CreateDebate


Debate Info

60
62
Yes No
Debate Score:122
Arguments:56
Total Votes:141
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (28)
 
 No (28)

Debate Creator

3dgR0cka(29) pic



Should there be a death penalty?

The death penalty has been a controversial issue for a long time. Is it morally justified and what crimes should it encompass?

Yes

Side Score: 60
VS.

No

Side Score: 62
2 points

Some people just need killin'. Really, it's as simple as that. Life in prison? Hah, what's to stop them from killing other inmates? Maybe some poor bastard who stole some cash from a 7/11 to get food for his family got thrown in the slammer and suddenly he's got leatherface up his ass with a chiv?

I dunno, maybe I care about the general population but murderers need to die. Plain and simple.

Side: yes
nigelc(49) Disputed
4 points

"Some people just need killin'" - That sounds just fantastic!

Side: No
Warlin(1212) Disputed
5 points

Don't be a smartass. Stare into the face of a murderer who has your family's blood splattered all over his shirt and tell me if you had the chance you wouldn't kill him right there. I would.

Is it humane to kill someone? No, but it's necessary. Without fear of punishment, some people cannot be controlled. Not only is the death penalty used to burn that fear into potential killers, it's also used to end bad seeds.

The world isn't all love and flowers. There are cold people and they have to be dealt with.

Side: yes
2 points

1. It should be done, but only if you are 99.9% sure that the person actually did it. Otherwise, people spending time in prison (regardless of how long) should do hard labor.

2. It gets rid of the idea of having to live with these people. Once they're dead, that's it, no worries. A guy once raped and murdered a 12 year old girl and the parents agreed that he should get life without parole. But then the laws in that area changed and the guy gets parole every two years. If they had agreed to him getting the death penalty, they wouldn't have to worry every two years about him possibly getting out.

3. Limits murders in prison. They can and do murder again, especially in prisons. One less murderer is better.

Side: yes
2 points

I think that there should for more extreme things and if there is no doubt that you have got the right person because say for example if someone raped and murdered a child. That is in no way right they have stripped that child of the human rights and dignity so they should have theirs taken away too. When you take a life you don't deserve to have one!

Side: yes
2 points

while it is a fact that innocent people have been placed and convicted to death row condemned to die, there are however people who are guilty and should die. my thought is this, in watching the innocent be freed at last after years on death row or in prison for a crime they did not commit, they all have one thing in common, the innocent are not bitter, they fault no one. this is a genuine characteristic of the truly innocent person. now having said that, the guilty should indeed leave the free world. perhaps prison reform would do better than the electric chair, after all, murder is murder. I propose two alternatives, one being a scientific discovery. the prisoner condemned to die should, for the first time in their life, do something for the good of humanity, science to be specific. strapped to a chair with no ability to free himself, adorned with a helmet cam in a rocket headed directly into a black hole. will he turn into a pile of spaghetti as proposed, or is the black hole an exit into another universe, we would at last be certain. my only fear is that indeed this prisoner does make it to another dimension with other thinking beings and they revere him like a god and worship him, as well as set him free. the outcome would most certainly be one we know to well three boatloads of prisoners cast out of england with the only man crazy enough to believe that the world was round and he would not fall off the earth after reaching the endless horizon. we all know what happened when Columbus was right, pilgrim.

my next suggestion will follow shortly, the poison supper.

Side: yes
2 points

oleander salad

daffodil parfait

angle death cap mushroom sauce

and apricot sorbet

prisoner condemned to die, last meal

you will never have another meal, only one tray the moment you are locked down on death row, you do not have to eat it, you can let it rot, paint your cell with it, or ware it, totally up to the inmate. however, you will never again have a tray of food.

inmate knows that the one last meal will indeed kill him as it is poisonous, left up to him, die quickly? or starve to death? they would be in control of there ultimate death, no ones hands or minds are guilty except his own. unrealistic, yet thought provoking none the less, thank you for listening

Side: yes
2 points

The concept of paying a price to compensate for doing a crime has been around since before the existence of the English language, and has proven itself effective in comforting people and bringing justice to crime victims. A life seems to be a good price for a serious enough crime.

