Killing is wrong

Anything that include killing is wrong

killing an inmate is wrong

They commit so heinous a crime as to warrant death,then death ought be given.

If They did something wrong.

Then we did the same to them.

Nothing good happen.

Side: Indeed
3 points

It IS cheaper.

Liberals had to stick their fucking noses in an give criminals the ability to appeal 1million times yet not be charged more than once.

But that's what liberals want. Giving the criminals as many possibilities to get away with their crimes.

Side: Indeed
2 points

well du, remember, maybe the rapist who put the girl in a garbage bag was compelled to do it against his own will because he was made fun of as a little kid.

give me a break u stupid liberals.

Side: Indeed
2 points

good reasons to kill them

1)lowers population

2)saves money

3)scares other criminals so the stop commiting crimes

Side: Indeed
jessald(1915) Disputed
4 points

1) There are much, much more effective ways to limit population growth. Birth control, for instance.

2) It doesn't save money. Life in prison is cheaper.

3) I would be more afraid of living out my life in a 7 foot box, but maybe that's just me.

Side: NOPE
3 points

I agree. The death penalty is the easy way out. Those who commit crimes worthy of the death penalty should pay for their crimes in this life. Not to mention that it only creates more victims. It's extremely retributive; shouldn't prisons work to reform the offender, even if they will be in for life?

Side: Indeed
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
1 point

2) It doesn't save money. Life in prison is cheaper.

HAVE YOU READ THE DEBATE TITLE

4) also the death penelty can help prevent prison overcrowding

Side: Indeed
SMCdeBater(242) Disputed
0 points

"It doesn't save money. Life in prison is cheaper."

Bull-crap. The Death Penalty is undoubtedly cheaper. The costs of imprisonment, as well as providing food, clothing, space and appropriate living materials is essential. Or do it the cheaper way and just pump then full of junk and have it over with. It sounds harsh, but it's justifiable and it's defiantly cheaper.

Side: Indeed
1 point

Yes, i agree with you.

Anyway, the prisoners will stay in the prison and die in there. So why don't kill them once time, to save money for the poor people.

Side: Indeed
Nomoturtle(716) Disputed
1 point

1) fact.

2) depends on how long their imprisonment would be, but yeah

3).... i think history has shown that punishment rarely helps deterring crime. the entire medieval period was rich in death penalties, mutilations and torture, which did little to prevent shit.

funny there is no 4), they deserve to die. do you not think that to be the case?

Side: Nope
2 points

It is cheaper, and it is not morally wrong. Especially if your morals are based on the Bible. While the commandment states DO NOT KILL, in Hebrew it was Do Not Murder. Murder, by definition, is the killing of another with premeditated malice. I hardly think that the death penalty qualifies as murder

Side: Indeed
1 point

I hardly think that the death penalty qualifies as murder

Are you saying that death penalty is not premeditated?

I agree that is it not malice but death penalty is completely premeditated.

The criminal's death is prepared and planned. questions like these are answered: Who is going to die?how he is going to die? when he is going to die?

Side: NOPE
Troy8(2431) Disputed
1 point

You must have misheard me. I did not say that the death penalty was not premeditated, I said it was not premeditated MALICE. Yes, I understand that it is premeditated, but it is not with malice! Unless you are some idiot that thinks the U.S. government kills people ruthlessly.

Side: Indeed
1 point

oh. but there is a fuck load of malice. i don't think many support the death penalty because it 'reduces population' or is 'not morally wrong', they just really really want to kill the murderer. particularly those with a history.

Side: Nope
2 points

why do we need to spend 5000 dollars to put a serum into a guy who raped and killed a little girl so his death was painless.

arnt bullet rounds like 2 cents each? i don't see how a good placed round to a man's head cant do a job just as effective as over priced poison.

