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.
The role of government is to administer justice. The greatest crime you can commit is murder therefore it requires the greatest punishment; the forfeiture of ones life. If a government fails to require a life for a life it fails to administer justice. And has not placed a high value on human life. And therefore fails to do what government was intended to do: protect its citizens by administering justice. So no the death penalty should not be allowed, it should be required because that's what government ought to do.
Yes. Institutionalizing an individual has a possibility of correcting behaviour, but as it stands with the case of repeat offenders we must recognize that the system is flawed. If a man kills another then he has 'sacraficed' his freedom with his action of murder. Is this a fair enough trade? It is also needed for the family members of the victim to possibly gain a sense of peace.
It should be given out freely to murders, rapist and repeat child molesters!!!
these people do not deserve the right to live and spending a year in prison cost 50,000 a year on average. imagine the books and schools and roads and dams and clean energy systems and so on we could fund!!!!!
ex a guy is 30 and gets life in prison and spends the next 40 years in prison: that 2,225,000 bucks?????????????????
next-time you see a school closing or teachers being laid-off, or a homeless man on the street who was kicked out of his state funded rehab program or so.
Life in prison is a billion plus dollar a year industry!!!! and your paying for it!!!!!!
Unfortunately, legal costs prior to an execution cost FAR more than life in prison. The 10-plus-year process leading up to the injection will rack up millions in court costs and lawyer fees. And after all of this, practically none of the individuals on death row ever get executed. Your supposed money saving plan would actually balloon costs for a pipe dream.
do you think that i believe the system of letting a capital case drag out 30 years???
No!!!!! I believe that if a person is convicted they should get one free retrial or appeal to a higher court!!!! if denied the case is done!!!!!!! Execution is handed out.
it would take five to maybe ten years max!!!!!! and i still believe that is too much of a gift to them!!!!
period, hang them now and hang them high!!!! murders, rapist and molesters have not right to live and call me a biggot, a racist or heartless person!! i take pride in those accusations.
Victims deserve justice and these evil persons do not deserve to live at the cost of our kids education, or the roads we drive or the prisoners who can seek rehab treatment.
You're basically disagreeing with the entire American legal system and the concept of a fair trial with right to appeal. Which is cool and all, it just has jack shit to do with the topic of capital punishment.
But your line of thinking displays a naive, fantasy-like trust in the ability of the court. Do you have any idea how many innocent people would have been executed if evidence found later in the trial hadn't cleared them of guilt? (Hint: A lot)
You're living in your own little world, my friend. A world of black and white, where bad people should die and good people should prosper. A world where the law is incorruptible, where any money not being spent directly on the loyal citizenry is money being wasted, where death is the final justice. A world more suited to comic books.
Tell me, how many innocent people is it worth it to kill in order to make sure that the guilty die? One out of a thousand? A hundred thousand? A million? Give me a number. Keep in mind that money doesn't play into this, since capital punishment costs far more than a lifetime of prison.
You say a lot of people have been executed when they are innocent. For that I do not disagree, yes hundreds maybe thousands of people have either been sentenced to death or served a period of time in jail for a crime they did not commit. But if you compare that to overall total of people executed/sentenced to prison...totals in the millions!! You talking about a tiny percentage. It’s a percent of one percent of total people sentenced for a crime.
You are living in a fantasy like world; if you truly believe that our prison system should bat a perfect avg. yes innocent people have died!!!! And spent life in prison for a crime. But in today’s era of CSI/ Psychological analysis, coroner reviews and so on. Literally people in the hundreds may be apart of reviewing a capital punishment case. Think about it!!! The ten or so district attorneys/ assistants…. The twenty or so cops who saw the crime/ reviewed the crime scene….. The lead and partner detective……..the judge………..the 12 jurors………. Coroner and his assistants……..and that is just the first case……….I agree a retrial and or a single appeals court case is necessary for due diligence.
