CreateDebate


Debate Info

32
24
Yes No
Debate Score:56
Arguments:43
Total Votes:63
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (23)
 
 No (20)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3321) pic



There shouldn't be a death penalty.

Yes

Side Score: 32
VS.

No

Side Score: 24
5 points

If murder is wrong than so is the death penalty. You might say the criminal deserved it, but murder is murder, whether they deserved it or not. If you do not fight for the criminal's life, you are fighting for his/her death and participate in the murder.

Side: yes
erewhon(10) Disputed
3 points

I think we should probably keep in mind that, innocent or guilty, we all suffer the 'death penalty' ultimately. When we decide to save a violent criminal's life and keep them in jail instead, we are not sparing them death - they are going to die anyways. By executing them, we are just moving the 'penalty' date up a few years for someone who has demonstrated a disregard and respect for life. This doesn't seem to me unreasonable at all.

I do understand and appreciate that the legal system has made errors in the past, and probably, innocent folks have been executed pointlessly. I hate to sound crass, but this is bad luck and there is plenty of it everywhere - we are more likely to die in an automobile mishap than from being yanked into a horrible crime we did not commit.

Side: No
Melanin(84) Disputed
3 points

Does it matter what's more likely? It isn't rare at all for an innocent person to be convicted of a crime they didn't commit. You are so god damn ignorant. You just want to assume that. WAKE. UP. THE TRUTH HURTS! God, I hope you end up one of those people convicted for a rape they didn't commit. We'll see how rare being innocent is. People have been mass-committed based on race (texas government employee, they manipulated them with guilty plea bargains, he was eventually found out), people have been convicted of crimes when they hardly matched the profile, people have been convicted of crimes based on some bitch's word and a combination of emotional swaying (I dont know why that's even allowed in court. argue with FACTS. it has no place there!), people have been convicted of crimes when it was obvious to many others they didn't do it, people have been convicted of crimes they didn't do where the justice system just put them on "probation" cos they KNEW good adnd well they had no business killing them or putting them in a jail, and et cetera, et cetera.

Your argument that everyone dies can be used to kill ANYONE, you idiot. You don't know what's more fucking likely, and it's not funny, cool, or "justice" when your family member is framed and killed for something they didn't do while you were out of country and couldn't give their alibi or even hear of it! :(

Side: Yes
1 point

Quite true collcoll everybody deserve the right to live as long as possible even if they raped beat murder tortured somebody it's not right to kill

Side: Yes
2 points

Since nearly nothing is 100% when someone is convicted, being sentenced to death and having that sentence carried out isn't something that can be taken back.

It happens all the time, somebody gets the chair and a few years later they find that he/she wasn't guilty in the first place.

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

Mistakes happen, but this is a calculated risk, accepted because the benefit outweighs it.

Side: No
DaWolfman(3321) Disputed
1 point

Thats like saying that the collateral damage that occurs with the war we are having in Iraq is ok because the amount of terrorists we kill outweigh the lives of the innocents.

Side: yes
1 point

I think that the situation that the criminal is in, should determine their punishment. If the crime is that sick, death penaly should be an option.

Side: yes
DaWolfman(3321) Disputed
2 points

Then you posted on the wrong side mate.

I think that the situation that the criminal is in, should determine their punishment. If the crime is that sick, death penaly should be an option.

There are a lot of what ifs involved in the conviction of somebody with the punishment being capital.

One of the most important what ifs, is the what if he/she is innocent?

You send somebody to the chair and a few years later evidence surfaces, and guess what you killed the wrong guy.

In trying to protect society, those that protect us only succeeded in taking the life of an innocent. And there is no apology that can remove the pain, there is no "oops our bad". You can't take back death.

Side: yes
1 point

i will agree, oops. but i am well aware, i support your opinion. 'oops our bad' is not MY fault so i gotcha completely.

but then again; you seem like you are wavering. you cant rely on 'what if this person is innocent' ... that's just not how it works. death row is death row because people are not killed right away; especially in certain states. sometimes it takes years for it to actually happen.