Side: Indeed
1 point

It might be worth mentioning that the standard Death Penalty is actually cheaper than, say, a life-sentence, due to the costs of supplying inmates with food, clothing, satisfactory sleeping conditions, etc, involved with inprisonment. I think the majority of us are against capital punishment, but a Death Sentence is should actually be viewed differently. Condemning convicted criminals to death is, most of the time, a fair solution to many problems. Some people feel insecure about the death penalty? Well, some other people feel insecure about life-sentences in prison! Let's not think about the death penalty as mere 'Capital Punishment', but rather as a cost-effective solution to a very large social problem.

Besides, let's not forget this comparison:

Escape from Jail is Possible.

Escape from Death is Impossible.

My point there is that if we are looking for a solution to isolate convicted criminals who have been charged with severe crimes, the death penalty clearly acts as a more secure solution than imprisonment. It couldn't be put more simply than that!

Side: Indeed
1 point

The reason to be for the death penalty is because it is just; the same foundation of support for all sanctions.

In addition, it saves innocent lives.

Saving money is just an additional bonus.

Justice

ETHICAL/RELIGIOUS SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY

"Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars"

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,

http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

Cost

"Death Penalty Cost Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2010/03/21/death-penalty-cost-studies-saving-costs- over-lwop.aspx

Side: Indeed
1 point

Like i said in my argument on the "other side":

In addition, it saves innocent lives.

pretty logical... I mean, the killer is not going to take away innocent lives anymore because the killer is dead.

BUT it is not apparent that death penalty lower crime rate. Florida with the death penalty has a higher crime rate than New York who doesn’t have the death penalty (New York has actually declared it unconstitutional)

One might be dead but it definitly does not stop others from killing.

Side: NOPE
1 point

Well, yeah. But that's like saying, "If you had wings, would you fly?" It's not a realistic question. I mean, the reason court costs are so high is because you need to be sure you're not making a mistake. You can't undo the death penalty if it turns out evidence was fabricated or what have you.

I just don't see any way to make the death penalty more "cost-effective" without committing serious injustice.

Side: Indeed
1 point

Under certain circumstances, society needs to demonstrate that the decisions and rules made by the masses do in fact have teeth, and killing a horrible, irredeemable criminal is a good way of proving that we mean business, and preventing future mishaps with that same person.

The use of the death penalty should be extremely rare and very carefully chosen...

Though I think a lot less people would willingly commit crimes if you were brutally beaten on a regular basis in prison, too, though, so, think about that one.

Side: Indeed
1 point

There are several things to think about when considering whether the death penalty should be used. Yes, it would be cheaper. Millions of dollars cheaper, in fact. The thing is, without the death penalty there is absolutely no deterrent from committing heinous crimes. For some people, life in prison might even be better than their normal life. Even at it's most simple, they get a roof over their head and three meals a day. It wouldn't shock me if someone committed murder JUST to get those things. If you were some homeless person who scrounged for food, wouldn't you? If one knew that they would be sentenced to death if they committed a certain crime, don't you think that they would be more inclined to NOT commit that crime?

Also, there's the prevention of future murders. I don't really like the eye for an eye thing because I'm the type that says, "What's done is done." So, who's been killed has been killed and killing this guy won't bring the person he murdered back. For me it's more about preventing this person from going out and killing again. One can escape from prison, it has been done, but one cannot come back from the grave.

Side: Indeed
1 point

The most powerful punishment is only capital punishment is the acceptable. Will you let one criminal to kill two,three, four...........innocent people? Answer >No!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Indeed
LoveU(348) Disputed
1 point

The most powerful punishment is only capital punishment

But not the most powerful solution.

Will you let one criminal to kill two,three, four...........innocent people? Answer >No

You got that right but we don't want to be killer don't we?

Side: Nope
0 points

They should pay for what they've done.........................................

Side: Indeed
2 points

I just wanted to add that the death penalty would be a lot cheaper if we didn't worry about being humane. I say that they should be killed the same way that the person(s) that they killed were.

Side: Indeed

I just wanted to add that the death penalty would be a lot cheaper if we didn't worry about being humane.

That is not going to happen. If the law is going to be upheld, criminals have every right to the protection of the law, and the Eight Amendment prevents cruel and usual punishment.