Plain in simple a hell of a lot of people often are part of these cases…. Yes, fifty years ago with technology lagging and police officers educated a high-school level, mistakes happen! But often detectives on a case TODAY have at least a bachelors or many year on the force before becoming a detective. I have a former associate who is a detective and she has a master’s degree.
My point is simply a hell of a lot of people are involved in a major case and they are becoming more capable each day with education and technology and that is indisputable.
You are a fool if you expect the system to be perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Second: Cost
Yes I agree that housing death row inmates today cost more to house in a jail. That is a voluntary action that the prison system chooses to do and I disagree with that concept. Do these prisoners eat more then the rest??????????? Need special clothes?????????????? Have special cots or toilet paper?? No, they are human like the rest of us and can cost just the same……….. if the system choose to do so!!!! Can you give me a legitimate reason why they should cost more than the rest?????? I think maybe we can agree regular prisoners and murders are the same species or at least eat the same food and do not require any difference clothes. So why do they need to cost different????
My whole argument is based on the simple facts, one technology and judicial officers talent are better than in the past…………………..(I think we can agree)………………………current trial process has many of these officers/ technology applied to even the first trial!!!!!!!!!
You say execution cost more than a life in prison sentence???? In my approach to “legal system reform” a single trial/retrial/appeal system would likely take five to maybe ten years at an extreme amount of time……………are you saying it cost more to house a death row inmate ten years than the cost of holding a man in jail for 40….50…60 years at a cost of 50,000 dollars a year and not to mention with inflation….. The cost of anything let alone gum doubles every 20 yrs on avg. so after 20 years that 50 k is now 100k. Your rely going to tell me your way is cheaper?????
And back to the acceptable amount of deaths………….again………….nothing is perfect (except you)…………………no amount of conviction rater or appeals process or expert prosecutors will stop innocent people from being convicted. All we can do is to force the system to strive for perfection or as I call it to be like SCUMBARGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lastly, a little off topic, sorry I’m not perfect like scumbarge, but how many people have been innocently convicted of a crime and they were a saint. How many men/women were truly good hearted people who were put to death and never had it coming to them? i.e. Mike Tyson s, when convicted of raping his then wife robin givens said he was innocent but truly deserved his time spent in jail because of his past transgressions, such as when he use to beat to a pulp elderly women for their purses on elevators back at his projects as a kid.
My point is, how often does a truly good hearted person go to jail without a past criminal record or history of violence or so on. You are in a la la land if you believe our system must be perfect
"...But in today’s era of CSI/ Psychological analysis, coroner reviews and so on...."
Forensic science isn't anywhere near as accurate as watching CSI would have you believe. What you have just described is every policeman's dream, the ultimate open-and-shut case, which compose perhaps 0.1% of actual cases.
>
"...You are a fool if you expect the system to be perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..."
EXACTLY. There are so many goddamn holes in our legal system that to trust them with human lives borders on lunacy.
>
"Your rely going to tell me your way is cheaper?"
I don't have to tell you. That's what facts are for. You know, things like the statistics? Actual measured amounts of money being spent? The ones that conclusively prove that we spend countless times more on death row inmates that we would have spent simply leaving them to rot? Yeah, those facts. Turns out they're a lot more reliable than wherever the hell you're pulling your information out of.
>
"Lastly, a little off topic, sorry I’m not perfect like scumbarge"
I forgive you. We can't all be.
>
"how often does a truly good hearted person go to jail without a past criminal record or history of violence or so on."
So what you're saying is, even if the guy we're sending to the chair didn't actually commit a murder, he should still die because he was an asshole in his personal life. That makes perfect fucking sense.
>
"You are in a la la land if you believe our system must be perfect"
wow...................first, i hate the csi shows, ncis and so on. and are you saying that the csi teams of today are not up to par in your opinion????? what about them fails your standars????????//// is it the ability to check million of people fingerprints in data systems today or matching blood to a suspect or footprint analysis or the simple fact that the defendant did not have a credible Albie??????? and those are tactics that have been around since the 30's!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so what is good enough for you??????????
holes in the system??????????? like what? you said holes?????// tell me???? educate me?????
