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 have no particular objection to the penalty itself for sufficiently abhorrent crimes.
However, current thresholds of proof required for its application are unacceptably low. Guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" is sufficient for a prison sentence... which can be reversed if it turns out we got the sentence wrong. But we DO get sentences wrong, happens all the time... and you can't undo an execution if you screw it up.
If you want to apply the death penalty you should be able to establish guilt beyond any sane doubt. The evidential threshold simply needs to be higher. You have the guy on high definition video, with 50 eye witnesses while he murders some kid? Yeah, go ahead, kill him. Doesn't tweak my conscience in the slightest. But if all you have is enough "motive and opportunity" and some circumstantial evidence to convince a jury he probably did it? Fine. Throw him in a cell. But if it turns out later you were wrong it would be nice to be able to let the guy back out.
I started a debate on this a week or so back, I will raise the same points as i had in the debate.
Personally I think the Death Penalty is getting off easy. Given the choice of having to spend my entire life in prison or the Death Penalty I'd choose the Death Penalty any day of the week.
Another reason I would not favour the Death Penalty is, it costs on average $90,000 dollars a year however it costs near $37 million dollars to execute a person.
If it was a simple and cheap procedure I'd perhaps agree however when a state is paying $37 million for one execution I simply cannot agree, that money could be used for so much greater good than killing some scumbag.
An article I read stated it costs 19 cents a day to feed a child in Africa. So putting the Death penalty in these terms, to kill one scumbag = $37 million.
For $37 million we could feed up to 405,479 children for a full year.
I honestly don't see how 37 million dollars is an actual cost, and not an inflated cost. Maybe there is so much paperwork around it, it becomes unnecessarily inflated. Poisons don't cost that much, cyanide doesn't either. Syringes don't cost that much.
I think that this figure is an argument for why we need to reform the laws surrounding it.
Its not as simple as buying poison and a syringe, the cost is €37 million dollars or there abouts this i assume covers federal and legal costs. I gave supporting evidence (in the form of a link) to were i got the information. You should review it.
"Its not as simple as buying poison and a syringe, the cost is €37 million dollars or there abouts this i assume covers federal and legal costs. I gave supporting evidence (in the form of a link) to were i got the information. You should review it."
I'm not disputing that it presently costs 37 million dollars. In fact I'm glad you brought those statistics to add something concrete to the discussion.
I object to the cost on a pragmatic basis. Killing people with poison, bullets and electricity just can't cost that much. Something is being added to the figure in addition to the end act of killing the person, and I believe that it goes without saying that if the death penalty were used as a de facto punishment for violent criminals (in other words becoming more frequently used) that these additional costs would have to be cut.
"I object to the cost" I also object the cost its ridiculous. A firing line should be used and eliminate all these costs. However i disagree with it being used more frequently for the simple fact they need to be punished and suffer the consequences of their actions. As i previously stated just being killed is an easy way. If i was offered the option of the Death Penalty or life inprisonment i would choose the Death Penalty every time for the simple reason its over in a flash with little or no suffering whereas life imprisonment actually punishes the criminal for his actions.
""I object to the cost" I also object the cost its ridiculous. A firing line should be used and eliminate all these costs."
But you'd first have to fill out a firing line requisition form in googolplexicate before the deed could be done.
"However i disagree with it being used more frequently for the simple fact they need to be punished and suffer the consequences of their actions."
I would agree if we were dealing with normal people who can learn from their mistakes and feel the consequences of their actions. The types of people who I would support death sentences for are serial killers, terrorists, violent criminals, etc.; these people are incapable of feeling remorse for their deeds, for various reasons. A terrorist is often passionately motivated by ideology and can never give that up, in their minds they are righteous. Serial killers suffer from DPD typically, or some variant which makes them unable to feel emotion, and they are deficient in learning from mistakes, they will only learn how to beat the system. Violent criminals are often narcissistic, self-absorbed, and probably would never be able to feel anything for their victims because in their minds the victim deserved it.
"If i was offered the option of the Death Penalty or life inprisonment i would choose the Death Penalty every time for the simple reason its over in a flash with little or no suffering whereas life imprisonment actually punishes the criminal for his actions."
For most criminals certainly, many may be able to be rehabilitated and have success in society upon release, just not the ones I already mentioned.
For the people i'm talking about on Death row such as the ones you've mentioned: serial killers, terrorists, violent criminals, etc my argument is not to lock them up for a sentence and let them out at the end of it. It would be imprisonment until they die. Thats a punishment far worse than Death.
