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

Should the death penality be allowed in the uk?

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: 4/30/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 33095
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Recently I've been thinking about whether or not capital punishment should be brought into the UK. I think it should because tax payers money is unfairly being used to give them 3 meals a day, a bed and a toilet. If we just kill them we won;'t have to spend as much money paying for their daily needs.
After all why should the poor people who gave up everything end up on the streets and a murderer ends up in a room with a bed and all their food being put in front of them?



I'm pleased to welcome my opponent to DDO and I hope for a civilised debate. I am proud to defend the status quo.

Just a couple of admin things my opponent didn't deal with:

Burden of proof: This lies exclusively with the Proposition.
Format of the debate: Round One for acceptance and opening statements, Round Two for elaboration and substantives, Round Three for rebuttal and summing up.

With all that in mind I will now issue my opening statement and then I invite side Proposition to issue their substantives and elaborate on their opening statement.

Opening statement for the Opposition
What the Proposition proposes sickens me. Simply put, the death penalty does not and cannot work. There are far too many risks involved, and as a message it is completely self-contradictory. There have been cases in history of people being executed, only to be later found innocent. These people are just as innocent as those who have suffered, those who perhaps have been killed by the person being executed. We should NEVER, EVER take the risk of killing someone for their crime, as even the most secure-looking conviction can later be overturned. Take Amanda Knox, Barry George as examples. The Proposition can't justify this. Equally, allowing the state to put people to death disperses the image that in certain circumstances it is morally justified to kill a human being. It's not. Therefore this message defeats its own object. For all of these reasons we look forward to demonstrating why the Proposition is so very, very wrong on this issue.

This concludes my Opening Statement, so I invite side Proposition to issue some substantives.
Debate Round No. 1


Sorry I'm quite new to this website and stuff.

Yes I do agree they're some cases in history where people are found innocent,but that doesn't mean the criminals should still be allowed to get away with the crimes they commit.
I don't suggest them being killed for miner crimes, only for serious crimes eg murder and child abuse. Do we really want to have these people walk our street after doing such horrendous things?
In addition to this it will lower the amount of crimes in the UK because the court and police these days are too nice, they let everyone off with everything and I'm sick of it! Criminals need to think about the consequences of their actions before they do it! But do you know the thing that really sickens me? No-one checks up on the victims, does no-one care about them? The only thing to do with the victim the police do is ask them what happened, then send them to court with the criminal.

For example China, they haven't been known to have many crimes why? because they have capital punishment! Criminals need to start using common sense and to stop waiting for it to happen, if capital punishment is brought back to the UK everyone common sense would improve, there wouldn't be any teen pregnancies so people can just live their life and then there wouldn't be as much of a problem with fuel,oil and other raw materials, why spend so much money providing criminals with the things they need eg electicity when we can use that for schools,hospitals and medical centres!

You can try and be convinced that it's ok to live in a unsafe society where certain areas are full of rapists and burglers but it's not! They should pay for the crime they commit which'll do justice for the victim(s)


I will move into a deeper rebuttal of the Proposition's frankly ridiculous case in my final speech but there are a couple of things I would like to point out quickly in this speech.

Rebuttal I: "This will lower the amount of crimes in the UK."
No, it won't. Potential murders do not think rationally, and so the prospect of facing the death penalty is not something which influences their actions. No potential murderer sits at their kitchen table weighing up the pros and cons of the crime they seek to commit. Plus, most criminologists are in agreement with me. This point is knocked down. [1]

Rebuttal II: "For example, China..."
Seriously, you're using CHINA as our moral compass? This is a country which has recorded millions of human rights abuses and engages in population indoctrination, repression and mass censorship. No civilised nation should justify a moral issue with "China does it". This example is completely invalid.

Rebuttal III: "They haven't been known to have many crimes. Why?"
Yeah, it's got absolutely *NOTHING* to do with being a police state. Stop using China as a comparison, it is in no way comparable to the UK, or the USA, or any western democracy.

Rebuttal IV: "Common sense in the UK would improve."
My opponent talks about how the death penalty indirectly leads to fewer teenage pregnancies. This is a stupid link that my opponent has not explained. Regardless, the USA has the death penalty and they have a higher teenage pregnancy rate than the UK so this point is knocked down. [2]

Rebuttal V: "Why spend so much money providing criminals..."
I think what my opponent is trying to say is that the death penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment. Due to the high cost of drugs, R&D and legal fees, it's not. This point, like the others, is knocked down by Opposition. [3]

Rebuttal VI: "You think it's OK to live in an unsafe society where certain areas are full of rapists and burglars" - clashes with - "[the death penalty would be used] only for serious crimes e.g. murder and child abuse."
If we're only introducing the death penalty for murderers and paedophiles then we've done nothing to discourage rapists and burglars. This point is invalid because it is self-contradictory. The number of rapists and burglars would be unaffected as they are unaffected by the change Proposition proposes. Opposition wins the point.