Help Me Understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK so your saying if we kill a guy after 10 years on death row........... and it cost double each year of that of a regular inmate........ in ca its 50k on avg.. so 10 yrs times 100k equals 1million bucks..
a guy who is 30 spends 40 yrs in prison at 50 k each year equals at least 2 million bucks.
your ignoring the fact that people often wrongly convicted of any let alone murder, often has a prior record of misdoing. this is called karma. do i need to leave a wikki link for you?????
again help me understand?????????? how are you correct????????
you made an argument........back it up......i do not need a work cited page...... just shoot something that sounds half as crazy as you are.
"...is it the ability to check million of people fingerprints in data systems today or matching blood to a suspect or footprint analysis..."
I'll find the link later if you really need it, but yeah, I'm basically saying that forensic evidence isn't nearly as effective as Hollywood would have you believe. It's easily faked,easily avoided, and nowhere near the miracle cure that people make it out to be.
>
"or the simple fact that the defendant did not have a credible Albie"
When did we start talking about specific cases? Are you saying that the defendant will never have a credible alibi, ever? Because that's retarded. Just saying.
>
"OK so your saying if we kill a guy after 10 years and it cost double each year of that of a regular inmate..."
When the hell did I say double? Okay, look. Bear with me. I'm not just making shit up here. Ready?
I KNOW IT COSTS A LOT TO KEEP AN INMATE IN PRISON. I AM NOT DEBATING THAT. I AM SIMPLY STATING THE FACT THAT IN OUR CURRENT LEGAL ENVIRONMENT, EXECUTING A PRISONER COSTS MORE, AND THIS WILL NOT CHANGE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU TYPE UP YOUR CUTE LITTLE MATH EQUATION. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT SHOULD BE THIS WAY, OR THAT THIS IS IDEAL. I AM JUST STATING THE SIMPLE FACT THAT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT COSTS MORE THAN TRADITIONAL INCARCERATION. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION. IT IS THE TRUTH.
Thank you.
>
"your ignoring the fact that people often wrongly convicted of any let alone murder, often has a prior record of misdoing. this is called karma. do i need to leave a wikki link for you?????"
So we should execute people based not on crimes the court convicts them of, but on karma.
toss the csi shit for giggle's because you like to pick and choose what part you want to debate (forget everything else i just said) but who cares.
with today's technology of cell phones that allows you to track when and where a person calls/text from at any moment. my droid has a gps on at all times. or street cameras, onstar, low jack, social networking, email, blaa bllla blahh. im just illustrating in today's era, unless you have no one in your life but your right hand, often times we are always with someone or in a place that has witnesses or a camera near us and so on. nearly all suspects are cleared of suspicion simply by having an alibi. i am not saying that by having one is the only determinate of clearing a suspect, ex a person has the right not to incriminate themselves, i.e. they were robbing a bank. a judge can grant immunity for that crime and he/she can clear them self. im just saying an alibi is fuckin concrete!!!! and without that, plus dna and most of all motive!!!!!! a person is almost always found correctly found guilty. again technology could save your ass right now!!!! ex your a murder suspect, but wait, you're talking to me right now, time date, and so on is stored on your computer,,,,,,,, and you are likely cleared.
my whole point is that no death row inmate should be allowed to live five or max ten years!!!! you say it cost more to have a death row inmate..........................i suggested double the cost of a regular inmate, i was mistaken if i implicated you as the one who suggested that figure. but 100 grand to feed and clothe a man is plenty enough to estimate, what you suggest is much more than a regular inmate!!!!!!!!!!!
so fucking plain and simple. in "my theory" of due process of 10 maxxxxxxxxxxxx time allotted. would cost 1 mill at double the rate of a typical life sentence inmate.
a real fact if you want the link. a ca inmate cost 50 k a year.... for a ca inmate.... and it would cost 2 mill to house a 30 yr old for 40 years. and i was being nice , avg make lives 73 or 74 yrs these days and most of time is a damn 20 year old who gets time that long.
the karma...... im not saying every single one is gonna get it...... fuck you the one saying im implying it to every single one.............. get over yourself
Putting aside your total ignorance regarding the reliability of forensic technology...