Side: yes
ledhead818(637) Disputed
2 points

"The concept of paying a price to compensate for doing a crime has been around since before the existence of the English language"

Tradition is not sufficient reason for public policy. The concept of owning another person has been around for a long time, but it was wrong.

There is no purpose in punishing people for the sake of vengeance or retribution. Murdering a murder does not bring back the victim. As Ghandi said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Instead the criminal justice system is about rehabilitation. The government has no right morally, legally, or philosophically to take a life.

Side: No
2 points

I think there should be a death penalty because, all those innocent people getting killed for no damn reason is unfair.

You cant just take someones life away like that.

Its just unbelievable. You have to have the guts to take someones life away. if you kill someone you expect nothings gonna happen, believe me your gonna have to pay the consequences.

Side: yes
2 points

This is an armchair debate. When you suffer the loss of a loved one and have standing to enter this debate, so be it.

Should you take the life of any of my children, rest assured that there is a death penalty and you'll only live long enough to sniff your last rose...prior to my .308 round ending your ability to sniff.

I'm curious regarding all of those who vote NO who have had a loved one taken. Take mine and I'll gut you like a deer. If you haven't experienced the loss, you have no standing in this debate nor do you deserve to be a part of it.

To those of you who haven't lost a loved one.....the bright side is that you'll never hear the shot. The bullet travels faster than the speed of sound. Your worthless ass will be a heap of maggot food and will never have to worry again.

Side: yes
2 points

1. Yes, it is true that almost no one escapes from a supermax prison but if we just throw everyone in jail, we will run out of space. Hoe do I know this? Because it has already happened. All of our jails are indeed running out of space

2. Scars on the perpetrators' family lives? NO! The fact that a relative is a criminal is already impacting

3. Killing a criminal saves others

Side: yes
2 points

Pro-Death Penalty

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence”. Capital punishment aka “The Death Penalty” has existed long before 2500 BC, when Hammurabi was the first to create written law. Before that time, it’s likely that if a person committed a capital crime, for example murder or theft, they were executed to “maintain harmony” in the community and to bring “solace” to those who knew the victim.

When the word death penalty is used, it makes noise from both sides of the political and social spectrum.  One side may say “deterrence”, while the other side may say, “But you may execute an innocent man”. Today, one of the most debated issues in the judiciary system is the issue of capital punishment.  Capital punishment was legal until 1972, when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional due to it violating the Eight and Fourteen Amendments citing cruel and unusual punishment.  However, in 1976, the Supreme Court reversed itself and reinstated the death penalty but not all states have the death penalty, some believe that it is barbaric. 

Many years ago, religion played a large part in people’s lives, and punishment was by the church and the communities they lived in. People didn’t want to commit crimes because the punishment was too severe, so no one needed rehabilitating because punishment worked. Crime back then equaled punishment that was befitting and everyone knew the rules.

Side: yes
2 points

We like to say no, but if a member of your family was killed, you would want revenge.

Side: yes
2 points

For some people the death penalty is needed. I dont believe that someone who killed or raped a lot of people should be able to live even if they are in a jail surrounded by other criminals. Some people should not have to right to live on earth. Killing them makes life easier for people instead of having to take care of them while thier in prison.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes there should be a death penalty but it should only be used in extreme circumstances like treason, mass murder, ordering murders from within prison, and killing someone in prison. Its form should be by firing squad because it is very efficient.

Side: yes
1 point

I can kill your father and go to jail

come out and then kill your mother

then escape jail and kill you!

Side: Yes
5 points

1. we kill the wrong guy like all the time, and just once should be enough to change our minds.

2. there's no proof death is any better or worse than life in prison.

3. no one in the history of the entire world has ever escaped from a super max, so just put them there if you're worried.

