Retribution: Right or Wrong
Debate Rounds (3)
First, some ground rules.
1) State your arguements in a nice way. There is no need for bashing.
2) Keep it reasonable
3) Have a philisophical view on the subject as well.
4) Do your best to keep it clear and explain the best you can.
With that, let's begin. I await an opponent.
It is really a matter of justice and morality.
If I had a family member whose life was taken by another for no just purpose then he deserves to suffer that fate.
We as human beings can universally agree that murder is wrong. Furthermore we can almost universally agree in equality and justice. If you owe someone 400$ dollars and you do not pay them the courts will force you to pay them the 400 you are in debt. Thus the death penalty is another instance of this. You stole from another and their family this person's life.
You are in debt for this taking of a life therefore the legal system has your life taken away. If you kill many you may still only pay with you life. If you kill thousands or millions like Hitler and Pol Pot you owe society not just the family and deceased individual for this act. However even the murder of a single individual has the most profound negative effect on a society; the person killed may be a mother, sister, lover, teacher, co-worker, life long friend etc. But to all of these members of society one person has robbed them all of this person. Since I affirm equality and justice and the legal system rectifying debts it is sound that we should allow the death penalty for those most cruel and evil offenses against individuals, families, communities and societies.
So you are going for the "Eye for an Eye" poilicy, equal in every respect. And your points of someone taking a person away from the world, every birthday, every celebration, everything that a normal person could have and it was just snuffed out, like swatting a fly, moves me as well. True, there are some monstrous people out there, and some deserve to be killed...
But that is why not killing them is so important. We are charged to bring justice to these criminals, and they will. Ending them immediatly will probably only justify their claim to kill someone as the same was done to them. Let me ask you this. Have you ever done something you felt wrong about and lied about it, and eventually the guilt just started to get to you? If a killer murdered someone, ending his life would probably be too quick. Isn't a better punishment to make him live with what he has done, and if he doesn't comply, we should make him feel sorry for what he's done. I turn it over to you, opponent. Good luck.
Well I would say all life is a precious thing. We are not given much time here to make our mark and help improve and contribute. However when one person cuts another's passing existence short should they be allotted more time? Now I would say locking them up in some facility and throwing away the key would be a dismal fate. However why would this individual deserve more time after robbing another's? Whether or not he is punished in the afterlife is beside the matter as he owes the debt in this realm. Furthermore we understand that some people who kill are insane or actually did it for a just cuase however others are just legitimate monsters that cannot be rehabilitation and chances are will never be productive. These people do not think or act like normal people like the rest of us, there is really something that is wrong with them that makes them a permanent threat to society. Also your equation of and eye for and eye may not be complete. For instance if you robbed a store and killed a someone or killed someone in a fight would perhaps would not warrant the same level of punishment as a serial killer. But in this world we are not able to preform any higher form of punishment. Would else could we do with a threat to society enslave him? let him while away the hours in a cell for fifty years while enjoying room and board supported by society? I really cannot see this being fair to the victim or society as a whole. But I ask you would the retribution involved in the family solely be that of the victim's family or of society at large?
And one more thing. Any sense of satisfaction that comes from sentencing the one who killed your loved ones to die will not bring them back. I know, people are angry about it, and they dont have to forgive him, but killing them gains them nothing. Society may be safer, but there are always killers out there. There always has been, and always will be. And finally, I end with this point. The main reason I dont like killing off criminals is this.
We are supposed to be better than them. We are supposed to be the good citizens. We are supposed to be the good guys fightig the bad guys. Its a tough thing to do, but thats the point. Its a test of resolve, a test to see if you are above the criminal you are sentencing.
Thank you for shedding light on this different point of view my friend. Good luck with the votes.
I would say that keeping them alive in any shape or form requires the support of society and torturing them for years sounds inhumane. Also sense you admit that you do not believe that they deserve anymore time on this earth then the victims and you also explian you simply do not like the thought of execution. I too do not like the thought of execution and I really wish it was not nessasary. No one should take pleasure out of simply killing someone, but justice is not a pleasant thing, it is swift and it is rightoeus. The "retribution" is society reclaiming the debt which an individual must pay with thier life for that which they robbed from another. Good luck with the votes indeed.
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.