For the people i'm talking about on Death row such as the ones you've mentioned: serial killers, terrorists, violent criminals, etc my argument is not to lock them up for a sentence and let them out at the end of it. It would be imprisonment until they die. Thats a punishment far worse than Death.
I didn't think you would argue for letting them out after a sentence, however imprisoning someone indefinitely isn't very efficient. This is what I have a problem with.
Whats inefficient about it, its cheaper and causing them more suffering and punishment.
How are they suffering? They get to live and see the day again. The most horrible thing imaginable is the anticipation of that eternal blackness, that permanent nothingness that comes after life.
I believe that if the death penalty was used more effectively, it could be made cheaper than permanent living arrangements. Maybe cut down the costs associated with lawyers' salaries, and speed up the judicial system so a man doesn't wait in limbo for ten years, etc.
We already make a report bout this actually but we never get response from the government. That really make all of us upset and we want to do something bout this.
I'm glad to know that they're finally able to invent the newest operating system. I kind of boring with the operating system that already exists. With this new operating system I hope it offers something new and will make my job less difficult.
I find the death penalty necessary from a pragmatic viewpoint. There are people in our society who commit dangerous crimes, like serial killers, rapists, among others who are remorseless and cannot be reconditioned to live in our society peacefully again. Keeping them in a prison for the rest of their life is costly both in the monetary sense and in the sense that we will always need more prisons to accommodate more of these people.
So the solution as I see it is to enact the death penalty for people who commit severe offences to society's welfare, like serial killers, serial rapists, violent criminals, and those who scam people out of their money or property for a living. Psychologists could determine if the person can be reconditioned and made fit for society. If the person cannot be fixed, then allow the death penalty as a judgement and the jury to vote "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" or not.
It's not a perfect solution, in fact there could very well be innocent men convicted, but if you're looking for a system that gets perfect results, you're committing a perfect solution fallacy in your reasoning.
I agree with most of your argument, but if someone scams others out of their money it won't really help if they are given the death penalty. They will still have to pay taxes to pay for the expensive cost to kill someone via death penalty measures.
I probably should have elucidated what I meant by scammers. I'm referring to people who make a living out of cheating an audience, who live to plot the next big way to make money through exploiting people.
For example, a common phenomenon in the US are faith healer televangelists. They know they can't cure people, they know they're drawing upon a gullible audience, but they make millions of dollars off of this and are for lack of a better description leeches to society.
People like this I would not be opposed to including on death row. They do what they do remorselessly and are always looking for a new angle.
EDIT: Also, while I don't have the numbers, I'm willing to guess that it costs more to hold people for their life rather than to inject them with a lethal poison. If anyone can prove me wrong by getting the numbers, I'd like to see that.
Nobody is looking for a system that gets perfect results... but acknowledging that your system is imperfect and leaving yourself the option to at least somewhat mitigate mistakes would be a generally good idea.
Taking irreversible actions based on a process you know produces incorrect results without introducing sufficient checks against those mistakes occuring is just criminally irresponsible. And the current legal system sets the bar far too low for capital convictions.
"Taking irreversible actions based on a process you know produces incorrect results without introducing sufficient checks against those mistakes occuring is just criminally irresponsible. And the current legal system sets the bar far too low for capital convictions."
That's still a perfect solution fallacy in disguise. It also verges on irrational. I'll explain:
We all make decisions which produce irreversible actions, daily. In government and law this is simply an accepted fact that whatever big decision you make could be wrong, and can't be retracted. When sending people to jail, we make a decision that affects their lives, often irreversibly because the crimes that would lead to a death penalty carry stiff sentences. Dropping an innocent man in these conditions robs him of years of his life, and also hardens him as he is exposed to criminals on a daily basis.
The point being, you can't make the argument that some innocent men will lose their lives. We're not gods, we're not all-knowing. No system we create will ever have a perfect record of zero innocents sent to death. The argument is about using modern forensics to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and executing men and women who most probably deserve their fate. It is about removing people from society who cannot be cured of their behaviour, and are costing communities tens of thousands of dollars annually, per person, for the rest of their lives. I believe this is more rational than waiting for a perfect solution that will not arrive, while wasting money and space.
That is simply not the case. Almost any decision made can be retracted. The consequences can't be completely negated... if you threw the guy in prison then didn't find out he was innocent for 5 years you can't give him the 5 years back... but you can undo the remaining 20 on his sentence and possibly offer him some form of compensation for the other 5.
