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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
those costs are just to determine whether they're guilty or not. If you give them life, you add another burden to the tax payers. Once the trial is over, you simply need fifty cents for a bullet. Yep. You're still an idiot.
those costs are just to determine whether they're guilty or not.
They are part of the costs associated with the Death Penalty. The amount of money that the Death Penalty costs the tax payer is significantly higher than the cost of life without parole.
Go ahead, keep insulting me. Your arguments still lack credibility, and I have given you plenty of evidence of that.
Like I said before. Bullets are cheap. The reason death penalty cases are so expensive, is because the system makes it that way. Give them a fair trial, then a bullet to the head. It doesn't have to be expensive.
The reason death penalty cases are so expensive, is because the system makes it that way. Give them a fair trial, then a bullet to the head. It doesn't have to be expensive.
So do you simply not care about people who have been exonerated while on death row? Go ahead, truncate the legal procedure regarding death penalty cases, and have fun supporting innocent people being put to death by the government.
No system of justice is perfect. The best we can do is to try to minimize the harmful effects. And nothing you've said negates the fact that the majority of violent crime is from repeat offenders.
No system of justice is perfect. The best we can do is to try to minimize the harmful effects.
Which is EXACTLY why we need to get rid of the death penalty. You do not need the death penalty to deal with repeat offenders: life without parole does that just fine. Life without parole, unlike the death penalty, does not run the risk of putting an innocent individual to death. If you truly want to minimize the harmful effects of our justice system, you would oppose the death penalty due to the harmful effects it has had, especially in lieu of the lack of positive effects it has (again, outside retributionism).
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).
like I said to you before if you have been on the receiving end of murder your outlook would change towards the death sentence, its a natural instinct for humans to want revenge!
Please, try to at least remember my responses to you if you are going to repeat yourself: I would personally kill them, and then plead guilty to murder, as what I would have done would be wrong and unlawful. There are many things that are natural for humans that should not be supported by the government.
im fully aware of your responses, and im not talking about taking revenge yourself, if you was in a court room and they were on trial what would you want then?? you see this is again about personal perspective and if you haven't lived and been through it then you don't truly know how you would feel and think at the time, so that's what my point about the families, I actually think they should have a combined choice between them all prison or death and see what they want?
if you was in a court room and they were on trial what would you want then?
Life without parole in a maximum or super max prison. When it comes down to retribution, I personally think that would be the more vindictive sentence anyways.
you see this is again about personal perspective and if you haven't lived and been through it then you don't truly know how you would feel and think at the time
Emotional reactions at the time of travesty are the last things a sound justice system should be based on.
so that's what my point about the families, I actually think they should have a combined choice between them all prison or death and see what they want?
I wonder how they would react if they found out they called for the death penalty and the individual in question was later exonerated.
in this circumstance there's no chance he will be exonerated, the emotional reaction would be restricted to what the judges conclusion comes to, if the judge gives the families the two options after the trial has concluded and this is his personal justified punishments for him then that's all they can choose from??
in this circumstance there's no chance he will be exonerated,
Regardless of that is the case in this hypothetical you are using, allowing the death penalty to be an option means it gets used in situations where that is not the case.
the emotional reaction would be restricted to what the judges conclusion comes to
Judicial decisions are not based on emotion, so I am confused by that part of your comment.
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.
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.
A judge recently decided to allow an inmate to have gender reassignment surgery. How many working stiffs could afford to have that? Not many. And guess what? YOU PAID FOR IT!
Gender reassignment surgery is regarded as the corresponding treatment for a diagnosable medical condition. I have no issue with revenue raised from taxes going towards providing recognized medical care to those we incarcerate, because in the process of incarceration we remove the ability of those persons to secure their own care.
That this care is available to the incarcerated but not to the working class, again, speaks less to the quality of health care in our prison system and more to the accessibility of health care to the working class and public at large.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
people who have killed in this country have served a sentence and are now back on the streets, that isn't justice! im sure there must be cases in America?
people who have killed in this country have served a sentence and are now back on the streets, that isn't justice! im sure there must be cases in America?
Which means that one can and should push for life without parole as a sentence. That does not require the death penalty to ameliorate.
He asked how many prisoners escape from maximum security prisons. I found an old article from 2001; it states that "in 1993, 14,305 prisoners escaped out of a prison population of 780,357 (about 2%)," but "the vast majority of escapees are "walk-aways" from community corrections facilities that have minimal supervision." Furthermore, "the last year with more escapees than recaptured prisoners was 1994, when 14,307 prisoners escaped and 13,346 were returned." Source
So to wrap it up, you didn't even answer his question properly...
But a minority of them were not minimum security escapees. Some of them were violent criminals. And even if they are recaptured, they are free to kill again, for however long they are free. There are many people who would be alive, if these people hadn't escaped.
Don't you pay attention to the news? There have been several times when dangerous felons escaped custody, and killed someone. Here's one example. There are others. And even if this was the only one, two people are dead because he wasn't executed for his first murder in Mexico.
Providing a few examples does not a statistic make.
He asked for the numbers of escaped convicts, you have provided only one that led to two deaths. More than two people have been executed and later proved innocent or had their guilt SERIOUSLY in question.