Side: Indeed
1 point

OK I kind of agree with you on that, in a strange and a disturbing way, but you know that our constitution wont allow and all the human rights people would have more to do then they could handle.

Side: Indeed
0 points

I beleive that putting a killer in prison is punishment but sending them to death is justice!!!

Side: Indeed
Jman1168(10) Disputed
2 points

Sound's pretty retributive to me, is that the kind of mentality that we should be having?

Side: Indeed
5 points

The government should not have the power to kill its own citizens.

Side: NOPE
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
2 points

While I agree with the tacit assumption that capital punishment is essentially wrong, it's not generally the government that's condemning anyone to death, but judges as per the rulings of our "peers" (as jurors).

Side: Briglocated
wolfbite(432) Disputed
4 points

But it is the judges that decide the punishment based on laws written by legislators, the jurors simply decide whether the person is guilty or not.

But even in cases where the jury knows that the convict will get the death penalty the opinions of average people should not decide who lives and who dies.

Side: NOPE
Troy8(2431) Disputed
2 points

Well that is a dumb thing to say! What if there were people killing other people, escaping from jail, doing it again etc. The only way to stop this is eternal punishment. (DEATH!!!!)

Side: Indeed

Death penatly is not just about money, but it is morally wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Simple as that.

Side: NOPE

Let’s talk about this logically, shall we? Forget moral. We obviously have different values about life and death…

In addition, it saves innocent lives.

This does sound pretty logical. Doesn’t it? The killer is not going to take away innocent lives anymore because the killer is dead.

BUT it is not apparent that death penalty lower crime rate. Florida with the death penalty has a higher crime rate than New York who doesn’t have the death penalty (New York has actually declared it unconstitutional)

So, we can also rule out the death penalty“scares other criminals from committing crimes” because it doesn’t.

And how hypocritical is to tell people NOT to kill and then kill someone? but here i'm being moral.

Death penalty secures justice

That also does sound pretty logical because one might believe the killer is paying for the crimes he committed. One might say “he gets what he deserves” I quote.

To be just you must be equal. In NO way is death penalty equal.

1. Like Albert Camus explained, if we wanted to be equal: the victim’s death must be premeditated, the killer must tell the victim that he will die not matter what in X days, and while he waits for his “death day” ,he will be locked up in an area (where he will probably be beat up maybe raped by people of the same sexe).

2. Death penalty does not have a clear and definite criterion. In the United States, throughout history and today, criminals were executed on a criterion as undefined and unclear as those of our history of countries under great totalitarians (Stalin, Hitler, Mao).

a. For example, Jesse Tafero was sentenced to death for the murder of two policemen at a highway rest stop in 1976. Jess was executed for two murders with Donald Henry Gaskins, a serial killer.

b. Some criminals with money have less chances of being on death row than a same type of criminal with no money.

If the death penalty is not administered equally, those who have been put to death have been treated UNFAIRLY. Therefore, without JUSTICE.

Side: NOPE
2 points

There's still the issue of us killing the wrong person... which we do like all the time.

And I imagine we would do it even more if we ignored the Constitutional processes involved in capital punishment - lawyers and all that mess.

Though I'm not the least bit surprised that those who yell "Constituion" the loudest are generally first to argue we should abondon the parts they happen to not agree with.

Side: NOPE
victor01(146) Disputed
1 point

Just to point out, the issue of the wrong person getting killed is highly unlikely today. Since new technology and the ability to find better evidence, we have not had that problem.

Now there were/are people who are innocent on death row who have been released, but they have not been killed.

Side: Indeed
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

Actually we still kill the wrong person all the time. And just once is too many times.

Side: NOPE
2 points

ill say no. Im more on the forgiving kinda guy. I beleive in justice and justice is just, but i dont beleive we have any right to take a life a way. Life in jail or in isolation already seems worse from my perspective, especially isolation. And plus you never know they might turn around and change and be saved by christ in prison. Doesnt mean they will be let out of prison but the most important part for me is salvation, that chance for salvation.