An execution on the other hand is 100% irrevocable. We're not bringing the guy back to life and apologizing for the mix-up and the inconvenience of making him experience that dying thing.
And yes, I can make the argument that some innocent men will lose their lives. I just did. And nobody said we have to be gods to avoid it. We just have to STOP EXECUTING PEOPLE with insufficient evidence of their guilt. That doesn't take superhuman powers. And so what if no system ever created will ever have a perfect record at not executing the innocent? A system with a much higher evidentiary threshold for capitol convictions will have a BETTER record. Just because we can't acheive perfection we shouldn't attempt improvement?
"That is simply not the case. Almost any decision made can be retracted. The consequences can't be completely negated... if you threw the guy in prison then didn't find out he was innocent for 5 years you can't give him the 5 years back... but you can undo the remaining 20 on his sentence and possibly offer him some form of compensation for the other 5."
You're trying to argue that sending a majority of guilty criminals away into prisons which cost space and money per inmate is a justified cost for the few retractions that occur as new evidence clears the names of certain inmates.
"An execution on the other hand is 100% irrevocable. We're not bringing the guy back to life and apologizing for the mix-up and the inconvenience of making him experience that dying thing."
I believe the protocol is actually a posthumous clearing of the name on records.
"We just have to STOP EXECUTING PEOPLE with insufficient evidence of their guilt."
People aren't executed with insufficient evidence. It isn't a light conviction that accepts only circumstantial evidence as enough. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt requires that the jury of reasonable peers are convinced enough of guilt that there isn't a good reason to doubt the guilt.
"Just because we can't acheive perfection we shouldn't attempt improvement?"
What do you believe is necessary for improvement? Isn't reasonable doubt enough? What would you add?
You're trying to argue that sending a majority of guilty criminals away into prisons which cost space and money per inmate is a justified cost for the few retractions that occur as new evidence clears the names of certain inmates.
No, I'm pointing out the plain and simple indisputable fact that if you throw a person in a cell you can let them back out if the reasons for throwing them in there turn out to be wrong. You can't un-execute a person. And as has already been pointed out to you elsewhere, executing a person has rather high associated costs itself.
And was your comment about a posthumous clearing of a name instneded to actually make some kind of point? Like, that makes it ok or something?
People aren't executed with insufficient evidence.
Bull. If you think a "jury of your peers" is only ever convinced in a courtroom by overwhelming and uncontestable factual evidence instead of by a slick tongued charismatic prosecutor glossing over the holes in their case you're living in a fantasy world. I'm going to let you in on a secret. Your "peers" are comprised of a high percentage of ignorant morons.
Do you happen to know why Illinois halted all executions in 2000? Because in 1997 the courts figured out through a review of their death row inmate cases over the last 20 years, largely with the help of DNA testing, that 52% of them were probably innocent even though they'd been convicted and sentenced to death. Now, how many innocent people do you think the genius jury system has killed? And DNA testing is hardly always an option to figure it out. And it's not always going to come out or be proven that impropreities occured before it's too late.
What do you believe is necessary for improvement?
It's the first argument at the top of this debate. Standards of evidence for a capital conviction need to be higher.
"And was your comment about a posthumous clearing of a name instneded to actually make some kind of point? Like, that makes it ok or something?"
You said that you can't do anything once you execute someone which is untrue. You can clear their name.
"Bull. If you think a "jury of your peers" is only ever convinced in a courtroom by overwhelming and uncontestable factual evidence instead of by a slick tongued charismatic prosecutor glossing over the holes in their case you're living in a fantasy world. I'm going to let you in on a secret. Your "peers" are comprised of a high percentage of ignorant morons."
Cynicism and hyperbole do not make arguments. You being unsatisfied with juries' qualifications is frankly out of scope here since that would apply to all legal rulings, not just those involving the death penalty.
"Because in 1997 the courts figured out through a review of their death row inmate cases over the last 20 years, largely with the help of DNA testing, that 52% of them were probably innocent even though they'd been convicted and sentenced to death"
That's hardly surprising because it wasn't until the late '80s that DNA evidence only really started to be used. Standards of evidence and forensic methods improve over time. Besides that, how many violent inmates exist in prisons now who are certain to be guilty, are unable to be rehabilitated but only serve to waste our tax dollars?
"It's the first argument at the top of this debate. Standards of evidence for a capital conviction need to be higher."
