The Instigator
thomsonmsc2014
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Simoneaumsc2014
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should the death penalty be legalized?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,232 times Debate No: 40565
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

thomsonmsc2014

Pro

The death penalty should be legalized because it would save a lot of money to have people put to death rather than taking tax dollars to keep them held in jail.
Simoneaumsc2014

Con

It does not matter how much money is involved. The moral of the death penalty is corrupt, we kill people who kill people because killing is wrong. The death penalty fundamentally makes no sense.
Debate Round No. 1
thomsonmsc2014

Pro

thomsonmsc2014 forfeited this round.
Simoneaumsc2014

Con

The death penalty is actually far more expensive than life without patrol. This is because the Constitution requires a complex and lengthy judicial process for capital punishment cases. If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole than each state could save millions in dollars.
Debate Round No. 2
thomsonmsc2014

Pro

The Justice for All estimates that life without parole will cost $1.2-$3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases. They also stated that while life without parole will seem cheaper at first, death penalty costs will end up coming out less expensive. (Sharp, Dudley. "Top 10 Pros and Cons - Death Penalty - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. ProCon.org, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. ) Therefore, in the long run, each state would not be saving millions.
Simoneaumsc2014

Con

Although the costs of the death penalty could be less expensive in the long run, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have done away with capital punishment laws show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates. Claims that debunk such evidence have been thoroughly discredited by social science research.
Debate Round No. 3
thomsonmsc2014

Pro

The death penalty may not lower murder rates, but it is unlikely that anything will. There will always be messed up people in this world who will murder, no matter the consequences. Murder has tragically been in existence since the beginning of time and will, most likely, never go away. Therefore, the consequence our country decides to use should not be based off of an attempt to stop murder, but rather what is appropriate for a man or women who has taken the life of another.
Also, one must think about the family and friends of the victim. When someone's loved one has been tragically killed, he/she must deal with grief and anger. He/she must also deal with the knowledge that their loved one is dead while the murderer is still living. For taking a life that was not yet meant to be taken, the murderer should be killed.
Simoneaumsc2014

Con

What about if the person receiving the death penalty was wrongly accused? Since the reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 87 people have been freed from death row because they were later proven innocent. That is a demonstrated error rate of 1 innocent person for every 7 persons executed. It is a central pillar of our criminal justice system that it is better that many guilty people go free than that one innocent should suffer. It should be the main goal of the court that we do not kill a single innocent person.
Debate Round No. 4
thomsonmsc2014

Pro

It is true that this is a flaw of the death penalty system; however, changes can be made in order to minimize this. For instance, of those people falsely accused, many were put to death before a DNA test was performed. To make a DNA test required before a death sentence would lessen the risk. Also, "The Innocence Project" recommends that moratoriums be enacted and that experts of all criminal justice aspects should have a role in the death penalty cases, in order to further learn how the mistakes, of convicting innocent people, occur and how to minimize them. With these changes, the death penalty could continue on with limited risk of an innocent person being killed. Then, murderers and rapers would be killed and justice would be brought to the family and/or the victim.
Simoneaumsc2014

Con

Justice may be brought to the family and/or the victim, but what about the family of the person being put to death. By having the death penalty we only move the grievances from one family to another. Retribution is just another word for revenge, and the desire for revenge is one of the lowest human emotions. To kill the person who has killed someone close to you is simply to continue the cycle of violence which ultimately destroys the avenger as well as the offender. Also, requiring physicians to participate in executions violates their oath to protect lives and erodes public confidence in the medical profession. A physician is a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life.The use of a physician's clinical skill and judgment for purposes other than promoting an individual's health and welfare undermines a basic ethical foundation of medicine.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LaceMSC2014 3 years ago
LaceMSC2014
Whether sitting in a cell is worse than just dying, the topic that I think is the most important is the money that is involved in keeping a prisoner in a cell. The tax payers money goes to housing and feeding the prisoners that are in a jail. We waste our money keeping the rapists and murderers in jail (most of whom live comfortably with 3 hot meals a day and can go to a library etc.) while the tax payers go broke. I see this as completely unfair. Innocent citizens shouldn't have to have trouble sustaining life in their household while they pay for criminals to live comfortably. A shot to the arm is cheaper than keeping them in a cell. Disregard "human rights" when the person you're putting on the death penalty took away someone else's rights.
Posted by thomsonmsc2014 3 years ago
thomsonmsc2014
I didn't mean to forfeit, I just took to long to respond and it made me forfeit
Posted by BurnsMSC2014 3 years ago
BurnsMSC2014
The death penalty is morally wrong. This is just an eye for an eye idea, which Ghandi commented on: "An eye for an eye makes the world go blind".
Posted by cummingsmsc2014 3 years ago
cummingsmsc2014
If feel that the death penalty is the easy way out as well. I feel that sitting in jail for life is much worse for the criminal that is. They can have their time and think about their wrong doings in jail rather than just getting the easy way out and going nigh night.
Posted by Blaismsc2014 3 years ago
Blaismsc2014
You see ladies, the death penalty is an easy way out. There is nothing worse than sitting in a cell doing nothing for the rest of your life and the only thing you have is regret. Regret hurts more than anything. The pain of the death penalty is nothing compared to the pain of the families of the victim or victims who suffered. Make the jerk sit in a corner like your parents did when you talked back to them. Deuces.
Posted by Shaikhlymsc2014 3 years ago
Shaikhlymsc2014
Con had a much more convincing argument and did not have to forfeit. Step up your game pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.