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.
I never believed in the death penalty...until I joined this website, now I'm quickly beginning to see that when people disagree with you, sometimes it's best just to kill them...Or at least that's what a trendy liberal safe space jelly fish would say! Damn you liberals make me want to projectile vomit chunks of lazagna onto chenk uygars face!!!! How can you support the death penalty? You deserve to die for supporting the death penalty!
Absolutely. We need to create a society where your actions have consequences, and those consequences need to be demonstrative enough so that it creates a standard for others who may or may not be an offender.
The main problem with the Death Penalty is that inmates on Death Row stay there for years (sometimes decades). Raymond Riles has been on Death Row for 41 years. These individuals who remain on Death Row are soaking up money (remember, they are provided with free healthcare; consistent meals; and various amenities), space, and are being preserved under the theory that just maybe they weren't guilty, even if there is definitive and conclusive proof of their guilt.
The annual average taxpayer cost to keep one prisoner incarcerated in the United States is $31,286. In New York, that number comes in at as high as $60,000. The middle-class, working public should not be responsible for bettering the lives of those who have already given up their societal rights.
[These stats come from the Vera Institute of Justice.]
The way I think of this is, people escape from prison/jail sometimes. What if they're a serial killer or mass murderer? If we don't have the death penalty, they are now able to harm so many more people. If we have the death penalty, it may also get rid of some criminals and prevent new ones, because people will be scared of death.
It's quite simple, you kill someone, now we kill you. Why should you live? Technology has advanced a lot, so there should hardly be anyone innocent being executed for something they did not do.
It's quite simple, you kill someone, now we kill you. Why should you live? Technology has advanced a lot, so there should hardly be anyone innocent being executed for something they did not do.
The logic just doesnt follow. You should only be able to have a death penalty if you have a 100% perfect legal system that never convicts the wrong people. and our system is FAR from that.
Secondly, the death penalty may actually violate the 8th amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Basically when we use punishments were trying to accomplish certain things, namely: provide retribution for victims, punish the assailant, and deter others from committing crime.
The deterrent factor is important. If i know im going to get life in prison for a crime, im less likely to do it after weighing the costs vs benefits. If i know im going to get killed for a crime, im less likely to do it after weighing the costs vs benefits. However, does the idea of death deter more than the idea of life in prison? There does not seem to be any evidence that it does. And if it doesnt serve its purpose more than life in prison then the death penalty is unnecessary. And the term "unusual" in the text of the 8th amendment has been interpreted to mean "unnecessary" (among other things).
so to break it all down the death penalty does not, by any evidence, seem to deter crime more than life in prison. Therefore it is unnecessary. Therefore it is unusual. Therefore it is a violation of the 8th amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
It's counterproductive because it doesn't teach morality. It only teaches power. It teaches that it isn't OK for you to kill people, but that it is OK for the state to kill people. In fact, I don't think the strongest argument against it is even morality in the first place. Firstly, it costs more to execute someone than keep them in prison for life (bizarre, but true because of the long appeals process) so there's the economic incentive. Secondly, it clearly doesn't work, does it? The US doesn't have less violent crime than other civilised countries. In fact it actually has a lot more of it.
It teaches you of a world where your actions have consequences. And those consequences should be reciprocal of your original actions. You take away someone else's right, you lose your right to be a human being.
It teaches you of a world where your actions have consequences.
Killing you teaches you a lesson? How much educational value do you think a person receives from being killed?
1) Your premise is a textbook false dichotomy because it implies that unless you die you do not suffer any consequences.
2) Society gains precisely nothing from punishing crime after it has been committed. Focusing on post crime punishment instead of pre crime prevention implies policy makers either do not want to tackle the root causes of crime or they believe it is inevitable. If it is the latter then killing people for something which will happen whether you kill them or not is pointless and stupid.
@Nomenclature, I agree with all of this. The one thing I would add is that rather then "punishment" the effort should be on both pre-crime prevention and post-crime "rehabilitation". We know that people's brains are highly neuro-plastic and that their minds can potentially become so different than the minds of the person who committed said crime "X" far in the past as to make it essentially just as unlikely that they would commit another such act in the future as someone who never committed the act to begin with. So, I agree with "detention centers" being implemented for as long as potentially needed to get someone "back on their feet" if possible, if not possible then long term detention center with constructive/productive activity I view as sensible. NOT a system where prison inmates are both psychologically and physically abused and restricted from productive/creative activities, rehabilitation and certainly not an archaic, primitive, barbaric, simpleton notion of "an eye for an eye" justice with a murder-for-murder system. We can do much better than that..