Stop being ridiculous. Fine, you can do something after you wrongly execute an innocent person. You can in fact do lots of things. You can go out for coffee. You can take a trip to Hawaii. You can watch your favorite television show. You can take a long nap. You can clear their name.
All of these things are roughly just as useful to the person you killed.
And yes, I do believe the problems with the jury system would indeed apply to all legal rulings. But only in capital cases are those rullings results in sentences being carried out that can't be reversed once implemented so your observation is irrelevent.
And if you think it's "hardly surprising" that juries managed to get half their death row convictions wrong in illinois without the benefit of contradicting DNA evidence then what the hell does that tell me about how much confidence you have in a jury's ability to evaluate evidence and arrive at a proper conclusion that guilt has been established by that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?
It tells me you don't think they're any better at it than I do, otherwise you would have found that SHOCKING. That's what it tells me. So what exactly were you thinking when you said people aren't convicted and given death sentences with insufficient evidence of their guilt? Want to re-think that claim?
And in response to your final comment... I gave specifics.
"Stop being ridiculous. Fine, you can do something after you wrongly execute an innocent person. You can in fact do lots of things. You can go out for coffee. You can take a trip to Hawaii. You can watch your favorite television show. You can take a long nap. You can clear their name. "
I am being completely serious. You can't raise the dead, but you can clear their names. It's better than nothing, unless you think being remembered in history as a murderer falsely is trivial.
"And yes, I do believe the problems with the jury system would indeed apply to all legal rulings. But only in capital cases are those rullings results in sentences being carried out that can't be reversed once implemented so your observation is irrelevent."
I would like to ask you a simple question. In modern trials we have the benefit of DNA evidence, computer databases, surveillance technologies and so on. Crimes that could be sentenced with death are already considered very serious, warranting good evidence. What makes you sincerely believe that a minority of falsely accused men and women are worth letting a majority of guilty men and women living their lives on our dollar? Remember I am not talking about records from thirteen years ago, incorporating data from thirty years ago.
"And if you think it's "hardly surprising" that juries managed to get half their death row convictions wrong in illinois without the benefit of contradicting DNA evidence then what the hell does that tell me about how much confidence you have in a jury's ability to evaluate evidence and arrive at a proper conclusion that guilt has been established by that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt ? "
Your study incorporated cases from ten years before DNA evidence was starting to become commonly used. DNA evidence is a type of evidence that is very compelling, and very hard to contest. Before that the evidence could be more ambiguous, hence my problem isn't with the juries but with the simple fact that technology marches on and makes evidence possible that isn't ambiguous.
Little fact: if you asked me how I feel about the death penalty thirty or fifty years ago, I would be against it.
"It tells me you don't think they're any better at it than I do, otherwise you would have found that SHOCKING. That's what it tells me. So what exactly were you thinking when you said people aren't convicted and given death sentences with insufficient evidence of their guilt? Want to re-think that claim?"
You're making idle speculation. May I make a genuinely friendly suggestion? You shouldn't debate topics that you are emotionally passionate about because it's easy to lose your temper or objectivity.
"And in response to your final comment... I gave specifics."
You only told me you want better evidence. That's not specific. What does it mean to you, exactly? Do you even know what you mean by it? Are you uncertain how much better it ought to be and in what ways? In other words, explain what you mean by better.
Edit - You wrote earlier:
If you want to apply the death penalty you should be able to establish guilt beyond any sane doubt. The evidential threshold simply needs to be higher. You have the guy on high definition video, with 50 eye witnesses while he murders some kid? Yeah, go ahead, kill him. Doesn't tweak my conscience in the slightest. But if all you have is enough "motive and opportunity" and some circumstantial evidence to convince a jury he probably did it? Fine. Throw him in a cell. But if it turns out later you were wrong it would be nice to be able to let the guy back out.
Death convictions aren't based merely on motive, opportunity and circumstantial evidence. Your fears are unwarranted.
In what way, exactly, is it meaningfully "better than nothing"? Are they going to feel better about having been wrongly executed? Oh wait, not possible, they're dead.
And let me ask you a question in response to your question... just what monetary value are you placing on the lives of innocent people that you keep bringing up the question of whether it is "worth it" to avoid executing them if we have to pay the dollars to incarcerate other guilty people? And how long exactly are you going to continue ignoring that executions have no actual real cost savings so they only have to be worth... well, nothing, to make it "worth it". Are you taking the position the lives of these innocent people are worth less than that? They have negative value somehow?