Side: NOPE
2 points

Under no condition should the government ever be responsible for any death, either domestic or foreign. The government is in place to serve the citizenry, not to empower themselves, usurping that power from their subjects; by killing one of their citizens, even if such is the course of action desired by most, or even all, of the government's subjects, they are no longer serving but are instead ruling, which they ought never do.

Side: NOPE
2 points

Doesn't carrying out the death penalty still make you a murderer yourself? Wether you claim it's for the 'greater good' or not you have killed. Also, when you kill a criminal, the crime they committed still happened - your loved one hasn't returned, the molested children are not freed from the act. The death penalty exists in many places - but there are still murderers, rapists etc. If the death penalty was effective then surely these acts would no longer be carried out? But they are, therefore, it is clearly ineffective and we should focus more on what makes people this way and preventative measures such as involving mental health professionals when early stages of 'questionable' behavior are displayed. After all, nobody is born a murderer, evil, a rapist or a criminal.

Side: Nope
2 points

i think first you should all clarify what it is you actually want to achieve with the criminal. a murderer is a problem and will invoke an outrage from those close to the one they killed. do you want to solve the problem or punish the murderer? punish, well that's just vengeance. the problem is that you have murderers coming from somewhere and you have a murderer that may/may not kill again, and your agenda is (i hope) to prevent the deaths of more (innocent?) people.

helping in removing the source of murderers could be improving conditions and support for those living shit lives. it should be a well known fact that a steep poverty difference leads to more crime. and it is true that beaten bob with his abusive alcoholic antagonist aunty alice, is far more likely to commit a crime. those with no way out of poverty or those with debt are also more likely to commit a crime. in short, those who suffer=generally more likely to commit crime.

as for our murderous idiot, it is true that people released from prison are more likely to commit a crime than someone who has no connection to crime thus far, but that is not to say all criminals will kill again. in the case of a one time killer, there is really no reason other than punishment to give them the death penalty. generally though, prison is not bad at stopping those who would go for a hat trick. that said, the death penalty is even better at this; dead people do not kill other people, not yet anyway ;).

then there is punishment. history has shown punishment does jack shit to deter crime. monarchs throughout the medieval period had a crap time despite sentencing countless to be beheaded, mutilated, tortured, fined, burned and outcasted. this had few results and sometimes caused an uproar. obviously the death penalty (i hope) isn't killing on such a scale, but the argument for DP being a good deterrent is as false as the war on war. punishment is however good at being satisfying, especially for victims. DP, honestly is a bit of an easy way out, and in the conditions it is used it is about as primitive as the old eye for an eye, where i would have to side with ghandi. however DP is a collection of the criminal's punishment into a single moment, which i assume is far more satisfying than the dull 'at least they are in prison'. personally i would find prison far more terrifying than just death. just death is just death. prison is misery with a bit of hope followed by death, but a large portion of your life is missing, few will accept you or help you and you have a criminal record triple strength job repellant, have a nice remaining life. then you die, inevitably, obviously. good luck reaching your potential when your wings are clipped. prison is more terrifying, DP is more satisfying. but really, your satisfaction should be irrelevant, no matter who you are. revenge, death and emotion are all ugly and can loosen your rationality. the counter would be when/if the criminal is released, but even then, they have already served their time. if the criminal commits another crime, then the prison has failed completely. i think releases should be far more strict, with the initial sentence a mere guideline as to how long they stay, to be extended at will. reform should be more emphasised (although arguably useless, and admittedly does not affect the majority of prisoners).

DP is far too much in favour of the victim's emotions rather than what is logical, which is to lessen the uprising of crime, which does mean dealing with what someone rather rudely and pretentiously put as 'made fun of as a little kid'. i can't see it as a reasonable solution.

Side: Nope
1 point

death penalty for the wall street bankers who crashed the economy, and the u.s. troops who murdered innocent people, yea, im all for it.

Side: NOPE

It makes no difference. I am against the Death Penalty because it is a barbaric practice.

Side: Nope
Atrag(5546) Disputed
2 points

Grrr yet again I thought this was an current debate. CAN YOU PLEASE STOP!?!?!?

Side: Indeed