>
"what you suggest is much more than a regular inmate"
Why, yes. Yes it is. That's because once you press for an execution, it's a whole new ball game from all the new laws that apply. The prisoner is appointed extra lawyers (who have to be paid) and the appeals process is lengthened greatly. This is because, like it or not, someone potentially being killed is a much bigger deal than a normal court case, and the price reflects this.
>
"so fucking plain and simple. in "my theory" of due process of 10 maxxxxxxxxxxxx time allotted. would cost 1 mill at double the rate of a typical life sentence inmate."
Yes, clearly it's simple enough that some random kid on the internet figures out, using simple math, a more effective way than the one our lawmakers have reached after years of professional debate.
Or, you know, maybe you're oversimplifying the topic because you don't have any legal experience.
One of those.
>
"the karma...... im not saying every single one is gonna get i"
Then maybe it wasn't a very good idea to mention it?
oh.... sorry i did not know that you are an expert yourself on forensic technology and can with your credibility in the area, dismiss any notions of its use that i have suggested. yeah i must me wrong that we have databases full of fingerprints and the other techniques i also suggested must be crap because you are an expert and say they are not credible.
i am not saying my approach is perfect nor should be the only way to go forward. i do nt care how it goes about as long as a prisoner is tried and executed within TEN FUCKING YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. i do not care if the same amount of appeals is given as today if they streamline the process or give a sentencing judge greater power to deny a case from going on to the next level because the case it not worthy of being transfered. yes i can agree with you i am no expert on the matter but you bolted ego wont let you see yourself as not an expert unless you sir have a law degree??? a judge??? so don't fucking question my experience on the matter unless you check yourself first.
forget about the karma topic cus it seems out of context now.
"sorry i did not know that you are an expert yourself on forensic technology and can with your credibility in the area, dismiss any notions of its use that i have suggested."
Look, all I'm saying is that forensic evidence, if and when it even exists, isn't the golden gun you make it out to be. I don't need a PhD in math to tell you that 1+1 doesn't equal 3. I don't have to be an expert forensic investigator to realize you're full of shit.
>
"i am not saying my approach is perfect nor should be the only way to go forward. i do nt care how it goes about as long as a prisoner is tried and executed within TEN FUCKING YEARS"
And you're entitled to that opinion; it just isn't particularly relevant. This debate isn't called. "what I would do with the courts if I had dictatorial powers and could change whatever I wanted about the legal system with no regard to previously set laws or constitutional rights". If it were, your little 10 year process would be right at home.
No, this is about whether or not capital punishment should be around. I say it shouldn't because it costs more. You say it should because you can't do simple fucking math.
>
"but you bolted ego wont let you see yourself as not an expert unless you sir have a law degree??? a judge??? so don't fucking question my experience on the matter unless you check yourself first."
I never claimed to be a goddamn lawyer. Again: My personal education has nothing to to with anything - I just know enough to realize you're full of shit. Haven't we been over this?
wow you fucking say i thing the ala-bye is the most important key to a murder investigation earlier and now i am saying that forensic evidence the the fucking key!!!! my whole fucking point is that in TODAYS world evidence and theory from trained instigators makes the possibility of an innocent murder being killed UN fucking likely. we that is unless I'm a dumb-ass who thinks their cannot be a mistake or two like you believe. what in the fucking world is perfect!!!! the legal system will make a mistake but that does not need detour a punishment that the majority of Americans still favor!!!! yes back in the 1800s a sheriff or officer of the law made mistakes all the fucking time. but technology is a big fucking deal these days!!!!!!!!!
