Execution should be removed
Debate Rounds (3)
I truelly belive that prison for life is a stronger punishment than execution. Person will think his/her mistake all along his/her life. But an execution is a easy path to escape form his/her conscience
Pro's first argument is that life in prison is a stronger punishment than execution because life in prison would force the criminal to live with his/her actions. However, those on death row are on death row due to having committed horrendous acts, such as first degree murder (1). First degree murder is defined as "an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated" (2). Individuals who willfully take the life of another are highly unlikely to regret their decision, as they took time to think it over before carrying out their plan.
My argument for the death penalty is that if execution were to be removed, the alternative would be life imprisonment, which would be of greater monetary cost as the government would have to support every prisoner for the rest of their natural life. The cost of a life term for a prisoner in the United States averages $1.5 million (3). With the death penalty in place the government in question would be free of the financial burden of keeping murderers alive.
I wish my opponent a good debate. Con is believing that some cases, the death penalty is justified.
Firstly, I want to argue about this state and I'm truly against this opinion, however I honestly give my all respects to my opponent. The Turkish government have a prisoner named "Abdullah Ocalan"(1). He was/is the head-chef of a terrorist group named PKK. Turkey is struggling with this terrorist actions for 30-40 years. Finally, soldiers of the Turkish army captured him. And we know that this guy killed thousands of people or he made people kill. There is lots of guys he (in my opinion) deserves to be death. But we can not be objective with a guy like this. Neither jury nor judge. And now, he is a prisoner for 10 years in a cell. He is watching the Turkish people hating. So I believe that judge or jury can not be objective about this guys. A person doesn't have to die if we say that he/she needs to die. We can't decide in a living person's life which is highly valuable. Neither we nor the court.
On the other hand, in my opinion, if executions are going to be removed, the alternative would be life imprisonment.
Now, Con stated that the cost of life term prisoners are very expensive. This can not be a subject of this argument. Everybody should know that a life is more estimable than money. I don't want to argue of the cost of life imprisonment because it not very humanistic.
Another reason of executions must be removed is that it is meaningless. Prisons were made because people who commits crimes should captured and placed in a place IN WHICH THEY CAN THINK ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS. They need to know that actions have consequences and they understand that in prisons.
Finally, I again believe that execution should be removed. Thank you for arguing with me. Waiting your state...
Actually, this can be a subject of this argument. The money that would otherwise go to keeping a murderer alive could instead be funneled to public education or national defense. Otherwise the state would be paying to keep a murderer alive for the rest of his natural life while he does nothing with it, simply spending the rest of his life in a cell until he eventually dies anyway.
You argue that "Prisons were made because people who commits crimes should captured and placed in a place IN WHICH THEY CAN THINK ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS." Once again I repeat, and I can't emphasize this enough: Individuals who willfully plan take the life of another are highly unlikely to regret their decision, as they took time to think over their future actions before they carried them out. They have NO remorse. You can't make them see the wrong of their ways. Therefore imprisoning them and waiting for them to die on their own is a waste of time.
I believe execution should be kept in place for people whose actions are beyond redemption and whose guilt is provable without a doubt.
I'm not okay with two things;
1-In my opinion every person has a right to demand a second chance. No one can be perfect. And, as we, we should learn how to live with other people's mistakes.
So if we don't give a chance to murderers who had been punished with death penalties, we will ruin that right. By the way, we're not giving them another chance by leaving them free: we have prisons for them. Moreover, my opponent thinks that money is more important than a living person's life. This is wrong. In modern democracy, a life is the most important thing. We can't find a bigger value.
2-My opponent said "You can't make them see the wrong of their ways. Therefore imprisoning them and waiting for them to die on their own is a waste of time.". For me, it is depending on prisoners. Maybe the prisoner will not see the wrong of their ways but like I said, they are still human and they need a second chance. We're giving it to them and it is their option to use it. If they won't use, it is just a waste of time for them but for us it is a success for not killing someone for their behaving.
At least, this world isn't being ruled by the ancient Babylon laws. Every person has right to live and everyone can have a second chance. That's why I think execution should be removed.
(I wish my all respects to my opponent, thank you for debating)
To your second rebuttal- While some may be able to repent, the vast majority cannot due to the nature of their horrendous crimes. Here is a list of murderers who were released on "good behavior" (i.e. Pretending to repent) and who killed again. http://www.wesleylowe.com.... As this list shows, once you murder someone it stays with you.
I believe that the death penalty should be kept an option for the safety of the public, prison officials, and prisoners.
Thanks to my opponent for a very well thought out debate.
No votes have been placed for this 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.