Precisely. I don't believe it works as a deterrent in a lot cases due to the prevalence of crimes of passion or impaired judgment due to illness, alcohol, drugs etc. where a deterrent isn't applicable.
And I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society where the state legislates that you must not take another life, it is wrong. But if you do, we'll do the same to you.
Also we already live in a world where your actions have consequences. There's laws, and there's the prison system. I would say that losing your right to freedom is a pretty severe consequence.
People who murder other people in cold blood aren't interested in learning the lesson. I misspoke. The lesson is demonstrative to the American public. The concept of "If you kill people, you will get killed in turn" sends quite a strong message to those interested in taking up murder as a hobby.
"Society gains precisely nothing from punishing crime after it has been committed. Focusing on post crime punishment instead of pre crime prevention implies policy makers either do not want to tackle the root causes of crime or they believe it is inevitable."
Nice Strawman. We're not talking about general crime. I'm not stating that the death penalty should be instated for every single crime. If you rob a store for its cash, that's not a crime that necessitates fatal consequences. Also, hold up. You honestly think that we shouldn't focus on post-crime punishment, and should instead focusing on trying to prevent something that you don't even know is going to happen, or when? That doesn't make any logical sense, whatsoever. We live in a civilized society, where there are very clear policies in place as to how you're supposed to act if you want to reap the benefits of this country. You rob a store, you go to jail, or do community service and pay a fine. That's a consequence of violating the policies that the country you live in has set forth for you.
GENERAL CRIME is a far different concept from murder. Since you think that post-crime punishment isn't a necessary concept to focus on, you think that we should just let murderers run rampant and not have to answer for their crimes?
Or alternatively, if you think that they should be kept in prison, I'd like to remind you that the annual average taxpayer cost to keep one prisoner incarcerated in the US is $31,286. I don't know about you, but I'm not keen on the money that I work for seven days a week to be used to sustain the lives of violent criminals and individuals who have decided they don't like the "bonds of society" and choose to break the policies set forth by the government.
"Nice Strawman. We're not talking about general crime."
It's not a Strawman, since we are talking about something that constitutes a crime, his point is applicable to all crime up to and including murder. It wouldn't have made his point any less relevant or more difficult to make had he focused solely on murder.
A lot of murders come down to crimes of passion or impaired judgment where a deterrent does not and would not factor in to their decisions regardless of its severity. There's also desperation, where people think they have no choice. A deterrent does not work here either.
You only have to look at the statistics in countries where the death penalty is legal all over to see that it does not work as a deterrent, it is demonstrable.
"Or alternatively, if you think that they should be kept in prison, I'd like to remind you that the annual average taxpayer cost to keep one prisoner incarcerated in the US is $31,286. I don't know about you, but I'm not keen on the money that I work for seven days a week to be used to sustain the lives of violent criminals and individuals who have decided they don't like the "bonds of society" and choose to break the policies set forth by the government.
The statistics support that an inmate on death row actually costs more, as nomenclature pointed out, and the average stay is a great deal longer than you might think.
In regards to your first section, he was talking strictly about the death penalty, which is almost solely warranted for acts resulting in malicious death. Your point that "A lot of murders come down to crimes of passion or impaired judgment where a deterrent does not and would not factor in to their decisions" doesn't matter. Murder is murder. That's another reason why nomenclature's original argument of trying to "get to the root of the problem" of murder doesn't make sense either; Because many of these crimes are crimes of passion, and can't be predicted or be given a predetermined cause.
Also, other than self-defense (what I believe to be the only exception), point me to one specific example of when someone feels like they have no choice other than to murder someone. A real-world example that would actually be realistic enough to be taken into account in order to pass a law.
In regards to your second part, I am aware of how long prisoners stay on Death Row. There are prisoners that have been on for decades. Additionally, why did you choose to single out this section of my argument to target? Your response only further validated my claims.
Your point that "A lot of murders come down to crimes of passion or impaired judgment where a deterrent does not and would not factor in to their decisions" doesn't matter. Murder is murder.
So, your argument appears to be:-
A) It "doesn't matter" that our deterrent isn't a deterrent. Let's just keep killing people for the lulzies and say it's a deterrent.
B) Murder is murder. Except when the state does it. Then it's entertainment.
Ahh the Strawman. The typical defence of individuals who don't have any legitimate arguments. Okay pumpkin, game on 😉
"It "doesn't matter" that our deterrent isn't a deterrent. Let's just keep killing people for the lulzies and say it's a deterrent."
