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

Death penalty in U.S.A

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/21/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 913 times Debate No: 70456
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




USA is the only western country in the world who has death penalty. 38 states in USA have death penalty. You cannot get a death penalty for every crime you make. The only crime where you can get a death penalty is if you commit a premeditated murder.
I think that death penalty should be illegal in all the states in America, one of the reasons is, I think it is moral wrong, to kill another human no mater what the person has done. The 10 commandments say that, ""You shall not murder"" I know that a person who get the death penalty have committed a murder but when the government kills a person with death penalty is that not a murder or what? I do not think it should be legal even though if you are the government.
I think that it is human to make a mistake and a lot of the persons who get the death penalty have not committed more then one murder, so why shall they be killed for the crime they have committed, maybe when they have been drunk or something like that, I do not say that a person who has committed a crime do not have to be punished. I think that if you have committed a premeditated murder then you shall be sent to prison for lifetime instead of being killed (life time shall not be for the rest of your life only for a long time) and then they can sit in a prison and think about what they have done wrong.

What do you think?
I would like to hear your version of the death penalty:


One of the most important concepts of human nature is doing what's best for mankind. When a person kills several innocent people, even while disregarding this person's mental stability, they detrimented society. One might argue that putting them in prison for a very long time will keep them away, but there are several problems with this. One would be the expenses of keeping someone in prison for life. This ranges from around $14,000 to $60,000, per person, per year. It may be true that an inmate on death row costs upwards from $90,000, due to extra guards and a private cell, but this person will not be in prison for life, so the total expenses for both prisoners will be quite ranged, after the inmate on death row is put down, for lack of a better term.

Another problem is the possibility of an inmate escaping. Should this murderer be let loose, he or she can easily take many innocent lives once again. As previously stated, this detriments civilization and humanity as a whole.

Finally, I look to the many faults in our judicial system. Should a murderer be put on trial with a corrupt, uneducated, or uncaring judge and jury, he or she will get away with this crime and may commit another one like it. As an example, I turn to the murder of Eric Garner, and the fact that the officer that killed him was never convicted of murder, despite the fact that Garner said "I can't breathe" eleven times at the time of the homicide. I am not implying this officer should have been giving the death penalty, I am merely saying this case is an example of the judicial system having unjustified bias.

As a side note, your Bible quote is irrelevant. Our founding fathers believed in the separation of Church and State and was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion", as exemplified greatly in article eleven of the Treaty of Tripoli. I would like to keep this debate professional and political, thinking of what's best for the United States, and leave all personal thoughts aside.

What you call a "mistake" is not something that can be forgiven. Premeditated murder, except for select cases, should be punished by death. Also, one cannot assume a prisoner will sit in his cell and "think about what they have done wrong." Every human mind is different, and the mind of a murderer is likely to not be regretful.

Thank you. Here are my sources.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for answering my Debate here is what I think about some of you"re arguments.

You write about how much the prisoners cost our government/society.
What I hear you say is, that a person should be judged on how much he will cost the government/society? It sounded like that in my ears. In my opinion I think that people should be treated in a fair and judgmental way, no matter what the person has done of crime. I think that we as a country should do anything to help this "person" to get back on track.

Another thing I would like to debate with you about death penalty is "Judicial Murder". It has been seen that the government has killed innocent people because of the "death penalty" law, which I find very worrying. I found a case where a father was executed for killing his three young children by arson. Later the "Innocent Project" got the case investigated and filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas. They reviewed all the case documents and found out that it was just an innocent fire that caused the death of the three children (The Cameron Todd Willingham case). I would like to hear you"re thoughts about this.

Personally I think prison is much worse than execution. Death penalty is an easy way to escape from the crime you has committed and that"s why I prefer prison. In my opinion I would rather have the person rotten up in prison instead of let him take, in my opinion the "the easy escape"

I am looking forward to hear you"re thought on this.


Thank you for responding.

You misinterpreted what I said about prisoners and their expenses. I was merely addressing an argument from your side of things that keeping a murderer in prison is less expensive than putting him or her down, as it is simply untrue. I believe every single human life has value. You are given the gift of life, and you ought to cherish it. However, some people waste this gift by taking it from others. These people have misused their gift, and no longer deserve it.

There are many cases where a murderer was thought to be rehabilitated, but ended up killing again. As an example here, I look to the Kenneth McDuff case. We cannot be sure these people are "back on track", but this is irrelevant, in any matter. In respect for the innocent victims of the murderer, this person must also die. Again, I say there are select cases where this is not true, because mistakes do happen. These cases should be put aside, and are to be examined further as separate happenings.

The Judicial Branch of the US government, at core, is indeed "fair and judgemental." However, it is still run by people, and giving a person power runs the risk of corrupting them. Bias is heavy in too many cases these days, which can either mean a murderer goes free or an innocent man gets put to death.

I've stated before that the Judicial system is flawed, and I hold steadfast this belief. A diverse jury must be anointed, which doesn't occur in all cases. This is sad, but true. Despite this, these are select cases. Cameron Todd Willingham did not deserve to die, and this was a terrible mistake on the accuser's part, but this case and those like it cannot stand as reasons to strike down the death penalty. They are results of flawed trials and lack of evidence.

Allow me to illustrate a concept reminiscent of the Utoya attacks, where a lone gunman killed 69 people at a summer camp, primarily teenagers. A man, frustrated with the current politics of his area, wants to get his anger out in what he sees as the best way possible. He goes to the nearest elementary school with a hunting rifle and kills as many innocent children as he can before the police come. He is shot, but survives.

This man is an extreme case of mental instability. Those children deserved the gift of life. They deserved to keep on living. They were innocent. It is doing an injustice to the children in this concept or the innocent victims of any murderer by letting the murderer go on to keep the greatest gift one can ever receive: life. Without life, there is nothing. Kill a murderer, and they have nothing, because they deserve nothing. I wouldn't label it an "escape", but more a removal of a very dangerous person who is unworthy to live.

In summary, one is given a life to cherish, and once they can understand that, it is up to them not to waste it. Those who take innocent lives are made to be un-innocent themselves. They must be taken out of society, else more tragedy can ensue.

Added sources:

(As a side note, two things. 1. Have you ever gone to prison? If no, please don't say "personally, I think prison is much worse than execution." You've never died either, so you simply don't know. 2. Your* Near every time you've used it, it's been the incorrect one. Sorry, I felt I had to correct it.)
Debate Round No. 2


Qubnigwa forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited the final round. I feel it unnecessary to restate my previous arguments, as my first statements and rebuttals are right above this, and my opponent has given me nothing to respond to.

I humbly ask for you to consider factoring in my opponent's forfeit when you vote.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Welqra 3 years ago
It's nice to be courteous, cite your sources, and be respectful. Sometimes the person putting the debate forth will have some rules for you, too.

I've already accepted this debate, however. You're free to vote on it once we're done, or find another debate in the Challenge section. Maybe start your own debate on the death penalty.
Posted by N-H 3 years ago

I'm new to this, but would still like to debate the topic.

Any rules I should be aware of?
Posted by Welqra 3 years ago
I just realized the irony of my profile picture.

If anyone has read Camus' "The Stranger", I would count Mersault's slaying of the Arab as one of the select cases. His uncaring mind needed to be considered, along with all the factors leading up to it. Also, the Arab flashed a knife at him, which can be argued to have been a threat.

This is only if anyone cares, really.
Posted by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
I would like to take this. However, your grammar and your opening comments (the way your frame the debate) are atrocious.
No votes have been placed for this debate.