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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is the death penalty hypocritical?
I can't think of more to add to the what this is about than what the title literally says. I guess, here "Do you think it's hypocritical to kill killers who can not be changed?"
In some cases it is hypocritical like doing it to a murderer is. But that's not the reason I'm against it, the reason I am against it is that it doesn't give them the chance to reform for the better and that I don't wish death on anyone.
In some cases it is hypocritical like doing it to a murderer is.
How so?
But that's not the reason I'm against it, the reason I am against it is that it doesn't give them the chance to reform for the better and that I don't wish death on anyone.
What if they already had a chance to reform, and we already know from their behavior that rehabilitation is not an option. What if helping them, is no longer an option like imprisonment is supposed to do, and all we can do now is cut our loses and at least keep the rest of the innocent public safe?
They're saying that killing is wrong so to punish the murderer they're killing them that is hypocritical.
If they had the chance to reform and didn't you still don't need to kill them just keep them in prison. Death isn't the answer for someone not being able to reform.
They're saying that killing is wrong so to punish the murderer they're killing them that is hypocritical.
They're not punishing the murderer. The murder already knows what he did was too unforgivable, and he doesn't want to change. At that point, they know letting him back on the streets is a no no. So they hold him until he dies, not to teach him a lesson he already know, but to keep him away from the public. All the death penalty is, is a better method of doing that.
If they had the chance to reform and didn't you still don't need to kill them just keep them in prison. Death isn't the answer for someone not being able to reform.
For torture for the rest of their life? Prison is torture. Psychological with the loneliness, and physical with the potential molestation and chance of attack from other inmates.
Nope the death penalty is just a quicker way to do it and if I've heard right more expensive.
Better, and quicker. Yes you have heard correctly, it's more expensive. Though not because it actually cost more to do, but because it is added the expenses of the extra and unnecessary trials, and the dying wishes of the prisoner, and the prisoners incarceration the whole time before being executed. They are giving too much to someone about to executed since they can not live in our society, and for that reason they are hiking the cost up significantly.
That's what they deserve then!
Torture is not justice, which you just basically said it is. Nor is revenge. A prison sentence, that results in being released eventually, is not for revenge it's for justice, to teach the criminal what they did was wrong, and possibly prevent them from doing it again. To hold them forever, will not do that, that is now torture, and as I repeat torture is not justice.
Would they kill me if I went on a suicidal pack and killed a few people,then my bullet misses my heart and they save me,just to put me through the courts to kill me.
Its a very dangerous situation in which the state (or the masses if its decided by a jury) has the power to decide who lives and who dies based on how evil they perceive their acts to be. If we live in a society that absolutely condemn all forms of malicious killing then this has to include the state.
That's more like it. Now I can say, that yes it would be hypocritical if it was a malicious killing. Yet it's not. It's a killing sure, but it's not malicious, it's done very respectful, to pay homage to the criminal, and it's mostly a more permanent removal. The criminal can no longer live among the masses, we know this by his or her behavior, so we need to get rid of the criminal for the good of the rest of the population.
The way people against it, try to discredit it is saying it's not a good punishment, but really it's not a punishment per say. I don't know what it is exactly but it's not a punishment. With a punishment you learn from what you did, or what you did is made even to you. With the death penalty you are permanently removing a problem.
Punishment is for the criminal, death penalty is for the public.
The aim of any punishment can be categorised to varying degrees as perusing: reparation, deterrence, rehabilitation and protection of the public. Different legal systems emphasis each of these in different proportion.
With a punishment you learn from what you did, or what you did is made even to you
You're right in saying this is not what a death penalty is about but to me it seems like a sentence that emphasises rehabilitation. A death penalty is clearly, as you've said, about reparation - the idea that that person is so bad that they deserve to be killed for justice of the victims and the community as a whole. Both types of sentencing as 'punishments' but in pursuance of different aims.
the idea that that person is so bad that they deserve to be killed for justice
The idea is that they are so unfix-ably bad, that the only way to maintain justice is to be done with them. Life imprisonment is the preferred method, but the death penalty would be cheaper.
There are two points that I find really unpalatable there. 1) That a jury or judge should be allowed to decide that an individual can't be rehabilitated with such certainty as to justify ending their life 2) that cost should be considered when deciding whether to kill someone or not.
I don't think it should be up to a jury. I think the person's own behavior should be the tell, such as a strike system.
As for the cost, if it's the cost of holding someone you don't intend to let walk free again until they die, or just ending it when you realize you won't let them walk free, I think cost is important.
I don't think it should be up to a jury. I think the person's own behavior should be the tell, such as a strike system.
In the UK a court can only consider a whole of life tariff, for example, is something like...if the murder is sexually or sadistically motived or there is more than one victim. Do you mean this type of criteria? But for you the death sentence would be automatic? All this does is make it parliaments decision rather than the judge and jury and would fail to take into account any mitigation factors or the individuals capacity for rehabilitation.
As for the cost, if it's the cost of holding someone you don't intend to let walk free again until they die, or just ending it when you realize you won't let them walk free, I think cost is important.
It may be argued that some people deserve to die but no one deserves to die to save money. If they deserve to be locked away for life (a sentence short of the death penalty) they shouldn't have their sentence transformed into a death sentence just for the sake of money.
It may be argued that some people deserve to die but no one deserves to die to save money.
They don't deserve to die to save money. They already to deserve to die, saving money is a bonus, and a reason to speed it up.
If they deserve to be locked away for life
Why ever the life sentence? Only time I could see the life sentence as viable is if it were supposed to be for a certain amount of time, and that amount of time were longer than there life span, and even still I don't condone a life sentence. In that case the death penalty would be mercy.
if the murder is sexually or sadistically motived or there is more than one victim.
Sexual killers, and serial killers may be able to be rehabilitated, but people who kill sadistically, just because they want to, most likely can't be cured, and if a psychotherapist gave the order, the death penalty would then be the best option.
I really hate all this "re-educational therapy" and what not, If someone has committed a crime yet so bad that they are judged upon for the death penalty there is no use in setting them free again on parol with all this crap about making there life a better change. No. What they did was wrong what ever it was and you cannot re-write history. Im all up for the death penalty, but personally i'd rather have them suffer in Prison, Call me crazy or mad but when it comes to opening the door to the justice system i think all emotions are to wait inside the waiting room. Yes i am Christian and very religious, but I also think religion should wait behind with emotion because what has to be has to be done. He or She that committed the crime obviously knew what the consequences would be, it sickens me that Australia is such a soft country, first degree murder of an infant and let out with 10 years, 7 years with re-educational therapy, Bleh ! Need to get more strict ! With a far more strict system, criminals won't have the "balls"..
I have had mixed feelings on this issue over the years, but essentially the act of murder (not killing) can be said to be the ultimate form of theft because you are taking another human beings life and you have no right to do so. The different degrees of this act can and is separated, but if it is cold blooded as in planned or anything outside of heat of passion, I am in favor that such a person pay with their life; there is no rehabilitation if they are apathetic towards the worth of life, including their own and this means they are an imminent threat to anyone else still living.
I do think that after being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that if the family of the deceased victim(s) wish to stay the punishment of death, then, it could be an option, but I am not sure on that.
Maybe in cases of "heat of passion" or manslaughter, that could be something because though the person committed the act of taking a life, it could be shown that they were not intending to do so; this does not mean they do not pay, it just means they do not lose their own life.
However, the way it is supposed to be set-up is that the punishment fits the crime. It is very distorted when so-called "victimless crimes" have incarceration sentences that are greater than crimes such as murder, etc.