The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 542 times Debate No: 43516
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I do not believe, under any circumstances, that the state should be allowed to decide on wether or not a person has the right to live. I think if a person has committed atrocities it should be the states job only to contain the actions of the individual, not destroy the life. If given the power to decide the fate of a life, who decides where the line is drawn? What crime deserves the punishment of death? I think that all forms of taking life are morally wrong, and there are always other ways of dealing with the situation.


I believe that the death penalty is valid for the following reasons.

1. some people thrive in prison.

Twisted people can actually become the leader in their cell block. They can issue bribes, even assaults on on random convicts. it would make prison feel like a cake walk.

2. Gives the family closure:

it gives the family closure to know that the convicted will never come back to harm them.

3. Prevents any possibility of escaping or parole

Many convicts are able to escape the prison because of lax security. This sets the family of the victim at risk for revenge! The killer could then lead a life on the lamb, and never fully pay for what he/she has done. Many criminals are sly and can convince people to give he/she a second chance. He would probably then never report to his parole officer, and live a life on the lamb.

Those are my opening points. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Good luck to you as well.
Most of your argument is based on a messed up prison system, which I agree has abundant flaws. This does not mean however that the death penalty can make up for how terrible the system is. I think that our prisons here in the U.S. have run amok with problems and it makes it hard to view punishment objectively because of our current capabilities to keep criminals at bay. Say we had a perfect prison system, where each inmate had the perfect amount of security, which I know is unrealistic, but it secures my point. In this attempt there is no need for the death penalty because a person can be incarcerated for as long as deemed a threat. On the closure sentiment I believe that if the system works properly then there really is no need for fear that the criminal will seek revenge, because he knows how the system works. I think that the death penalty to families that believe this "revenge" scenario, really is just a way for revenge themselves, by using the state to murder their criminal. Final point, even if the system is so terrible now, criminals escaping prison really isn't commonplace, and I don't think that killing them because we may not be able to contain them in our prisons is the correct way of dealing with them either. Maybe we should keep the truly dangerous people separated at all times from other people in a place where security is never "lax" and no gangs can help. Why should gangs in prison be allowed to happen anyways? There are ways of enforcing control that don't allow all of these problems we currently have.


Hi! You make a very good point! However, your idea would not work. I will explain why later. First here are my more detailed points?

Case 1: Hemorabi got it right!

Have you ever heard the saying an eye for an eye? Hemorabi made that! In ancient Mesopotamia, Hemorabi was their ruler. He made a judicial system that went like this. You steal from me, I steal from you. You killed my family member, I kill you. The system worked to repel crime in Mesopotamia. It would be the opposite if we would ban the death penalty. People would not be afraid of the chair, and would commit more murders! They would think when they go to prison that they would rule it or escape! That brings me to my next point.

Case 2: Over Population

It would not be long before the prisons would begin to pile up! With all these new murders, the prison would run out of room! This would certainly lead to bad security and it would allow more and more people to escape! You then argue we could keep them in separate compartments. This would not work because of too many men in that section.

Which then brings me to my scenarios!

Scenario 1:

Albert was on a walk of night when a stranger came out of the corner, and stabbed Albert to death. His family is in deep pain because he just got married. The man is convicted of killing Albert, and instead of being put to death, he is sentenced to life in prison. Now fast forward 10 years. Prisons are becoming more and more overpopulated and Albert makes up a scheme. He starts a mob, which occupies all the security. He then uses that time to escape. He then lives a life on the lamb, never really getting punished for what he has done. With the death penalty, he would finally get the punishment he deserved.

Scenario 2:

Max is a serial killer who recently got convicted by the cops. He is thrown into jail! He then brags to the inmates about all of his crimes. the inmates are awed, and will do whatever he says! This man called Lupe, has been threatening to beat him up for a week. He then sends 3 prisoners to teach him a lesson. But instead of beating him up, they kill him. Max has friends on the outside, so he then can get cigarettes and drugs! Max is the king of the prison! He is causing havoc everywhere! With the death penalty, he would have been shown the chair, and none of that would have happened.

Scenario 3:

Lindsay tried to kill her ex- boyfriend, but swore it was self defense because there was marks on her. However, the jury does not believe Lindsay, and convicts her. She stays in prison for a few years, and then tries to push for parole. In the parole hearing, she states she has never tried to kill her boyfriend and that it was only in self defense. She says he was drunk that night, and tried to kill her. This jury is not as wise as the last one at her hearing, and they let her go on parole. She then kills her ex boyfriend for revenge of keeping her in prison for years, ditches her parole officer, and lives a life on the lamb. If the death penalty was active, Lindsay would have never been able to kill her ex boyfriend, and she would have got the punishment she deserved.

Three scenarios. All having un-happy endings. This would actually be possible if the death penalty would be banned! Thank you for reading! It is now my opponent's turn.
Debate Round No. 2


Xstrain forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited. Thank you for reading!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 4 years ago
I thought Albert died in scenario 2... then he escapes from prison?
Posted by DavidCarter 4 years ago
I am against the death penalty, but i wish to address a point made by the Pro debater in round 1. He suggests that the death penalty is a good idea because it will protect the family (or presumably society) from potential future harm committed by the criminal. My understanding of criminal justice is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. How can we then punish an offender on the basis of protection from 'potential' future conduct?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F/F