CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
18
Yes No
Debate Score:37
Arguments:24
Total Votes:41
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (10)
 
 No (13)

Debate Creator

Quocalimar(6470) pic



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?"

A man getting beheaded, and the king assuring the man the killer is a trained professional.

Yes

Side Score: 19
VS.

No

Side Score: 18
2 points

It is only okay to kill if loss of life or essential liberty is at stake.

Side: Yes

The Death Penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and it should be abolished everywhere.

Side: Yes
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
3 points

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?

Side: No
Vermink(1944) Disputed
1 point

How so?

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.

Side: Yes

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.

Side: Yes
Atrag(5666) Disputed
2 points

In the UK, a suicide pact is a defence to a charge of murder.

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: Yes
Quocalimar(6470) Clarified
2 points

What does this have to do with hypocrisy?

Side: Yes
Atrag(5666) Disputed
2 points

Its hypocritical for a society that condemns malicious killing in every situation to then carry it out themselves.

Side: No
2 points

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.

Side: No
Atrag(5666) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: Yes
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: No

Death penalty is only maximum proportional to the crime committed.--------

Side: No
1 point

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"..

Side: No
1 point

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.

Side: No