4. it costs more to kill a guy than to leave them in prison for a hundred years, so why spend the money?

Side: No
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
4 points

1. then only do it if the proof is irrefutable.

2. although it's about punishment, it's also about no longer having this guy alive to possibly hurt someone again.

3. They still kill within the prison. If you're worried about innocent people in prison, what about the ones getting shanked by that guy you didn't let get executed?

4. That depends on how much we spend on appeal cases. If we focused on the death penalty in the trial, we wouldn't have those costs. Also, it includes the wait time. Just eliminate wait time.

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
3 points

1. I have no problem with your first point actually, problem is as of now there's no such thing, DNA evidence is accurate, but the people doing the testing ef up now and then. And while witnesses are the most persuasive evidence for a jury, they are actually the least acurate, I mean, they're actually barely 50% accurate once any time at all has gone by.

2. There's no chance of someone getting out of a supermax. It would be easy enough to keep them in solitary for life, we already do that with a lot of people, and they never leave or have any oportunity to.

3. Death row inmates are in solitary, they have no interaction. They don't kill other inmates ever. You're thinking of the general population, who are not on death row anyway.

4. Well, that doesn't seem very just. I mean, say one of the people we later found was innocent and released, say we had simply never given them any appeals and just killed them on the spot. Sounds like kind of an asshole move to me.

Side: No
YnSoo(13) Disputed
2 points

Death penalty should be exist! To prevent wrong decision people should judge very accuratelly, sensibly and wisely! But there some people whose crimes are really horrible and unforgivable! and if they sent to prison they would have an chance to escape from it and start committing a crime again!

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

No one has ever escaped a maximum security prison,

and very few on juries are "accurate, sensible or wise."

Side: No
4 points

No the death penalty ought to be abolished for a multitude of reasons. Chief among them are:

1. The current implementation of capital punishment has been shown time and time again to be racially biased. Whether based on the race of the perpetrator or victim, a study in North Carolina found that the single most consistent variable in determining whether a murderer was given death was the race of the victim. This incredible bias is unconstitutional and immoral, and it is absurd to continue such an unjust and arbitrary form of punishment.

2. This one is a bit more philosophical and depends on personal opinion, but in essence claims that killing another human will not bring back the victim, it will just double the toll on human life. Many call for "justice" in the application of execution, yet in reality, this is just a desire for revenge. We ought not let emotions decide the fate of a human life.

Side: No
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
2 points

1. I would like to read this study. It's pretty weird that in an appeal case there is actually a written reason as "cause he's black". There may be more to it, or it's interpretable.

2. I figure there's nothing wrong with a bad guy being dead. Yeah, he's a human life and it is kind of sad that we have to execute someone, but it's not exactly like we're losing a good guy. He's a murderer (or multiple child rapist).

Side: yes
nigelc(49) Disputed
4 points

1. I read about it in a book entitled "The Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty," originally published in 1987. And no of course it's not an official reason for why, but an undercurrent of racism that steers these trials. The study reviewed a composite of all North Carolina executions over the last century or so, and came to the conclusion that the most consistent variable tied to a death sentence was the victim being white, not weight of evidence, severity or brutality of the murder, ect. I mean these numbers are really not easy to refute. After looking at the evidence, it becomes pretty clear that ulterior motives have entered into many of these decisions.

2. In my opinion, there is no "but" with regards to human life. "it's not exactly like we're losing a good guy" is a very telling phrase for the mindset of a capital punishment supporter.

Side: No
nigelc(49) Disputed
3 points

1. Also, from wikipedia: "Academic studies indicate that the single greatest predictor of whether a death sentence is given, however, is not the race of the defendant, but the race of the victim. According to a 2003 Amnesty International report, blacks and whites were the victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 80% of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders involving white victims."

I'd like to see you work your way around that one. Is it just one big coincidence??

Side: No
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

While I agree with your overall point,

it's important to not confuse the social circumstance which leads one group or another to commit more crime, with the punishment recieved once there.