Now that I've shown that the Proposition's speech is composed of nothing but half-baked, unresearched arguments I will now move into my substantives on why this is a TERRIBLE idea.

Substantive I: If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Bear in mind that Proposition has the burden of proof on why we NEED to introduce this change. The fact is that we don't. The UK's crime rate is currently falling, it fell by 8% in 2012. This is nothing short of ASTOUNDING [4]. Conventional wisdom dictates that, as the economy goes down, crime goes up. So, despite a year which saw rioting in several cities throughout the UK, the crime rate still fell. This demonstrates there is not the 'crisis of crime' in the UK which my opponent would have the voters believe. There is therefore no need for this legislation.

Substantive II: It isn't worth it for the miscarriages of justice
In my first speech I brought up the issue of people being executed when they were later proven to be innocent. My opponent seems to think this is justified because most criminals are killed. Ladies and gentlemen, this is WRONG. Benjamin Franklin once said "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security would deserve neither and lose both". There is NO WAY that the Proposition can damage the fact that people will lose their lives due to colossal miscarriages of justice. Then, all we do is create more victims, which the Proposition seems to care so deeply about. We should not be prepared to accept that innocent people will die - that would be, essentially, condoning murder.

Substantive III: The death penalty in the UK would encourage vigilante justice
The mass media in the UK, especially tabloid newspapers, is unique. They campaign ruthlessly and tirelessly for anything they believe will bring them political capital. The Sun and The News of the World are prime examples of this. If we introduce the death penalty, these newspapers will be able to, essentially, campaign for people to lose their lives. We should not allow this to happen as vigilante justice is a bad thing: it causes people to do stupid things in the heat of the moment (the 2012 London Riots being a case in point) and has terrible consequences for those involved in the crime - especially if they have been wrongly accused. This will also lead to yet more oversensationalisation of particular cases which is damaging for judicial independence.

Substantive IV: The entire message of the death penalty is self-contradictory
This is a short and simple substantive which the Proposition will not be able to refute. By introducing the death penalty you are saying that it is acceptable to kill a human being when you believe they are in the wrong. This encourages yet more vigilante justice (see previous point) and completely defeats the object of the penalty. Therefore, the death penalty's message is self-defeating.

Summary of the Second Speech for the Opposition
We have pointed out that the Proposition has not researched their arguments and have given sources demonstrating where and why their assumptions are wrong. We have successfully rebutted all of Proposition's points, and shown that they have not fulfilled their BOP. We've also presented a strong case for why the death penalty is self-defeating and is bad for justice. For all these reasons there is only one way to vote in this debate and that is to Vote Con!





Debate Round No. 2


PinkDancer1999 forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments.

Proposition has dropped the following arguments:
- That the death penalty is not a major deterrent
- That China is not a valid comparison
- That the death of innocent people does not justify the deaths of guilty people
- That there is no link between the death penalty and common sense
- That the death penalty does not lead to a lower teenage pregnancy rate
- That the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment
- That the number of burglars and rapists would be unaffected by this legislation
- That there is no problem with the present system
- That the UK's crime rate is falling
- That the death penalty in the UK would encourage vigilante justice
- That the message of the death penalty contradicts itself

Summary of the Opposition's case
We can never be certain about whether or not we are making the right decision when we sentence someone to death, and the Proposition have failed to justify the inevitable innocent deaths. We have shown that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. We have shown that this will not reduce the UK's crime rate. We have shown that there is no link between the death penalty and low teenage pregnancy rates. We have shown that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. We have shown that there is no need to change the system. We have shown that the message of the death penalty contradicts itself, and that it leads to vigilante justice, which we have shown to be bad.

We have knocked down Proposition's case, ours still stands, so this debate falls to our side.
Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
There's always the danger that you kill an innocent...
Posted by OneElephant 3 years ago
Capital punishment actually costs more than life incarceration generally speaking - I understand your point about how sometimes prison seems preferable to a life of poverty but by implementing the Death Penalty you're only taxing people more. Additionally, the UK uses a progressive tax system where the lowest income bracket is exempt from tax, so people on the street or living on less than 10,000 a year aren't paying to fund prisons.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Vulpes_Inculta 3 years ago
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: FF