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

Should Britain bring back the 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,669 times Debate No: 35307
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




In this debate I shall be taking the side of 'against'.

I would enjoy both proof and personal opinion.



I will accept this debate and look forward to you opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you very much. I wish you the best of luck.

My opening argument is the evergreen threat of the execution of the wrongly accused. There has been many cases in British history (and also a lot of other countries also) where innocent people have been wrongly accquited of a crime punishable by death; some cases more famous than others i.e. Timothy Evans (1), Derek Bentley (2). On the other hand, you could say that these are rare cases that scarcely happen, but, for it to be an efficient crime-fighting deterrent it would have to be efficient %100 of the time. Although there are no exact records to say how many people executed by British law were innocent, it is plain to see that there were too many miscarriages of justice for it to be a reasonable and rational way of enforcing law. It serves not as a deterrent of crime and in civilised society it should not be seen as "justice" as Desmond Tutu said: "To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice.".




Numerous studies have been conducted showing a direct correlation between homicide rates and death penalty enforcement. The studies clearly show that when the death penalty is removed the murder rate goes up. A prime example is that of the uk. In 1965 when the death penalty was removed murder rate in the uk increased and is still to the current day far higher than it was in 1965 when the death penalty was removed.

why should the farther or mother of a murdered child have to pay to keep his sons murder fed, clothed, warmed , entertained and safe in prison?. I really don’t think that there is a justified reason for this. I accept the death penalty should not be used in all crimes but sometimes anything other than the death penalty is not enough.

‘’ where innocent people have been wrongly accquited of a crime punishable by death; some cases more famous than others i.e. Timothy Evans (1), Derek Bentley (2).’’ Yes there have been mistakes in history bout both cases you sight, date back to the 1950s. Before the development of forensic science and DNA technology both of which would reduce the number wrongly predicted.

The graph ( shows a year on year increase from 1965 the abolition of the death penalty to 2002. I Put it to you the miscarriages of justice would have resulted in fewer deaths than the increased number murdered each year due to its abolition.

Debate Round No. 2


After doing a little research, I've found that a lot of families of murder victims do not see it as a deterrent. I would refer you to two websites: Murder victims' families for reconciliation (1), Californian crime victims for alternatives to the death penalty (2) and just a little video of Peter Hitchens debating the subject matter in which a murder victims mother and father appear (3). Also, the cost in the U.S. to have someone put to death is around $2,000,000 compared to life without parole $500,000 which means to put them to death is four times more expensive for the victims families and taxpayers alike than to keep them alive. Also, if we meet murder with murder would it be just to use 'eye for an eye' in other crimes? Would it be justice for a rapist to be raped? Despite them ignoring the right to live in civilised society I think not going against their basic human rights is the moral and good thing to do, and as a civilised society shouldn't we teach that taking a life is not a deterrent and that to fight fire with fire will never ultimately lead to a conclusion, and in this case justice? I think we must remember despite the heinous crime that murder is, the murderer (if executed) will also leave behind a grieving family. Would it be fair to punish them also?
I agree that forensic science and DNA technology will limit mistakes to very few but that doesn't mean that there still won't be mistakes; if anything, I find that if a person is wrongfully executed in the modern day (keeping in mind the ability of forensics) that it makes the judgement far worse for the family of the wrongly accused.





You claim‘’ a lot of families of murder victims do not see it as a deterrent’’ to support this argument you quote one link leading to one website with no acts of figures about membership number. You have proved some may not see it as a deterrent. You have not proved that most do not see it as a deterrent. I refer you to these two articles that clearly show to some victims the families the death penalty brings relief. ( , (

You claim ‘’ to have someone put to death is around $2,000,000 compared to life without parole $500,000’’ You have provided no evidence of this so I looked into it. It costs 38,000 per year to house a prisoner in the UK let’s say he commits the murder at 30 and lives to 65 that is 35 years which translates to £1330000 which is $ 2011625.00 That is for the cost of housing alone and not taking into account of the trial costs therefore because you have provided no evidence I will assume you’re your figure has been miss quoted.


‘’ Would it be justice for a rapist to be raped?’’ No Raping a rapist will not stop them from raping again considering what crime the committed the may actually enjoy it. By executing a murderer you remove any possibility of them repeating their crime. As highlighted in this article over 30 convicted killers went on to kill again over 10 years over the same period it is very unlikely that there would be 30 miscarriages of justice.

I reiterate the point why should the mother and farther pay for their child’s murder to be kept[t warm fed clothed and looked after for the rest of his life. Yes capital punishment is not the solution in every crime but should be available for the worst crimes in our society.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DeFool 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: CON begins by pointing out the "evergreen threat of" innocent death resulting from the use of capital punishment. PRO responds by pointing out that murder rate increases have coincided with the removal of the death penalty in the UK. He does not demonstrate a correlation. He concedes that mistakes are sometimes made. (a key point.)The argument drifts from the opening arguments, but the point is made and conceded. I award arguments and sourcing to CON.