The Instigator
3095
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Altilongitude
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Should pedophiles and serial rapists be killed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Altilongitude
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,301 times Debate No: 26228
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

3095

Pro

There is no doubt about it that pedophiles and serial rapists be killed. There are several reasons for this statement. Do you want that in your real life was a person who
can cleverly conceal its really disgusting origin and did not even suspect? Pedophiles is
Jesuit who never shows his true face until he wants, is not this the worst thing? Also, serial rapists, who even dangerous to society. You can not predict when and at what point he stuck a knife in your back. Both of them people who have been sentenced to death.
Altilongitude

Con

People who sexually assault children exploit them in a way that can have lasting damage on their psyche. Rapists are terrible. We agree that they are bad people and their crimes are great.

But should they be killed for it? I don't think so. Keep in mind that I am not opposed to the death penalty. However, I don't think their crimes warrant the death penalty. You could put them in jail for a long time, maybe life. I think the death penalty should be reserved for those who kill others.
Debate Round No. 1
3095

Pro

I see what you mean, but I disagree with in some moments. How you can say that their "crimes are great"? Imagine, that we are punish pedophile by enclosing them in a mental hospital or a colony of strict regime. It is not looks like a exit of situation. All the same, he killed the inmates, because rape of children is the one of the most heinous crime. I can prove it by example of the case about Jeffrey Dahmer. He is an American serial rapist, cannibal and pedophile who killed and raped 17 boys and young men between 1978 and 1991 years. In 1992 Dahmer was sentenced to life imprisonment (957 years). But two years later he was was fatally shot by one of the inmates - black Christopher Skarverom who struck him several times a scrap metal pipe.
Finally, serial rapists. I would like to go back to what I was saying earlier. Serial rapists are dangerous to society. These are people for whom there are no impossible boundaries, even in prison they can kill someone, even the same prison guard. Why we must leave them alive? All the same, these people will never change. That they have this in genetics was born. They are born for the murders.
Altilongitude

Con

For clarification, when I said that their crimes are great, I meant that they are severe.

Your example of Jeffrey Dahmer is not relevant. Christopher Skarverom is not a serial rapist or child molester.

Do you have examples of serial rapists killing prison inmates and prison guards? How prevalent is it? Even if this is a problem, we need to look at prison security not the execution of serial rapists. Yes, serial rapists are dangerous to society. However, we can keep them locked up.

You wrote, "Why we must leave them alive?" We should not kill them because people have a right to life. Even though their crimes are heinous, they do not forfeit that right.
Debate Round No. 2
3095

Pro

When I say "he killed the inmates", there is I assume "he could be killed by inmates". It was my mistake.
Altilongitude

Con

OK, so we need to buff up prison security. We cannot just kill somebody just because they're in danger of being killed by prison inmates anyway.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
Jacob_Apologist
3095AltilongitudeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: bad case in the beginning itself. If pedophiles should be killed then we have good grounds to kill homosexuals too. Death for seriel killers is something diff and can be thought of; many would agree. But not pedophiles. For ex Jeff Dahmer himself repented of his deeds in jail. Death punishment should be discouraged.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
3095AltilongitudeTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically conceded in R3 by dropping Con's argument entirely. Spelling and grammar to Con as well due to Pro's often broken English. **Update: Counter VB against RP. Not agreeing that anyone deserves to win is not an adequate enough RFD to counter a real vote.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
3095AltilongitudeTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Nobody deserves to win this.