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

Is "Reclusion Perpetua" better that "Death Penalty"?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,048 times Debate No: 68714
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




"Reclusion Perpetua" also known as "lifetime imprisonment" is better that death penalty. It's because everyone has the right to live even if one committed a sin.

In Religion, the Fifth Commandment states that: "You shall not kill." It only shows that life is important because it is a creation of God. And as a Catholic, we are used to forgive people who trespass against us.

If we talk about philosophy (or some sort of society and politics), the level of imprisonment depends on what have a person done to his own kind. For example, one killed a man. What should we do to achieve justice? Do to him what he did or just a lifetime imprisonment? ... In cases such as that, maybe we should do to him what he did.


It is better to jail people than kill them.

Reason 1: economics

Jailing people in America has great economic benefits. From Global Research this past march:

"According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people." [1]

Along with not gaining the economic benefit of the inmate, the death penalty costs a lot of money. The DPIC reports:

"A Seattle University study examining the costs of the death penalty in Washington found that each death penalty case cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought ($3.07 million, versus $2.01 million). Defense costs were about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution costs were as much as four times higher than for non-death penalty cases." [2]

Contention 2: mistakes.

Once someone is dead, they are dead. If the wrong person is killed, there is no going back. Nothing can make up for a mistake. There is no reason to risk killing someone who did no wrong.

There are two reasons you will be voting pro in this round. Economically, the death penalty is foolish. Additionally, mistakes are easier handled (possible to handle) with a life sentence.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for that. But what you are talking is about financial problems of doing the said death penalty. My point is, death penalty is better that reclusion perpetua its because their are thousand of crimes are happening in our world everyday. And I think that death penalty is better to scare criminals if they do such things that could harm one's safety.

Some countries that are being lead by kings and queens (also known as 'monarchy government') says "Yes" and agrees on giving criminals a punishments that fits their sins; specifically death punishment. Even in ancient times, it is already a mere rule of Hammurabi's codes/laws that states: "an eye for eye, a tooth for tooth."

I believe that we are now on modern times and you think that I'm going back to ancient times but what I am trying to say is everyone has the right to be fair... Richness and poorness doesn't matter.

Codes of Hammurabi:


I agree we need to be fair. However, there are a few things we need to clear up.
1: The death penalty doesn't deter crime
In the past, the death penalty has been both legal and used. This has clearly not deterred crime as crime rates have been growing exponentially.

2: what is fair?
We both agree that justice is important, though eye for an eye is not a good way to deal out punishment. This is especially important in the case of mistake. Someone was recently released from prison after 40 years. Had they been killed, the injustice would have been far more extreme than not killing someone.

3: economics
We can't throw away the economics of this issue. My opponent has not at all refuted the fact that it is costly to kill and there are economic benefits of imprisonment. What better way to punish someone then in a way that aids the country?

You are going to vote pro based on the qualifications of fairness and the economics.
Debate Round No. 2


jethro_purazo forfeited this round.


Extend arguments! Vote pro based off of econ, helping America, fairness, and risk of mistakes!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by jethro_purazo 1 year ago
Having doubts but I'm against reclusion perpetua.
Posted by KonstanBen 1 year ago
You put arguments for both sides in your speech.....are you debating for death penalty or against it?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits final round. Pro made much more thorough arguments.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro expounded on arguments, whereas Con had a much shorter case and a forfeit. Con dropped the entire "mistakes" argument by Pro and points made in the "economics" argument also went uncontested. Sources also go to Pro as he used more, which were more reliable than Cons Wikipedia one.