And who the hell cares if the data was from before DNA evidence? You do realize that not all cases have the option of using DNA analysis since you need the guilty party to have left behind DNA in the first place right? So those conditions STILL APPLY. Juries are still regularly composed of ignorant morons. They still base their conclusions as much on how effective a prosecutor is at wheedling and persuading them as on the actual evidential content of the case. And they still screw up, constantly. None of that has changed. The only thing we have now is one more tool that, in some cases, we can use to hopefully prevent at least a few of those screw-ups from having irrevocable consequences.
And no, I did not just tell you I wanted better evidence. I provided a specific example.
"In what way, exactly, is it meaningfully "better than nothing"? Are they going to feel better about having been wrongly executed? Oh wait, not possible, they're dead."
It helps families, friends, and corrects history.
"just what monetary value are you placing on the lives of innocent people that you keep bringing up the question of whether it is "worth it" to avoid executing them if we have to pay the dollars to incarcerate other guilty people?"
According to some numbers posted here, a yearly cost per inmate is around ninety thousand dollars. So whatever the ratio between innocent and guilty men is, let's assume one in ten men is innocent (because nowadays we have full access to good forensics technologies), that would mean that for fear of executing an innocent man you're spending per-year the jailing cost of one innocent man PLUS the cost of nine guilty men. If the death penalty were approved all ten could be executed, saving 900000 dollars (minus execution expenses, which while quoted at 37 million, I honestly think this number does not represent the actual cost of executing someone, for obvious reasons).
This is a rational mindset, using money as a basis.
"And no, I did not just tell you I wanted better evidence. I provided a specific example."
Your specific example was inapplicable because circumstantial evidence isn't enough to convict someone of the death penalty, anyway.
"And who the hell cares if the data was from before DNA evidence? You do realize that not all cases have the option of using DNA analysis since you need the guilty party to have left behind DNA in the first place right? So those conditions STILL APPLY."
DNA isn't the end-all evidence in cases. Fibres left at the scene can be important evidence, witnesses can help break the accused's testimony or alibi. The murder weapon can be found in in the accused's possession, etc.
My point is, there is plenty of evidence besides DNA that isn't circumstantial, and is very convincing, it's just the DNA is so helpful in recent years so it takes the spotlight.
"And they still screw up, constantly. None of that has changed. The only thing we have now is one more tool that, in some cases, we can use to hopefully prevent at least a few of those screw-ups from having irrevocable consequences."
Rationally speaking, one dead innocent man out of ten found guilty is worth the money saved from housing these people the rest of their lives for 90000 dollars per person annually, with the possibility of some escaping prison and causing more harm to society, or being released uncured and going back to their old lifestyle.
I think the dealth penalty is a good thing. If someone is going to be in jail for the rest of their life why should the tax payers waste their money to keep them in there? If they did something so horrible that they would never have the chance to get out then they probably have nothing to live for. By killing them you're probably doing them a favor.
It costs far more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the entire lives. Also its far more a punishment to be kept in jail all your life than to be 'put to sleep'. And as for your comment by doing them a favour, these people dont deserve favours they deserve punishment.
I think the death penalty should be considered as a judgmental result for those who had committed a very serious crime (eg. serial killers, homicide, armed robberies, violent sex offenses, major thefts, hostage and kidnap, etc.)There's no point if they were prove to be life sentence to stay in prison for life because it's just wasting the money that could be going toward health care and other acceptable things.So if we had the death penalty for those who had committed a serious crime, less of these crimes would happened due to the fact that they don't want to be on the death penalty. In fact people don't care about being life sentence because they can just stay in there for the rest of their lives. Our system isn't strong enough to keep people from doing things like this, they know that they won't be killed so why not just go for it. But if it had changed the violence would start to decrease. I understand that now in society, there are many people who are prove to be guilty even though they're innocent, to avoid this, we can have longer session of court in order to find enough proof to prove it.
I think the death penalty should be considered as a judgmental result for those who had committed a very serious crime
Someone can tell if an inmate is right or wrong but deciding kill someone is not acceptable.
Our system isn't strong enough to keep people from doing things like this
If our system is weak then make it strong.
Death penalty does not make it stronger.
It's just make people do what people should'nt do.
, they know that they won't be killed so why not just go for it.
They know that we are humane and going for it means proving them wrong.
In fact people don't care about being life
It's the opposite.
There's no point if they were prove to be life sentence to stay in prison for life because it's just wasting the money that could be going toward health care and other acceptable things.
The point is we value life
But if it had changed the violence would start to decrease