For decades we have practice a quiet racism and put up glass ceilings,

then there are the social pressures of any impoverished area, that makes it more likely for the inhabitants of the impoverished area to turn to crime, true for hispanics and blacks today, before them, Irish, Italian, etc on down the line.

But I think you'll find that the number of those on death row when divided racially, while predominantly African compared to the general population, when compared to those now in jail, there is no proof a black convicted criminal is any more or less likely to get the death penalty than someone convicted of any other race.

The racism arguement is a very week one, and it repels much of the population who has a knee-jerk reaction to it. There are other, much stronger arguements against the death penalty.

Side: yes
nigelc(49) Disputed
2 points

Did you read this at all? Academic studies indicate that the single greatest predictor of whether a death sentence is given, however, is not the race of the defendant, but the race of the victim. According to a 2003 Amnesty International report, blacks and whites were the victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 80% of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders involving white victims.

That takes care of "there is no proof a black convicted criminal is any more or less likely to get the death penalty than someone convicted of any other race."

Side: No
3 points

The death penalty is a outdated, expensive, immoral, form of punishment. Due to the legal fees and the endless appeal system, the death penalty often costs up to 10 times more than life in prison. Such is the case in Timmothy McVeigh. The state spent 1.3 million dollars to kill him when they could have kept him in prison for the rest of his life for only 130,000 dollars. Additionally, i hold the belif that if it is wrong for an individual to kill, then it is also wrong for the state, which is a representation of the individuals, to kill as well.

Side: No
3 points

I just want to state this quote as my point:

"We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong."

Think about it..

Basically it means that we are killing people and showing them that killing people is wrong, but then what are we doing?

Side: No
2 points

Well I, as creator of this debate, think that there should not be a death penalty. Since 2000 there have been 13 executed inncoent people and 81 innocent people that went to death row and were releases. Also, states with the death penalty have a higher murder rate anyways. The Death penalty does not work because the kind of people that murder will not stop and think of the consequences before their actions.

There are also many other reasons including racism, inhumane and/or botched executions, and revenge.

Side: No
2 points

The abolishment of the death penalty is considered an advancement in most societies. I don't think there's any murders so cold, calculated and heartless as those commited by the state in countries where this is still the practice.

I can understand the need for revenge but this gets us nowhere.

Side: No
2 points

I say no because it's simple revenge and it's ridiculous (and as my husband would say, I have no "balls"). I get it... a man kills your sister and you want him to suffer worse than she did and be killed too... but since when is lowering ourselves to someone else's level justice? To me, it's an easy way out of doing some serious punishment.

So, I propose, they make a prison JUST for murderers.... and leave some hidden tools.... and let them fend for themselves in a prison of killers. They can all kill each other.

It also just occured to me that why don't they have a prison for each type of serious crime? One for murderers (so they all get a taste of what it's like being with another murderer). One for rapists (because they'll probably rape each other and scare each other shitless for life). One for robbers (and they should probably have little "safes" in their "cells" and they'd all rob the crap out of each other). And so on. Hehe.

Side: No
2 points

This was suppose to be a response to the guy below me:

well, family is allowed to visit the prisoners.... they're lucky to have that privilege whatsoever.

Side: No
2 points

No but i believe life in prison in a dark room with no visitation rights is fair.....

leave the punishment for God! he can punish him far worse than we can

Side: No
2 points

SOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ACCUSED GUILTY BUT LATER AFTER THEY GOT KILLED THEY FIND OUT THEY WERE INNOCENT

Side: No
2 points

I'm not against the notion that the worst criminals deserve the worst punishment, but No for 2 reasons.

Miscarriages of justice do happen.

Even bad people have good families, and this means another bereavement for quite probably good people.

Side: No
1 point

i dont think so i beileve that prisiners should be with there family.

Side: No
1 point

It is stupid to have the death penalty becouse it is dumb

Side: No
HEAD26(39) Disputed
2 points

I think you're dumb but I don't complain. Why don't you keep your big ugly mouth shut, huh?

