Is Capital Punishment(death penalty) just?
Debate Rounds (5)
I have 3 main reasons why I think Capital Punishment is just.
First of all, death penalty deters the crimes rates in places. Places that have death penalty tend to have less crime rates because of their harsh punishment.
Second of all, if the person is not put to death but instead put to prison, they spend much more money on the prisoners because they need to give them food. This will cause the prisoners to use the government's money. Spending money on theses people can affect the US economy and there are places where they need more money. Also, if they are put to prison, they might commit another crime in the prison.
Finally, the family members that gotten affected by their crimes can have some peace. If the person that committed the crime is still alive, the family members might still feel anger and sadness. This is why death penalty or Capital punishment is right.
Please answer this as fast as possible (I didn't do a good job of doing it) because actually need to debate on this topic in school on Monday. Thank You.
Your first argument is needs statistical backing. In the United states, the murder rate has consistently been much higher in the states that practice death penalty (see www.deathpenaltyinfo.org). Also, no strong statistical correlation between death penalty and crime rate, or even murder rate, has been shown by researches on a global scale. If you think that such statistics exists, please give data with sources. In a situation where there is no clear outcome of imposing it, death penalty is just a fruitless slaughtering.
Your second argument overlooks the fundamental objective behind incarceration. The principle behind imprisonment, in today's societies, is not taking revenge but improving the criminals so that they can go back to being responsible citizens. In some cases, life imprisonment is given so that he criminals may not repeatedly harm the society. Countries with high cost of keeping prisoners often suffer the cost because of strict rules or socio-economic conditions, and the majority of crimes are not worthy of year in prison. Criminals like murderers are very few and the cost is insignificant to the state.
Another problem is posed by ideology. In Thailand, having a lot of cannabis is punishable by death, while weed is legalized in Colorado and Washington. People were killed in Soviet Union for being an advocate of capitalism, but you might be hated for "being a commie" in some parts of the US. What gives us the moral authority to take lives just because someone does not follow our beliefs?
As for "peace for family", when you "give peace" to the family of the murdered by murdering the murderer, family of the murderer will most likely be in shearing pain. Isn't this murderer, who is about to be killed by the government, son or daughter of someone innocent? On top of that, what if the alleged murderer was innocent and falsely accused? My point is, punishment is given to improve someone or to safeguard the society, not to satisfy anybody's thirst for revenge.
In a world where laws aren't impeccable and 50% of the lawyers are always advocating for the wrong side, how well can we trust the system to take lives?
2daniel forfeited this round.
I will go against your second argument first.
One of the main reasons for imprisonment is to teach discipline and to help them go back to a normal life. Most of the time, the person does not commit another crime again. But there are times when people go back to the society and commit more crimes. If they were executed in the first place, all those innocent people would not have died. And since human does not feel guilt the more they do it, it is highly possible that they will continue their crimes.
Executing the person will give relive to the family and to other citizens. And imagine, if a criminal was in jail and they were freed, and they are back into the society. And imagine that he/she is your neighbor, how would you feel. If I were you, I would be really uncomfortable and I would be kind of scared. And with today's technology, with DNA testing, we are 99% sure that people are real criminals and it is almost impossible for false accusations. And you might be thinking, how about the 1%, even though it is little it is still cruel. Well I would say that since execution have so much advantages, risking not to have it for the 1% is not worth it.
The death penalty in the states might have more crime rates than the one without it. But the reason for that is because there were so many crimes, they had death penalty. Places where there were no crimes, there was no death penalty needed. The crime rates will still go down and the reason that it is higher today is because there wasn't enough time for it to show up. There should be changes in several years.
We people have the right to kill people that would harm the society more. It is unfair for those people to live. Just executing them completely will help the society and the problem will disappear completely.
I can go to religious text, but since not everyone is religious, I would not mention it. But if you want me to , you can ask for it.
Thank you for your time to debate with me.
Aeiouasdf forfeited this round.
Aeiouasdf forfeited this round.
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.