Yes, the death penalty is accepted as treatment or actions of taking care of people who commit crimes for good. However, I feel killing them for their crimes is getting them out of their punishment, as the real punishment is to be locked away. Meaning being killed would give them the easy way out of their life punishment.
Though 50 years ago, this may have been true, it is not in this day and age. Many prisons are accommodated with xbox live, wifi, and cable television. To me, this doesn't seem much of a punishment for premeditated murder.
Yes, I agree that they have more luxuries than that of about fifty years ago. However, even though they do have these luxuries, they are still locked away and kept from freedom. Furthermore, depending on their crimes, record of emotional issues, etc, is what regulates who gets these luxuries. If charged with manslaughter and/ or any other crime that may result in a life sentence, these luxuries are regulated or just taken away from these type of prisoners. Meaning they do still have punishment enough at terms of prison, not death. Death is the easy way out in this case, which means they deserve to be locked up their entire life. Not just sent out of it.
I would have to disagree. Depending on sentence and actions towards others is what determines luxuries. Some prisoners who are not friendly towards others, or cause frequent disruptions, may be sent to solitary confinement, thus causing their luxuries to be taken away. Luxuries are a privilege, not a right.
Reasons for voting decision: It would have been helpful for either side to actually support their assertions rather than just making them, but given the circumstances, it's really just a question of which is worse: the death penalty or life imprisonment. Pro never argues how the death penalty is worse beyond stating that there's no luxuries involved, though access to luxuries becomes a bit of a he said/she said situation. Only Con actually explains any real harm to either scenario, and that's harm to life imprisonment. By the end, I'm left viewing death as an easy out, and life imprisonment as at least an opportunity for punishment. Ergo, I vote Con.
Reasons for voting decision: This mainly turned out to be a yes/no debate, but I'm going to have to give this debate to Con. Neither side used sources which would have greatly helped their arguments and give them more weight especially when it came to the back half of the debate. Con brought up more harms and that the life in prison is a harsher term and taking the death penalty is taking the "easy way out." Pro does gain the S&G points since Con made several noticable grammatical errors such as fragments. With the finial score being 3-1, Con wins the debate.
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.