The Instigator
Crayzman2297
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
ad4m
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Is the death penalty a suitable punishment?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,069 times Debate No: 12244
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

Crayzman2297

Pro

The death penalty is a reasonable and fair punishment, reserved for only the most hardened and cruel criminals.

Personally, i believe that if one takes a life without any just cause, they forfeit their own right to live.

keeping them in prison simply wastes the government money it would require to feed and clothe them and care for their needs.
ad4m

Con

I am a Christian and i believe that no one had the right to take a life, but that is not the only influncer. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said "That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing." saying that we cannot do one wrong to correct anothers.

Now another thing is that you may not be a christin or a believer in Martin Luther king but want to think what is the benefit of not putting someone to death by the state. Well by not doing this you will help us save money for all the appeals and extra procedures are very costly to us. Also some even say that this effects the "cruel and unusual" clause of our bill of right and remeber criminals are still citizens of this country.

Also if your a family or friend greaving over the lose of your loved one, and you say that the only way to stop the pain is to see the killer of your loved one put down like a dog, then tell your self this, death to people is a escape in many cases and whats better dieing a death not too harsh for the state can't do that or let them rot in a cell and think about what they done and suffer physiological problems from lack of communications with other people and just stare at a wall for 40 years. If it was my choice i would rather die. Also there is always the risk of killing the wrong man and if he is killed by the state and then proven innocent then it is far to late.
Debate Round No. 1
Crayzman2297

Pro

You argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, YET you also say that it is more merciful than remaining in jail. You are clearly stating that Jail must be more cruel and unusual than the death penalty, so are you against prison sentences too?
What should we do with prisoners, if we cannot punish them without violating our constitution?
Somewhere out there is a man sitting on death row for raping and killing a seven-year-old girl.
Do you want to just "let him go"?

I personally am not a cruel person, and if the death penalty is more merciful, while still disposing of a life so corrupted and vile, then I see that as a win-win situation.
ad4m

Con

you say "You argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, YET you also say that it is more merciful than remaining in jail" now what i tryed to say is that no one deserves to die no matter what he or she did. I also believe that they should suffer for it but they should not die by our hand. And that man that raped and killed a seven-year-old girl will be "innocent untill proven guility" for what if he didn't do it? and we killed him, then what? we have killed an innocent man and we are no better then the person who killing that innocent girl and if he is proven guilty then he will be charged and sentence to life in a jail. So as you say a "win-win" situation i see as a gamble, a gamble that could risk innocent lives. and as you said "What should we do with prisoners, if we cannot punish them without violating our constitution?" i think we should charge them with the right amount of time they deserve and the right punishment they derserve, but think this, if a person kills another and you call them a monster but if the state kills another in "justice", then we call it a act that we need, that needed to get done but no excuse can hide us that we did something so wrong and so we are the monsters that we kill and take for example WW2, i know Germans and japanese killed alot of people but when the allied bombed them we killed over a million innocent civilians and we never got tried for it because we called it a neccesary need to end the war, and i will never accept that killing another human being no matter how horrible of an act he/she commeted and hide behind it with excuses of "it was the right thing to do" for we have killed too.
Debate Round No. 2
Crayzman2297

Pro

what I tried to say is that no one deserves to die no matter what he or she did"
- We all die no matter what. It doesn't matter if we deserve it or not, however, while we ARE still alive, life is good. If one takes that goodness from another, should he rightfully still have his own? does he deserve it?

"innocent until PROVEN guilty"
-if the man is innocent he wouldn't be on death row. Proven guilty. PROVEN guilty. They must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Oh, sure, there are cases of "wrong place wrong time", or maybe they were framed, but if that is the case, how does it make a difference whether or not the victim receives life in prison or a death sentence? Either way, that person suffers, and as we agreed before, isn't death more merciful?

"we should charge them with the right amount of time they deserve"
- Okay. Life sentence is the maximum, right?
So that means that the man who killed 12 people in a mall shooting should get the same amount of time as the man who killed one person and was charged with murder in the first degree? They both did unspeakable crimes. The murderer of 12 might get 12 life sentences, but what difference does it make? He can only serve one.
So what you would like is no distinction between the degrees of crimes, and think that all people should be punished equally. That might be an exaggeration of what you were trying to say, but essentially, it IS what you are saying.

"We killed over a million innocent civilians and never got tried for it"
-A.) That's because we won you fool!
-B.) Would you rather have one million people killed, or one-million-and-one people killed?
it's a tough choice, but when those are the ONLY options, it's obvious what you are going to pick, assuming you are a humanitarian and not a sadist. Had they not bombed Germany and Japan, they would have grown stronger and done THE SAME THING TO US. Had we lost the war, they would have never been punished for their crimes either, and we would have instead.

It is never the "RIGHT" thing to do, but sometimes it is the BEST thing to do given the circumstances.
ad4m

Con

Ok i'd i'll say the "innocent untill proven guilty" part is a bit confusing but i was trying to say that who knows if they really did it and if they were proven guilty then they still might be innocent non the less and we would kill them and if they are proven innocent after they are dead then i guess it is too late

also you said " and as we agreed before, isn't death more merciful?", so you want these guys to have a easy way out? isn't your example of "Somewhere out there is a man sitting on death row for raping and killing a seven-year-old girl" and you want him to just find a easy way out? No, i believe that although it is religously in some cases not right but our law says this breakes our clause of "cruel and unusual punishments", so we shouldn't be able to do it legally.

Also you say that " the man who killed 12 people in a mall shooting should get the same amount of time as the man who killed one person and was charged with murder in the first degree" well the worse the crime you do the worser the prison and if you do really bad you might be sent to ADX, Colorado and not just about the hight inmate beatings and deaths but because of the treatment and sometimes you will be sent to a isolated room for the rest of your life and if you do less you get sent to a better prison so yes it is fair

the ""We killed over a million innocent civilians and never got tried for it" -A.) That's because we won you fool!" if you see one of my sources below (http://www.rense.com...) you will see the story of a german tanker who tells a story of what the allied powers did and you call winning a resonable cause??? well everyone should have been tryed and the real offenders get away, i though you wanted to show justice by killing them but your just letting them off the hook.

Also the "Would you rather have one million people killed, or one-million-and-one people killed? it's a tough choice, but when those are the ONLY options" well we were winning the war before we bombed them, they just wanted it to end because it cost alot of time and money.

Also your " 'Right' thing to do" is based on your morals and my " 'Right' thing to do" is making sure we never make killing someone else legal

Thank you for debating this and thanks to anyone who has read this debate

Sources:
-http://www.rense.com...
-http://en.wikipedia.org...
-http://www.studyworld.com...
-http://www.tutztutz.com...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Wow. This is some of the worst grammar I've seen on this site. (Con)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Crayzman2297ad4mTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter.
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
Crayzman2297ad4mTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Nobody deserves to die. The con did a great job of playing to my emotions too.
Vote Placed by ad4m 6 years ago
ad4m
Crayzman2297ad4mTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Crayzman2297 6 years ago
Crayzman2297
Crayzman2297ad4mTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Crayzman2297ad4mTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40