The Instigator
Lix2230
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should killers go to jail for life

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...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2015 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 372 times Debate No: 83996
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Lix2230

Pro

When someone kills one person they take the life of a they have no right to taking. A crime is a crime even if it is the nicest person alive who just switched they have no right to get away with making the most important choice there is to life.
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

I thank my opponent for instigating the debate. I will now present my arguments.

C1) An unfair sentence
Ideally, in a system of criminal law, the sentence received by a criminal would be congruent to the crime committed. In the case of killing, a life sentence can be disproportionally severe or lenient. Allow me to provide a few examples.

The first is when the crime committed is not murder, but involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is also a crime, but the person committing this crime does not always qualify for such a long sentence. Let's say a tired driver accidentally hits and kills a jaywalker. Should the driver be sentenced for life? I doubt it.

Another example is self-defence. 'Justifiable homicide' is 'committed with the intention to kill or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it.' (1) The most common type of justifiable homicide is self-defence. Imagine someone whose life is endangered by an armed robber. Should he be sentenced for life for this act? Clearly not, for he may otherwise have died. In some places, justifiable homicide is further realised in 'stand your ground' laws, which protect victims from conviction when their lives are threatened. This has the added benefit of deterring criminals, for they know their victims are not helpless. (2)

On the other end of the scale, there are crimes for which life imprisonment is insufficient. Robert Blecker, professor of law, made the case that 'worse-of-the-worse' criminals, like those who burn children or commit mass murder through bombing, deserve death. Having committed heinous crimes against humanity, it would only serve them right to die. (4)

As you can see, there are instances of killing (homicide) which should not be punished by life imprisonment. Even if there are cases which should, I have already negated the resolution by showing the cases that should not.

C2) Public finance
The tremendous cost of life imprisonment creates a heavy burden on public finance, which is funded by taxpayers. Food, shelter and medical care must be provided to the criminals for life, all of which substantially increase the costs of maintaining the judicial system. (3) If all killers. including those who committed involuntary manslaughter, justifiable homicide, etc. were sentenced to prison for life, the increase in costs would be unthinkable. Thus, sentencing killers to life is financially unsound.

C3) Lack of rehabilitation
Sentencing criminals to a life sentence (provided parole is impossible) does not, by any means, encourage rehabilitation. The criminals have no hope ever of escaping prison anyway, so they will have no incentive to become better people. Moreover, as they come in close contact with other career criminals, their tendency to commit wrongdoings will increase. (3)

(1) http://www.lectlaw.com...
(2) http://usconservatives.about.com...
(3) http://apecsec.org...
(4) http://www.nyls.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Lix2230

Pro

Lix2230 forfeited this round.
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

It is most unfortunate that my opponent appears to have forfeited the previous round. Nevertheless, I shall present my rebuttals this round. I all extend all arguments from the previous.

When someone kills one person they take the life of a they have no right to taking. A crime is a crime even if it is the nicest person alive who just switched they have no right to get away with making the most important choice there is to life.

There is a hidden assumption in my opponent's statement: That if someone performed an action to which he has no right, then he or she deserves jailtime for life. This is obviously untrue. For example, stealing is taking something you have no right to take, but theft alone does not merit suh a harsh sentence.

My opponent is also confusing getting away with a crime and not getting a life sentence. A person who does not receive a life sentence can still face other judicial sanctions other than jail for life. Thus, not sentencing killers to jail for life does not mean they get away with their crime.
Debate Round No. 2
Lix2230

Pro

Lix2230 forfeited this round.
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

I extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Lix2230

Pro

Lix2230 forfeited this round.
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

I extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
I do not actually believe every single thing I wrote here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Lix2230Diqiucun_CunminTied
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: Pro ff conduct to COn. Pro did dropped COn's arguments, arguments to COn.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Lix2230Diqiucun_CunminTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.