you say you don't need to be an expert but you dismiss everything i say like you are one. along with the fact that you have not made any suggestions but only deny deny deny anything i have to say. and you rebut my argument with saying your getting off the the original topic????????? are you saying a conversation can only be limited to one fucking topic in a fucking debate and why are you bring it up now. you are because you a little boy with no real ability to think like an adult.
and on the topic of capital punishment being around???? you say it should go away because of it costing more. your telling me if they were killed in ten years........it would still be cheaper to house them for life..........do the fucking simple math pl or something. try to do more then deny and deny like a stupid little boy!!!!!! at least throw some bull shit out there instead of no no no!!!! and do not say i don't need to be a PhD or i dont need to prove it. this is a hypothetical situation...........if they we killed in a reasonable amount of time???????????? can you think like an adult for a second???? try and use some critical thinking skill they teach you in elementary school?????
you say my personal education has nothing to do with this? yes, we can both agree we are not lawyers or forensic experts. but when you deny deny deny like your an expert and you refuse to provide any attempt of likening your reason to some shred of proof !!!!!!!!you end up sounding like a little bitch boy..
I'm sorry if i come off as hostile........... its just stupid people make me mad.........
my whole point is shut the fuck up and read what i have to say and then comment back this time. let your can your adolescent brain let that happen or have we come to the conclusion that this debate is not at a point where we can agree because your mom should have swallowed you when she had the chance!!!!!!!!!!!! bitch boy
Death penalty should be allowed as it deters people from committing serious crimes such as murder. It shows the severe effects and consequences of commiting the crime and thus serves to teach people not to do so and deter potential criminals. However, as sentencing a person to death is akin to "murder" which is legal under the law, and the the act of carrying out the death sentence is irreversible, it should be done after lots of considerations whether the person deserve the judgement.
The dealth penalty is not as simple as it seems. There are a lot of complex prodecuures beyond the dealth peanlty.
The fact remains that life in prison is cheaper than sentencing one to the death penalty.
"The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated."
Supporting Evidence:
Death Penalty
(www.deathpenalty.org)
The Constitution can be amended. people who are guilty of murder should be executed. An eye for an eye doesn't make the world blind. People can only die once but they have two eyes.
Sure, the Constitution can be amended, yet you suggesting that saving money is more prudent and applicable than saving the lives of innocent people. That is ridiculous.
I don't know who wrote your quote about the death penalty here but they seem to have really stretched the meaning of the phrase "a long and complex judicial process for capital cases". The case is indeed more involved than your typical court case, and for good reason. Things that make it truly expensive however, are things like limitless appeals, which are NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION! So don't tell me that over complicating capital cases and making them ridiculously expensive is constitutional.
Yes. It needs to be reconstructed though. If someone is proven to have done ridiculous acts such as murder, torturing someone, rape, etc... they should be killed on the spot. However, as I know many disagree, I think there should be understandings for justifiable murders. These murders would include retaliations against people that have gotten away with horrible acts or in different cases of self defense. I feel family should ALWAYS be able to protect and look out for one another. The american justice system sure isn't going to. As of right now, thousands maybe even millions of people are sitting on death row waiting to get "humanely" executed. That is some pretty stupid shit if you ask me. Why do we feel the need to kill these scum bags in a "nice" way. Makes no sense. By doing this, millions of american tax dollars are being spent on keeping these idiots alive. Other countries already have this down to a tee. Look at Iraq. SAME DAY of Saddam Husein's conviction, he was hung. The United States is way too lenient with punishment. If the punishments in the US were more severe I think people would think twice before doing stupid crap.
Only if they actually deserve it. Like Casey Anthony. Otherwise I say no because your murdering someone also. Does that make you better than the person you just killed? No.