First of all, our deterrent is not valid when it comes to the 75% of murders in the US that classify as crimes of passion or crime without reason. There is no way to get to the root cause, because there isn't one. We don't "kill people for the lulzies", we practice a system in society where your actions have reciprocal consequences. You kill someone, you lose the right to your life as a civilized human. The act of putting someone in prison is useless at this point, since tens of thousands of dollars go into sustaining the lives of criminals so that they can be provided free healthcare, consistent meals, and general activity.
"Murder is murder. Except when the state does it. Then it's entertainment."
Again, it's all about reciprocity. An example needs to be set.
First of all, our deterrent is not valid when it comes to the 75% of murders in the US that classify as crimes of passion or crime without reason
So you admit it isn't a valid deterrent yet claim simultaneously that I am putting words in your mouth for saying it isn't a valid deterrent?
You are being silly. Just stop.
You kill someone, you lose the right to your life as a civilized human.
That is why jails were invented. If you perform the exact same action that you are punishing someone for it negates your reasoning for punishing them in the first place. You openly admit that in 75 percent of cases it is not an effective deterrent so you are openly endorsing an ineffective policy.
The act of putting someone in prison is useless at this point
So we should just kill everyone instead? Sounds legit. I'm guessing you're a Republican, right?
"Don't be silly. I quoted your own words verbatim."
You quoted my own words in order to clarify and lay a flimsy argument on top of it.
Example 1: "It 'doesn't matter' that our deterrent isn't a deterrent. Let's just keep killing people for the lulzies and say it's a deterrent."
Example 2: "Murder is murder. Except when the state does it. Then it's entertainment."
Neither of the examples above are things that I said "verbatim". They are things that you said. You took things that I said, added an accentuated sort of maliciousness upon them, and attempted to paint me as some sort of person who gets erect at the thought of murder. (See, I can do it too! Learning is fun!) You tend to go back to the Strawman a lot in order to make your claims since you don't have any actual legitimate arguments.
Furthermore, I don't want murderers in jail. Because, once again, I don't want my tax dollars to be going towards sustaining the lives of violent criminals. If you take a look at the statistics on how many taxpayer dollars go into sustaining the life of just one prisoner, it's absolutely ridiculous. I can think of several other avenues that the $39 billion spent on sustaining the lives of prisoners could be channeled into: Public schools/colleges, healthcare, charity organizations, international defense, STEM... All things that benefit the lives of Americans who choose to actually be civilized citizens and abide by the guidelines set forth by the government.
So we should just kill everyone instead?
--Gasp--... Could it be... another Strawman? Because yes, that is exactly what I said. I would greatly enjoy a countrywide genocide. Your argument is laughable.
And nope. Not a Republican. Just someone who isn't interested in tax dollars going to support the lives of murderers. Core-conservatives and general Republicans don't share my viewpoints. More often than not, when debating about this issue, Liberals are the ones who eventually see my point, when I bring up the issue of hatecrimes rooted in racism or bigotry. If someone murders a Transgendered person, because they're Transgendered, Liberals will be the first ones to shout for him to be sent straight to the chair.
I know that you are probably anti-death penalty because you think human life is valuable and important (Which is a hilarious irony, since people who are anti-death penalty traditionally tend to be pro-abortion.)
Human life isn't rare, and it isn't important; We're here to procreate and die. Humanity serves no other purpose. So what's worse? A violent criminal who racks up a bodycount of 25 people; Or that same one person dying.
doesn't matter. Murder is murder. That's another reason why nomenclature's original argument of trying to "get to the root of the problem" of murder doesn't make sense either; Because many of these crimes are crimes of passion, and can't be predicted or be given a predetermined cause.
The point I was making is that the death penalty will not serve to deter these cases. It won't serve as a lasting example to the person sentenced to death, as they will be dead eventually, and it won't deter anyone who doesn't use sound reasoning when making the decision to murder someone. So why kill them at all?
Also, other than self-defense (what I believe to be the only exception), point me to one specific example of when someone feels like they have no choice other than to murder someone. A real-world example that would actually be realistic enough to be taken into account in order to pass a law.
How about blackmail? I could realistically see someone murdering somebody else for this reason. It doesn't take long to find examples online from news articles. What about bullying? There are cases where someone who has been bullied murdered the bully as they felt it was the only way to free themselves from torment. Again, news articles are easy to find.
In regards to your second part, I am aware of how long prisoners stay on Death Row. There are prisoners that have been on for decades. Additionally, why did you choose to single out this section of my argument to target? Your response only further validated my claims.
How does pointing out that the statistics refute your claim further validate your claim?