Side: yes
1 point

If murders get life sentence it doesn't seem like mush of a punishment, but death penalty is a punishment that it doesn't hurt and it's fast... so logically they won't suffer much more punishment by the death sentence.

Side: Yes

There should not be a Death Penalty because a Death Penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.

Side: Yes
1 point

The death penalty doesn't have an effect on crime in fact it it has the complete opposite effect. 27 years after Canada stopped executing people Canada saw a 44 percent drop in murders across the country

Side: Yes
1 point

In 1975 Alan Craig Macdonald killed a police officer and the taxi driver who witnessed it, twelve years later he was let out of prison. Six months later he brutally killed 21 year-old Lynda shaw. " If Macdonald was executed for his original crimes, Shaw would still be alive today." Lee Hanlon, Mission, B.C. True but also if he had been sentenced to life in prisons shaw would've of lived. It was the state's fault for not giving Macdonald life in prison. Killing another makes it more wrong. There can be justice without more killing. We are the state, when the state kills we are part of it. A lot of innocent people could be killed. Say you were wrongly convicted of murder. The judge sentences you to a death penalty. So you get killed. Let's say years later someone finds a piece of evidence connected to the murder and Scientists Collect a DNA sample of the actual killer who turns out to be Someone else. But by then it's too late you were already killed. If you had been sentenced to life in prison then you could be set free and continue on with his life but he can't because he killed. This happened to Texan Cameron Todd Willingham for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three young daughters 13 years earlier. When the U.S. reinstated the death penalty 138 innocent men and women have been released from death row, including some who came within minutes of execution. Gandhi once said "An Eye for an Eye makes the whole world blind" which means when we kill someone who kills we are no better than the killers. People say that it cost less and is more humane to execute people but study shows that in California it cost more to execute people and there is no humane way to kill people. Killing someone won't bring back a tortured , beaten woman or child . It will just kill more people. That’s why we shouldn’t bring back the Death penalty

Side: Yes
2 points

Of course there should be! Criminals need to be punished for what they have done. The punishment fits the crime.

Side: No
DaWolfman(3321) Disputed
2 points

I am not disagreeing with punishing criminals for crimes they have committed.

However I do disagree with having a death penalty, as when the wrong man gets convicted and executed there is no reversal. There is nothing that can be done to bring back the essential murder of an innocent thought to be guilty.

Side: yes
2 points

Some people are incurable and a problem for society. Death remedies this. Alternatively we could use penal colonies.

Side: No

Other than the death penalty, I have always entertained the notion of sending them all to the arctic. They can learn to survive - if they resort to cannibalism, they'd be doing the executioner's job for them.

They could always make a television reality show out of it - like Death Race 2000 or The Running Man.

Side: No
1 point

I was thinking more along the lines of a Polynesian island. Making it into a television show however would only degrade the nature of the punishment however.

Side: No
Kururai(167) Disputed
1 point

Death does not act as a remedy. It is simply a easy way out. If you were diagnosed with a critical condition that may endanger you, people would find a cure rather than kill you.

Side: Yes
1 point

I am surprised at people who oppose the death penalty but are quite content to lock a human being up like an unwanted pet rat, for a lifetime. I am not opposed to killing off people who commit loathsome social crimes but I do resent the American concept of a death penalty - decades of imprisonment, sprinkled with very expensive legal hope, followed by death, often many years after the actual crime.

In any case, I think we should reserve our sympathy for the surviving families of terrible crimes. It seems to me that, in the flurry of pretentious moral posturing on behalf of criminals, we often forget the people who have to live with the great pain of loosing precious, innocent lives at their hands. These people are not criminals but are being punished anyway, often for the remainder of their lives.

I know that someone is likely to think and write that the execution of a criminal does nothing to dull the pain of a personal loss at his hands, but I don't think this is true for most people.

Side: No
Melanin(84) Disputed
1 point

Oh wow, you think that life imprisonment sucks or something? Get real. first of all, not everyone is for omgforever imprisonment. If they will offend again, certainly something has to be done, though. If you're for killing them and making families suffer even more, you're for their life imprisonment if it's so bad. Killing someone would probably a dull a LOT of people's pain, whether that person's family member was killed or if it would ease their suffering for some other reason- (let's say you irrationally blame someone for something) Is that the point to be used to justify killing you? Passing the pain onto another family? Making MORE pain? Or should we save the money we waste on DP and use it to help victims of crimes in all sorts of ways?