Yes because if someone murders, say, your child, would you really want to pay for his food and supplies in jail, because that is what is what we are doing.
NO WAY should it be allowed if you sentence a murderer to death you would have their blood on your hands.So what would make you better then the person your killing? I don't think anybody should be able to say who lives and dies the whole concept is unmoral and barbaric
Well, the facts on the high cost of the death penalty can seen here. [1]
If the death penalty is not what is right, then the death penalty is certainly not about justice; it is pseudo revenge. The death penalty is legal murder justified by government morality and laws simply masqueraded as justice.
I don't condone the act of a murderer. They should receive the highest punishment, but death is hardly punishment. It is a sense of freedom because s/he doesn't have to live with the wrong acts that they committed.
I'd have to do more research into the death penalty website before believing the facts they present.
We disagree on what justice is. I think you believe in restorative justice. I believe in retributive justice. You don't believe that death is punishment. I do.
What is the highest punishment? Living in jail off the taxpayers money and "having to live knowing what they did?"
The only reason the death penalty is more expensive is because all the liberals want it banned so they make it as expensive as possible. Limitless appeals for instance. There was once a time when a murder or rape conviction would give you 24 hours to live. If we had the old system back, executing someone would be very cost effective.
I'd have to do more research into the death penalty website before believing the facts they present.
We disagree on what justice is. I think you believe in restorative justice. I believe in retributive justice. You don't believe that death is punishment. I do.
What is the highest punishment? Living in jail off the taxpayers money and "having to live knowing what they did?"
There is retributive justice and there is utilitarianism justice. They are different views on the same philosophical idea. Both views think they are "right". Neither one of them can claim to be "right".
"There is retributive justice and there is utilitarianism justice. They are different views on the same philosophical idea. "
Whoa, those are brand new terms we're talking in now. I meant the simple "just" and "right". If something is just, then shouldn't it be right? If something is right, then should it not be just? Would not the absence of either of these qualities render the other nonexistent?
>
"Both views think they are "right". Neither one of them can claim to be "right"."
Oh, yeah, that makes plenty of sense. And by that I mean it doesn't make any sense at all.
Check the definition of just - you might be in for a surprise.
I'm sorry I offended you with my new terms. A simple google search and wikipedia lookup will help you understand them. By using those terms I was trying to further the discussion and figure out what people truly believe in. It's hard to do that when talking about vague terms like "justice" and "right". If we can narrow down the aspects of what we are talking about we might understand where the differences are.
In your mind just and right might be the same thing. You might also think you know what is "just" and therefore you know what is "right" and vice versa. That's fair for you to think. I do not think I possess this level of knowledge.
Two quotes come to mind:
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." Andre Gide
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." Mark Twain
Just/Right/Fair - all made up ideas and all depend one's perspective. Suicide bombers are an example of where someone thinks they are just and right. On the other hand some would disagree that this is just or right. So who is right? Who should decide "the right way".
Ah, but now you're using one side's idea of justice, while substituting another side's idea of righteousness. The suicide bombers believe themselves both just and right, don't they? While I'm not defining any particular idea of just and right here as absolutes, I am saying that they shouldn't be separated.
Yes, I am aware that everyone has a different idea of just and right. My point is that everyone's definition includes the other, to the point where an unjust descision (whatever your idea of injustice may be) cannot, by very definition of "right", be right.
Whether or not they deserve it (or whether you believe anyone CAN deserve it) is irrelevant. The fact is, the money spent on capital punishment (in America, at least) would be put to monumentally better use in another area of law enforcement.
It simply just isn't an effective crime deterrent - we waste millions in legal costs PER CRIMINAL put on death row, and yet we only execute a trifling minority of them. Criminals either know this and weigh their chances accordingly, or don't care enough about difference between the death penalty and life in jail to reconsider their crimes. The death penalty may have been an effective scare tactic when the legal system was less convoluted and lynch friendly, or when executions were public, but as of now it is nothing more than an anachronism.
