CreateDebate


Debate Info

31
38
Yes. No.
Debate Score:69
Arguments:60
Total Votes:78
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (24)
 
 No. (30)

Debate Creator

Diogenes(102) pic



Should violent repeat offenders get the death penalty?

It is a fact that the majority of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Isn't it time we finally got tough on crime? Some people are so worried about criminals rights that they forget about the rights, and the safety, of the public. Seems to me, they have it backwards.

Yes.

Side Score: 31
VS.

No.

Side Score: 38
3 points

Anyone who sets out to commit a crime of deliberate harm, rape or the killing another has separated themselves from humanity and humanity has the right to separate themselves from the perpetrator.

Many people say that as we evolve the death penalty is too harsh and if one innocent person dies then it is not worth it, however, where there is absolutely no question of guilt should the ultimate punishment be considered acceptable for the ultimate crime.

There are now those who are currently discussing whether people who are sentenced to a life in prison have the right to euthanasia.

Would we be having this discussion if the penalty fits the crime.

Side: Yes.
1 point

It is the nations priority to serve justice to those who intend to deliberately kill members of the public. if that isn't stopping the offender from repeatedly attacking then the best way to keep the public safe from the offender is to sentence them to a death penalty, having a life in jail will cause unnecessary harm, pain and stress to the criminal.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Yes, if these people cannot live in a civil manner, well the people do not have to put up with these animals.

Side: Yes.
0 points

Public safety should be our number one priority. Prisons are expensive. Bullets are cheap. If that sounds heartless, I really don't care. I didn't force anyone to commit those crimes. It's on them.

Side: Yes.
GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

Death penalty legal procedure is far more expensive.

Side: Yes.
Diogenes(102) Disputed
1 point

You're such an idiot. How much do you think it cost to imprison someone for life? I believe it's around thirty thousand dollars a year.

Side: No.

No, just sentence them to life without parole in a maximum or supermax prison. The Death Penalty does not serve any sort of legitimate good, it is just a matter of revenge. Life without parole removes the offender from the populace, serves just as much (or I should say as little) of a deterrent as the death penalty, and ends up costing less (in the United States at least).

Side: No.
minimurph83(194) Disputed
2 points

Just out of interest what do you think the family's of the victims would decide if they had the choice?

Side: Yes.
1 point

Some would, some wouldn't, but I don't think that should be relevant.

Side: No.
Diogenes(102) Disputed
1 point

First of all, the death penalty was never intended as a deterrent. It's sole purpose was to remove dangerous people from the gene pool. Same way we would put down a dog with rabies. And murder is not the only reason for the death penalty. How about a guy who kidnaps a little girl and uses her as a sex slave? and why should we have to pay to incarcerate someone animal, give him free food, free healthcare, free whatever? People in prison have a better quality of life than many working Americans. I say we just kill the bastards.

Side: Yes.
1 point

It's sole purpose was to remove dangerous people from the gene pool.

Life without parole does that as well.

How about a guy who kidnaps a little girl and uses her as a sex slave? and why should we have to pay to incarcerate someone animal, give him free food, free healthcare, free whatever?

You will pay more to have him put to death.

People in prison have a better quality of life than many working Americans.

Not in Maximum and Super Max prisons they don't.

Side: No.
Jace(5222) Clarified
0 points

People in prison have a better quality of life than many working Americans.

That honestly says more about the quality of life of many working Americans than it does about the quality of life in prison...

Side: Yes.
1 point

Violent repeat offenders who have not murdered, should NOT be executed. The extream act of murdering someone is the appropriate case for the death penalty to be considered.

Side: No.
flewk(1193) Disputed
1 point

Seems too black and white.

I am pretty sure most people would rather execute a serial rapist than somebody who committed a crime of passion.

Also, there is no solid consensus that a serial rapist, murderer, or pedophile can't be rehabilitated.

Side: No.
1 point

A repeat offender of what? Every crime is different and it seems harsh to put someone to death because they continue to steal things. I think the death penalty should be reserved for those that have no morality or conscience who commit heinous crimes. At least if someone isn't a psychopath and they commit mass murder for whatever reason, they can be locked up forever and live with the guilt, which in my opinion is a harsher sentence than a quick death.

Side: No.
1 point

No makes more sense.

Current sentencing practices and felony classes in the US are a mess.

The theory may be great, but the execution (hoho) will most likely be a mess.

Side: No.
1 point

no not at all if an accused is being given death then it will be a benefit for them ,,,,without getting any pain they will lose their lyf n as always the victim has to suffer....its better to give such type of harsh punishment that they dont even dare to commit such type of mistake again.n will teach lesson to other people too

Side: No.
1 point

I completely disagree with the death penalty in all forms. We shouldn't put criminals into prison as punishment, rather it should be to separate them from polite society until such a time as they are prepared to reenter said society. Of course re-offenders should receive more lengthy prison sentences, possibly even life sentences, but to sentence another to death should not be within any persons power.

Side: No.

I am against the Death Penalty even in the case of repeat offenders.

Side: No.
1 point

In a perfect world with perfect people it was be an easy choice yes get rid of anyone who hurts a child. However even the most open minded people can be biased in some areas and the bottom line is we as a race of people are not smart enough to be making decisions as to whether someone's life should be taken. This is a sentence you just can't take back if in time it comes to light the person was innocent which happens all the time. In today's day people are of the mind that if you are arrested you are guilty and the days of innocent until proven guilty are long gone like spandex and eight tracks. In today's day you are only innocent if you can afford to by your innocence. and in those set of circumstances you are bound to have innocent people put to death.

Side: No.
1 point

no but their jail sentence should be longer the more times they repeat the offense to prevent them from doing it again since if they aren't learning their lesson then they should make their punishment harsher.

Side: No.
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

If the first time didn't teach them anything, why do you think the exact same type of response would lead to a different outcome?

Side: Yes.
0 points

Nope death penalty is too far-fetched a proposition;The guilty must be put under preventive detention by the government so as to correct him.Punishing him with death penalty would not only render the society blood-thirsty and inhuman but also incite other anti-social elements to commit all these sort of anti-social activities.

Side: No.
1 point

I agree, AND..., if I may add, we should do the same with fetuses.

Side: No.
Diogenes(102) Disputed
1 point

And what about the ones that escape, or get out on parole? Do you have any idea how many people have died because of them? It's more than a few, and one is too many.

Side: Yes.
0 points

And what about the ones that escape, or get out on parole? Do you have any idea how many people have died because of them?

Please, tell us how many people you believe have escaped from maximum and super max prisons in the United States.

And life without parole would be the sentence, so they wouldn't get out on parole.

Side: No.