Side: Yes
1 point

Why should we keep this criminal alive? He has proven that s/he has no respect for other lives through his actions of committing rape and/or murder, the two crimes which capital punishment should be employed.

Moreover, why should I pay to keep him/her alive? I'd much rather know that I am paying to send this person to where s/he belongs than to know that I am paying to keep them alive.

Life is not inherently sacred. It has to earn or at least maintain its worth. When you rape and/or kill an innocent man/woman, your life loses its value. It's fair game.

Side: No
Melanin(84) Disputed
1 point

You're kind of dumb, considering that the death penalty costs more. That money (MILLIONS) could be used to actually HELPING people, rather than trying to get revenge on people. Saying that imprisonment costs more is a lie, and I'm tired of people equating rape with murder. Why not bullying with murder, etc. Let's send em all to death. No one's life loses value because it took another. It isn't about "value" of life, other wise let's just kill people who don't do much with their lives. At least sticking to "it's a punishment" makes more sense. It's about rights, and the fact that many INNOCENT people are put into prison. They have let cases air on crime tv show that scare the shit out of me- how was this person put in jail? Some of the people I've seen haven't even been released yet. I can't find any statistics on how many people they've killed with the DP that were innocent, well, of course not... and it's not a deterrent either. This quote breaks my heart: Kerry Kennedy Cuomo, daughter of the slain Senator Robert Kennedy, has written:

"I was eight years old when my father was murdered. It is almost impossible to describe the pain of losing a parent to a senseless murder.…But even as a child one thing was clear to me: I didn't want the killer, in turn, to be killed. I remember lying in bed and praying, 'Please, God. Please don't take his life too.' I saw nothing that could be accomplished in the loss of one life being answered with the loss of another. And I knew, far too vividly, the anguish that would spread through another family – another set of parents, children, brothers, and sisters thrown into grief."(Foreword to Gray and Stanley, A Punishment in Search of A Crime 1989)

A life being lost or shattered is awful, but making MORE victims is NOT okay. Causing another family to lose someone isn't okay. many times people never stop caring, even when they find out that their loved one, child, etc, has done an awful crime. Their pain is worsened by the loved one's death, and the victim's family's pain is prolonged when it takes even longer for a trial to be over with.

And, yet again, it costs everyone more money and doesn't do anything productive for victims...

So, a waste of money... not a deterrent... makes more victims (family of prosecuted and person)... executes innocent people... an unfair power advantage that can be used against people (research: DP not evenly applied!)...robs people of repenting...

Yeah, the DP sounds like a great idea. Totally needed in our country.

Side: Yes
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
0 points

How does a bullet cost more then years worth of food?

Side: No
1 point

The death penalty for RAPE? Step away from the cave or enter it. Don't impose barbaric rituals on civilized society.

Side: Yes
FreeWill(120) Disputed
1 point

Saying rape is better than murder is like saying torture is better than death. Maybe for some it's true, but the vast majority disagree.

Side: No

Who am I to say no one ought to be killed for justice? The part of the world and the timeperiod I live in hasn't seen real war. There are people who were given extraordinary circumstances to allow them to commit the most cruesome acts mankind has ever seen.

The Nuremberg Trials were applied when we Europeans actually saw war for ourselves. With the crime of aggression we are talking of such numbers that the life of a single US president or African warlord would be meaningless in the equation.

Why should humanity allow something to live that has caused devastation, death and terror to hundreds of thousands of people? If these anomalies of individuals were contained it wouldn't take long for someone to extort their release. Justice, while we have the hold of it, should be democratic and swift in these manners.

Side: No
1 point

People could mistake and kill the wrong person. It cost to much to kill a person. They have doctors doing it witch the doctors are suppose to save people's lives not kill them. People think that they can kill people because they are so high and mighty but they aren't. So why kill them. It's just wrong.

Side: No