The Instigator
Pence27
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
liberal_moron
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Death Penalty Should be Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 660 times Debate No: 100384
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Pence27

Pro

The death penalty is a serious problem the world. For other countries they kill without a crime. There needs to be some sort of law to stop these crimes.

I don't understand why some people are for abortion but against a death penalty. How could you kill a defenseless, innocent baby but not kill a man/woman who just murdered someone? The death penalty should be legal because it would stop these crazy people from committing these horrible crimes!

Say your a homeless man struggling for money and you have a gun. You kill a man or do something horrible enough to him to get in prison. You are now in jail being fed daily so your life is no longer a struggle.

"Why the death penalty is still necessary"- catholicworldreport.com

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?

A. Human life may be lawfully taken: 1. In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives; 2. In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it; 3. By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution. 1

Thus, killing another human being in self-defense, during a just war, or through the lawful execution of a criminal does not violate the Fifth Commandment"s rule "Thou shall not kill" (which many modern editions of the Bible translate as "Thou shall not murder"). The permissibility of these three types of lawful killing (unlike the deliberate killing of the innocent, which is always prohibited) depends on contingent circumstances. As long as (in the words of Pope Innocent III) "the punishment is carried out not in hatred but with good judgment, not inconsiderately but after mature deliberation," the death penalty may be imposed if it genuinely serves the common good.
liberal_moron

Con

I disagree. I think assumed criminals should not be given the death penalty. I think life in jail will be a much better solution. What if the assumed criminal is later found not guilty AFTER he is killed. What will happen then? I think life in jail is better for this exact reason. If he is found later not guilty they can free him and pay him compensation and his life will be almost back to normal whereas with the death penalty, you have just killed an innocent man/woman and there is nothing you can do about it
Debate Round No. 1
Pence27

Pro

In my eyes, the person is first found guilty. The authorities have found him guilty. His fingerprints are on the gun. The other man is surely dead. They don't deserve life on Earth after the other is dead.

Say the man is not given life in prison. After ten years he is bailed out or released and he kills someone else? How do you know he's not healthy? How do you know he won't do it again? Life in prison is not a great solution for the economy because they have to continue to pay for him to stay alive. He doesn't deserve to live. What would the difference be anyway? He's kept in jail for the rest of his life? His life is basically over!
liberal_moron

Con

I have read many cases where innocent people have been given the death penalty. I think jail time is a better solution. Yes, it costs more money, but it will save lives. And to be honest, and I think I am not the only one who thinks this, I would rather be killed than live in jail for my life. And we never know what happened. Who are we to say that the murderer didn't frame the convicted murderer?
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Trump27 10 months ago
Trump27
I agree with pro completely. Not only does it cost tremendous tax dollars to sustain a prisoner, it imposes a lasting threat to the community by risk of escape or a prison riot which happens frequently and endangers the lives of the guards and others. Like pro said, the prisoners life is over anyway. Usually a single-count of murder does not provoke capital punishment. Most of the time, it is either a serial killer, remorseless killer, or someone who has committed war crimes, especially terrorists. They will not issue the death penalty unless the defendant undoubtedly committed the crime. Not to mention there is a lot of time to wait on death row for. Another reason is that the victims' families get the peace of mind and the justice they deserve. If someone commits a crime worthy of capital punishment, they do not deserve to be on this Earth. That is why I completely side with pro, especially considering you did not cite any sources.
Posted by Pence27 10 months ago
Pence27
That's for the authorities to find out.
No votes have been placed for this debate.