Side: yes
1 point

No, there should not be a death penalty, people were not put on this world to die, life in prison, isn't exactly fair either, but it is way better than dying, actually, it is no better than dying, people who kill others or give them drugs to put them to sleep, because they did something naughty, then the people who kill them are no better than the people who commit the crimes. Everybody makes mistakes, if we were to say that ONLY people who were perfect and have never made a mistake in their whole lifetime, they can kill them, no-one in the whole world would be able to kill people for the death penalty because nobody's perfect, Miley Cyrus sings it rightly when she says nobody's perfect because, quite frankly, nobody is. There shouldn't be a death penalty it isn't fair. But standing outside court with great big signs isn't gonna help, protesting won't help, we have rights and if we don't want to die, then we shouldn't have to. It's like being in hospital and you have the choice to be treated and live or not to be treated and die, you have the right to say what you want, but with the death penalty, you have no choice. STOP DEATH PENALTY, ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

Side: No
1 point

There should no be a death penalty, since by taking a human's life, we are not saving it. There is not any good by taking the life of the criminal. First it is more expensive to kill a person, then letting him stay for a life long imprisonment. Also a lot of times, judges are wrong with their verdicts. For instance many other evidences of the crime come up after the person has been murdered. And a lot of the punished ones, are justified after they have been murdered. Statistics also show that in a lot of places where the death penalty is forbidden, the percentage of the crime is decreasing in relative to the places, where its legal.

Many poor people, who are accused of murdering cannot get a good attorney because of their financial problems. Thats why most of them are being murdered, just because they did not have a good judicial support. It mostly falls upon the poor and the minorities.

Side: No
1 point

Two wrongs do not make a right. Anyone who has half a brain should know this. Is it really that hard to give a life sentence to someone that murders people instead of causing more murder? Isn't the fact that taking their freedom away to make sure they don't hurt anyone good enough? In a Christian's perspective, shouldn't they at least be given a chance of retribution during that life sentence- instead of getting doomed straight away for an eternity of suffering in hell? And in an atheist's perspective, from our own morals, we should know that causing another death of a human being is highly unnecessary, considering that we all ready have them behind bars. Us humans should of already grown out of this needless, primal thirst for blood and achieved a higher understanding of morality. We are better than this.

And one more thing to add: There has been multiple cases where the so called "criminal" has been executed straight away for an alleged, dastardly crime- but then they would be actually found out later on to be innocent- after their unrighteous, undeserving death. Think about this- wouldn't it be wise to keep them waiting during their life sentence, instead of down right killing them, just in case the person convicted could be proven innocent?

Side: No
coolpens1028(3) Disputed
1 point

So if someone came to your house and killed your family, you wouldn't want them to die? Or would you rather them sit in prison and have freedom to do whatever in there. If you think there shouldn't be a death penalty, you're an idiot.

Side: Yes
Dremorius(861) Disputed
0 points

It's a natural reaction, but it is one that is barbaric. I don't think preventing the death of more humans is idiocy. Actually, I believe that most criminals can be rehabilitated, instead of thrown in a cage. (mental issues analysed and treated with medicine or Psychologists.)

The methods you are thinking of should be methods of the past. We as the human race should look forward from barbarianism, an immature, unenlightened way of thinking. It's impossible to think we would still do this in the future, taking many lives, possibly innocent lives, by law, since it has happened before.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't want the murderer to suffer, but there has to be a way to get over that phase of revenge, since it does nothing but tarnish the human race. The murderer should get rehabilitized to become a functioning member of society, as that would be the most productive thing to do. When a person does something horrible, we no longer see them as a human that values their life, we just see them as an epitome of hate. We need to see through that, think of the possibilities and methods that can fix them. If there is no solution in sight, pitch them as slaves, to be imprisoned in a productive manner. Slavery would be a better, far more productive alternative than death, so why is it legal the other way around?

Side: No

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

Side: No