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.
In my opinion the electric chair should still be the lead way of death sentencing...but since it has been deemed "inhumane" the next best thing is to lethally inject them.
In my opinion the electric chair should still be the lead way of death sentencing...but since it has been deemed "inhumane" the next best thing is to lethally inject them.
wouldn't that be taking the easy way out, though? death? and isn't the death penalty itself questionable? I mean killing a person for murder would that not be hypocritical? or even better; killing someone in a country where murder is illegal.
Some people commit crimes that are very inhumane and unacceptable. Using lethal injection should be legal for people who commit unforgivable major crimes. Or the electric chair, that'll work too 😂
At the end of the day if you want to give capital punishment to someone without shooting,beheading, or hanging a person to death then this is the best option. Moreover it sounds less frightening and violent than the other three.
Your statement is not at all true there are many people who deserve to die. There are people who lack empathy for anyone and they torture and kill other humans for their entertainment. These people do deserve to die and it is irresponsible to allow them to live so that innocent people's lives are in danger. It's people like you that have allowed society to degrade to a point where people think it's okay to enter a school and murder innocent children or to invade a home rape the female children and tie them to a bed and set the house on fire. Those people are happy to be inhumane to anyone who crosses paths with them yet you would prefer to allow them to continue living rather than their future victims I would say that borders on insane.
It does not necessarily follow that someone deserves to die just because it is prudent to kill them. Those are distinct, albeit potentially interrelated, questions.
The notion that opposition to state executions is responsible for school shootings, home invasion, rape, arson, etc. is not only unsubstantiated but so extreme as to sound nothing short of ludicrous. All of these have existed alongside state executions and continue to occur where such executions take place, and notably have lower incidence in some nations that do not have state executions than in some of those which do. Nor is execution the only option, since lifetime incarceration is generally also an option. "Keeping society safe" may be one of the weakest argument for state executions, even wen it's given a strong defense which I don't think yours is.
One of the problems with the death penalty, is that we're NOT sure the guy's we're executing ARE guilty.. Over the last decade, more than a 100 death row inmates have been found INNOCENT, and released..
So, with a BAD record like that, we oughta STOP that crap.
It doesn't matter if you were or weren't a veteran. It has nothing to do with the debate. That's why I don't start half of my points with "well back in Desert Storm", because it has nothing to do with anything. Now get back on topic and rebuttal the points.
Of course you couldn't capture him. He was on LSD, crack cocaine and a plethera of over 80 different hard drugs. He was either moving too fast or was psychopathic enough while enduced to kill himself without flinching. But if we had caught him...could we have been morally justified to put him away?
So your claim is that less than 1% error over 40 years in the initial conviction is a huge problem with the death penalty? I would say that, with the appeal process that exists the margin of error for execution is very close to zero percent. How many of the people on your list were actually put to death and then found not guilty that is the problem area, what percentage is that figure?
Wrongful conviction is not limited to the death penalty but exists at all levels of sentencing, and presumably occurs at even higher rates for some offenses where the sentence is (regarded as) less severe. if wrongful conviction is enough basis from which to stop using execution, why is it not enough of a basis from which to stop using sentencing?
Moreover, the criminal justice system you are referencing has a very bad record of racism and classism that arguably contributes to higher mortality rates and economic unrest among those demographics... so again why don't we stop the whole criminal justice system? Or, as long as this a bad record is the whole standard for something why don't we just abandon government?
the whole death penalty is a little funny to me. For example; imagine a murderer gets the chair or the injection in this case, so you're gonna punish a murderer by killing another person. if anything lethal injections and everything is the easy way out!
