The Instigator
TheRevPhoenix
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Crims0n
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is it wrong to murder those who have murdered?

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: 6/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 335 times Debate No: 92371
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

TheRevPhoenix

Con

Right now it is wrong to kill anyone for any reason, That also goes for people who murder those who have also murdered. With a sufficient amount of evidence and a severe reason, The act of killing a runaway or in hiding serial killer could be seen as a little crime instead of a severe crime. Though it may still be frowned upon the act shouldn't cause a large sentence to be given.
Crims0n

Pro

I understand what you mean, but equally committing a murder upon those who have murdered makes you just as bad as them, and in turn puts you on their level. Equally by killing someone in such a way is illegal because you would be taking the matter of laws and justice into your own hands and as a result would mean you are going against such.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRevPhoenix

Con

I still believe that the sentence shouldn't be as bad, And it isn't exactly like them since they have murdered the innocent, You have murdered a criminal not an innocent man/women. And haven't multiple people taken justice into their hands and won their cases? Plus if they death sentence isn't go to be allowed and the criminals are allowed to roam around after a time, It may be a long time but the fact they can get out after such thing is wrong. If they take a life they should have to give one back, It sounds stupid but it's the law of equivalent exchange. Also if a man killed lets say 8 people and he was in front of you and you were unable to restrain him or call the police, What could you do, He would most likely kill you too, Running may be an option but then he would just kill again until he was finally caught, And all he got to do was go to prison where they have tv's, Games and many other things they can enjoy their life with, They may not be free, But they're not rotting in hell like they should be.
Crims0n

Pro

The punishment they receive may not be entirely justified, considering that murder, by the definition within English law, means attacking someone with the intent to harm critically, not entirely kill, and equally you say they killed an "innocent" person when in retrospect what if they are killing someone who as killed, who would you defend at that point?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Killing a person who as committed a murder, even if the pure intent is justice, still means you murdered by what you consider justice making it a personal affair, making you a murderer. Of course the person you kill is not, by definition, innocent in the court of law, but equally neither are you if you kill them.

On top of this, what kind of murder was caused? First degree is what I expect you mean, which is a premeditated kill that was planned and acted upon where as second degree murder is the act of killing with no plan or ideal, this could involve self defence or spontaneous assault.

Source: http://dictionary.law.com...

Your argument that they will be "free to roam" is incorrect, I'm afraid. The lowest punishment a killer can get from first degree murder, the one you specify, is 20 years in jail, and this is only in California. Everywhere else the lowest amount of years is 25. Killing eight people, like you specified would either be the death penalty of life in jail, so the criminal will definitely not be roaming any day soon or, possibly, ever again.

http://criminal.findlaw.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheRevPhoenix

Con

Someone's been doing his research, damn Alex, I'm impressed
Crims0n

Pro

I really like debating xD
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: one2one// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con did not refute any of pros arguments. Also pro backed up points with some secondary data. Pro wins.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess points made by both debaters. In this case, the voter merely states that one side's points were not refuted, but that doesn't meet the standards for assessment. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than just state that one side had sources " it must be established that those sources were relevant to the debate as a whole.
************************************************************************
Posted by fishfish77 1 year ago
fishfish77
I think it depends on how you define murder. if you define murder as unlawful killing then it could be maybe or if you define murder as killing an innocent person than you can't murder a murderer because they aren't an innocent person.
No votes have been placed for this debate.