The Instigator
nicolepatton
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tashanapeoples
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Death Penatly

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 475 times Debate No: 46059
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

nicolepatton

Pro

I think the death penalty should remain in use. Many criminals when released from prison will be likely to commit a crime again.

If you are convicted for murder, rape, genocide, treason, or a pedophile you should get the death penalty. You have already shown that you are not a law abiding citizen and there should be no reason to give you another chance to live again and possibly commit the same act. People who commit crimes such as rape or murder are usually not one time offenders.

Also, just because some people believe that the death penalty is morally wrong does not mean everyone believes it is wrong.

Why put someone away from life when there is a possibility of parole or someone can escape? Putting someone away from life makes our jails more crowded.

With the right changes to the way the death penalty works, it can be helpful and useful to keep people who are sick and cannot be helped off of the streets.
tashanapeoples

Con

The death penalty gives people the wrong idea of what justice is. It shows people that it's okay to seek revenge as long as it's through the government, and then disguises that revenge by calling it justice. It's hypocritical to attempt to deter crime, by committing a crime. That's what capitol punishment is; murder. Not only is capitol punishment morally wrong, you"re giving the criminal an easy way out. Instead, let them live with what they have done.

If they realize their wrong doings, show remorse, and seek and receive the proper help, they have a chance of becoming a better person. Then there would be less chance for recidivism. A big reason why recidivism rates are so high is because prisons no longer spend a lot of time or money on rehabilitation and education. If they received the proper help maybe they wouldn't be repeat offenders. Also, if people stopped committing crimes in general, maybe the prisons would be less crowded. Why choose to make space by killing some and leaving others who will also come back? That's just temporarily fixing that problem.

The death penalty is only applied in certain cases. A lot of criminals are in jail for murder, only a few get the death penalty. It still hasn't helped in terms of deterrence because people still commit the crime.
Debate Round No. 1
nicolepatton

Pro

I do not see the death penalty as revenge by the government. If it is certain people will get the death penalty for a certain crime, I believe it will be less likely for people to commit the crime in the first place. People who commit crimes such as rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury already show they have no moral instincts because they would not commit these crimes otherwise. If we were to install the death penalty this ensures this crimes will not be repeated by the same offender.

The death penalty should be used in extreme cases. Take for example John Wayne Gacy. A serial killer and rapist of who convicted of 33 deaths of teenage boys and young men, but only charged with 12 of them in Illinois and given the death penalty. People like him do not deserve to be given a second chance in life. Though this is only one instance there are many, many other serial killers and rapist and terrorist who do not deserve a second chance at life. Here are other examples of notorious serial killers who deserve the death penalty: http://www.forensiccolleges.net......

People who received the death penalty go through a quick and almost painless death, rather torturing themselves in a prison for the rest of their life. That seems more morally correct to me. Also, the death penalty actually costs less than compared to someone who receives life without parole, about $1.2 million - $3.6 million more for life without parole.
tashanapeoples

Con

Let me correct myself. It's not revenge by the government it's revenge through the government. I agree some people who commit these crimes have no morals, but some of them also have been through something traumatic or may have a mental condition. Killing them still isn't the answer. If installing the death penalty will ensure that these crimes aren't committed, and by the same offender, then why does the recidivism rate remain high? The death penalty is permitted in the US. Why are people still committing crimes they could possibly get the death penalty for, and then committing those crimes again?

If we focused more on rehabilitation maybe less heinous crimes would be committed. These two articles talk about Norway's Criminal Justice System: http://thinkprogress.org...... and http://www.theatlantic.com...... . They have abolished the death penalty and their country is doing just as fine, if not, better than US when it comes to crime.

Death is death, whether its quick and painless or not doesn't matter in my opinion. I get what you're saying. It's better to die in a way that's less brutal. But the process is not almost painless. Lethal Injection (primary method) , electrocution, and the gas chamber all seem just as painful as stabbing or shooting. ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...... ). Also, if a person is torturing themselves that's their own doing. I am not wishing that upon them nor am I doing the torturing. Usually a person feeling remorse about the crime is a step in the right direction. It means they can be helped. That's more morally correct than taking it upon ourselves to lethally inject and kill them.

I was led to believe that the death penalty actually costs more (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......), with most of the costs stemming from the trial level and appeals.
Debate Round No. 2
nicolepatton

Pro

I'm going to keep the argument basic -

Who is seeking revenge? The death penalty is not about revenge about about prevention of the same individual committing the same crime.

For those who are mentally or have been through something traumatic - there is help! You should seek help before it leads you to commit a crime. Those who are guilty by reason of mental disease or defect are not put in death row. They are institutionalized.

We cannot stop crime from happening. It is simply impossible. I will reiterate my original claim; death penalty prevents the same person committing crime again. They are beyond help because they have already shown they have no remorse to others or do not care about the criminal justice system entirely. They show this by committing crimes they should know are immoral, like rape and murder/ genocide. There is no comparison to Norway and the United States. It is irrelevant because we are two completely different cultures. Focus on America, there is still crime in non- death penalty states. Why?

Stick to the basic aspect - it costs $86.06 per lethal injection. I don't believe the costs of trial lawyers are relevant to our discussion because that is personal discretion if you want a lawyer or not, rather than costs to the government.
tashanapeoples

Con

tashanapeoples forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
nicolepatton

Pro

nicolepatton forfeited this round.
tashanapeoples

Con

tashanapeoples forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
nicolepatton

Pro

nicolepatton forfeited this round.
tashanapeoples

Con

tashanapeoples forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.