CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
5
Yes, because its humanitarian No, because it is wrong
Debate Score:9
Arguments:7
Total Votes:9
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, because its humanitarian (4)
 
 No, because it is wrong (3)

Debate Creator

Aries(37) pic



Should the death penalty be legalized?

My argument is that if someone has committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, they should be executed. Beyond a reasonable doubt is when they admit to it, or there is video evidence, or there are several witnesses of multiple races. 

Crimes include:
1) Capital Murder (Without a Reason)
2) Rape
3) Hate Crimes/Hazing
4) Dealing of Hard Drugs that can Hurt People
5) Aggressive Stalking
6) Aggressive Assault
7) Corruption (Stealing a lot of money from people or putting money above people's welfare)

The executions should only happen every 5 years in order to allow people/lawyers time to sort out the case and think about it. Keeping people locked up is: 
1) In-humanitarian,
2) Costly (for anyone that says it is more costly to kill someone, that is because of administrative and lawyer fees, these can be eliminated),
3) It keeps bad people alive

Yes, because its humanitarian

Side Score: 4
VS.

No, because it is wrong

Side Score: 5
1 point

I think that the death penalty is more humanitarian. Aggressive bad people that show no remorse should be killed.

Side: Yes, because its humanitarian
seynimedina(34) Disputed
2 points

To end someone's life is more humanitarian? If someone is being tortured physically they suffer greatly. However, if someone were to be killed their life has ended,finished,concluded. This is something worse than torture, having human life being taken away. This affects family members and others as well. No matter how "aggressive" the person is they do not deserve to be killed. The definition of "humanitarian" is essentially promoting human welfare. In what way are you doing that by ending human life? What are you promoting by killing others?

Side: No, because it is wrong
Aries(37) Disputed
1 point

I disagree. Some people shouldn't be left to live. Some people are trash. Serial killers and child rapists are examples of this.

Side: Yes, because its humanitarian
1 point

I think it should be, but people in jail should be given a choice if their crime is bad enough (guilty or not). It is cruel to keep them alive, and it is worse to give the victims the choice to kill their abuser. It makes them no better than the murderer.

Side: Yes, because its humanitarian
1 point

It's already Legal where I live. The guidelines for receiving the death penalty are very narrow. It's a punishment that is well earned.

Things like stalking and corruption are a no-go.

Side: Yes, because its humanitarian
2 points

This topic is super controversial. I find myself in between for both to a certain extent. Take that many people are wrongfully convicted. Innocent people should not have to even acknowledge or think they have to face our justice system because of our justice systems misleading evidence. Our justice system has wrongfully convicted innocent people and sentenced them to prison in many cases the death penalty also awaited them. Innocent people are wrongfully convicted because “Inadequate legal representation, police and prosecutorial misconduct, perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony, racial prejudice, Jailhouse "snitch" testimony, Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence, Community/political pressure to solve a case.” Unreliable and fraud convictions from testing labs have been taking a toll on many innocent people. Sometimes labs or their personnel have allied themselves with prosecutors and cops , rather than searching for truth. Some cases are purposely tampered with so when retested there are no new results. In the past innocent people have plead guilty and given jurors a false confession Thorough investigation step by step needs to be made to make sure no one innocent is ever charge. But as for the murderers and rapist that are convicted with credible evidence..I say let them rot in prison for a while then send them to the electric chair.

Side: No, because it is wrong
1 point

without a death penalty they could Taser someone with a gun and put handcuffs on them before they committed a crime and they wouldn't be killing an innocent person on accident like they could do if there was a death sentence and they shot them but they were actually innocent. without a death sentence they could focus on crime deterrence and I think its less evil to Taser an innocent person than to murder an innocent person that they thought would murder but wouldn't because they are innocent. if the death sentence didn't kill any innocent people than they could only use the death sentence after they committed a crime not before they committed a crime because its impossible to tell for sure who will commit a crime before they commit a crime in every case.

Side: No, because it is wrong