Death Penalty should their be one?
Debate Rounds (3)
If one is willing to committing a horrifying crime like killing someone, then they should be able to match their crime like a sentence in other words, if your willing to do the crime, then you should pay for it. Cause letting one go for killing someone shows how mentally deranged we are as a society, we all are responsible for what we do. Would you want to be justified if someone killed one of your loved ones.
It is highly believed if we allow the Death Penalty to exist, it would ultimately show how demented our society is. This is because we are showing that we are allowing the judicial system execute a member of our own kind. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" Exodus 21:24. Revenge does not heal anyone; not forgiving only harms oneself. If theses psychological rules count for society, the Death Penalty should not be allowed.
For evidence I will link a site here - http://www.quora.com.... With these three important facts, people will not think about the Death Penalty, nor prison or jail, during the crime. This is especially the case in point 1 & 2.
"Killing is often misrepresented in film as far easier than it is. In reality, the "duty" is mentally taxing, leaving most soldiers physically ill in the moment and often haunted by nightmares for a lifetime" - Robert T Muller Ph.D
Not only that, what about the executioner? Is he still killing? Is it any different on a battle, to kill a foe? No, it is not different; it is still murder. Soldiers suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for WW1, WW2, and the Vietnam War just from killing another individual. If the Death Penalty exists, someone must execute the perpetrator. For a soldier, or executioner, and even the common human suffers psychological trauma by killing his own kin.
Anyone who kills a person either has been suffering from a mental disorder, or (most cases) suffered psychological trauma. Psychological trauma, it is, in basic terms, a type of damage to the psyche that occurs as a result of a severely distressing event.
People who commit crimes of passion usually suffer from psychological trauma from killing their spouse, and loved ones.
I found another site supporting my claim - http://nccadp.org...
The Death Penalty is not the answer, it is not positive in morality, nor does it deter crime. The countries that do have it, such as Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea, and the U.S.A (There are other countries like Yemen and Pakistan.) have high crime rates. If The Death Penalty exists in these countries, why is crime higher than other places? In my previous argument I mentioned Crime of Passion, Drugs, Alcohol, and Mental Instability. Criminals are not thinking about the bad long term.
In some of the countries, people are killed because they are homosexual, or do not fit in the conservative norm.
And what about the 2.5%-5% of prison inmates who are found innocent after imprisoned. That is a potential threat to more than 20,000 innocent people's lives.
My opponent has failed to look past revenge in the argument, failed to bring evidence why it is needed, and hasn't managed to bring a point that isn't emotionally based. I thank you for your time in this debate, Cory. And I give thanks to whoever read this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con concidering that he's the only one who used sources in the debate. Spelling and Grammar also goes to Con as Pro had several grammatical errors and misuse of words like your instead of you are. Arguments to Con as well as Pro never actually gotten around to Con's points and it was dropped by Pro. For that reason the debate itself could have easily been won by Con alone, but that wasn't the only argument that he missed as well. Since Pro had dropped arguments we have to see that the resolution here is negated and the win goes to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.