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

Should we abolish 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: 12/3/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,108 times Debate No: 66311
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I myself will be arguing that the death penalty should not be abolished and should be continued, First round is for acceptance.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


First off lets define Death Penalty: (A sentence or punishment of death by execution.)

The death penalty should be used for "cruel& unusual" crimes, serial killers and the string of cops that seem to keep murdering their girlfriends/wives, when there is no doubt as to their guilt. It's not about wanting to "get back" at someone or even deterring others, it's about protecting our society specifically from that person and not wasting our precious tax dollars on someone who can't be released or rehabilitated.
Yes, you could argue that the punishment itself is cruel & unusual, but in some cases, it is a necessary evil.
The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don"t.While the death penalty should be maintained, it is important that stipulations be made on how it is implemented. Many people wonder if victims and their families should have any say in whether or not prosecutors seek the death penalty. In the Holmes case, Arapahoe County District Attorney George Brauchler personally talked to 60 family members of the Aurora victims and his office as a whole reached out to about 800 relatives of the victims in order to help them make this decision. It is my personal opinion that victims and those related to victims in any way should not have a say, because then you are dealing with vengeance, not justice. Once that line is crossed, it is not fair to say that someone should be put to death because it is not decided by an unbiased, unrelated third party.



I will jump straight to the debate.

C1) A single death sentence is very expensive

"The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.)"[1]

You really have to think about this one; three million per death sentence? That is a huge waste in tax dollars. Now, tax dollars may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is.

This is something for everyone to take in mind, including kids; Everyone will grow up to a point where money will be a big concern. The huge waste in tax dollars can result in the raise of taxes. Of course the U.S. government wants to become a top-rating country. All countries' governments do, and if that is something you are against, maybe because of taxes, you can not do anything about it. So, they will raise taxes if they need to.

Now, you may be asking, "Why do they even need taxes in the first place?" Taxes are what pay for street projects, building projects, etc. Basically, taxes pay to improve the U.S. And these improvements are what is going to get the U.S. going.

C2) Inmates can be executed by mistake, and execution can not be reversed.

"Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made"[2]

This is a pretty big one. This is stated my many, including me, that are in opposition to the concept of the death penalty. Inmates can be executed by mistake. In fact, very many innocent people that were not capable of proving it were sentenced to death[3].

C3) The detterent value of the death penalty has not yet been proven.

Some of death penalty's advocates claim that it is a detterent to all crime. However, as recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, "there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty."[4]

There not only is no conclusive evidence to its detterent value, but you would think that criminals know that their lives are over, thus they make the last of it by commiting more crimes while they can. The execution goes by in a snap.

This contention is agreed upon by my opponent, so there is no need in responding to this one.

Now, my opponent defines death penalty as the penalty of death given to those who have commited serious crimes, such as killing, but with no doubt of their guilt. We normally do not go by it as that; we typically think that people are sentenced to death even with a bit of doubt of their guilt. My opponent should know this, so it should have been defined in the first round.

Someone who is against death penalty may agree with the concept IF it is only given when there is no doubt of the criminal's guilt. Therefore, in this debate, you must go by the typical definition, and if reinstated, you must define death penalty.

Now, I will refute my opponent's argument.

C1) It ensures that that person can not come back at us.

My opponent knows that with the death penalty at hand, those criminals whom have commited serious crimes can not escape prison and get back at us. However, as I said, we must go by the typical definition of death penalty. So, thinking about the contentions I have presented against the death penalty, we must say that the cons outnumber the benefits.

Also, prisoners do not escape often. The percentage of prisoners whom escape in a year ranges from 1% to less than 5%, which is ridiculous[5]. The further proves my point about the cons of death penalty outnumbering the pros.

I now return the floor to con. I would like to see if he will be able to refute my arguments. Good luck to him!






Debate Round No. 2


"One reason often cited for supporting the death penalty is retribution. This reason goes back to the old biblical concept of "an eye for an eye." Many people feel that execution is a natural human response to the crime of murder. The rationale is that, if the defendant has taken a life, then the defendant's life should be taken. "
(The cost may be extremely high, but is it worth it? yes. Is money more important than saving innocent people no. The death penalty is the only way to keep criminals and serial killers off of the street

it has been proved that keeping inmates in prison they're whole life's is very expensive, when keeping all criminals for a life sentence in prison, the prison gets filled very quickly because of the criminal statistic rates. When this happens the government must let out these prisoners because they have no more room for them. Then these prisoners go back onto the street as usually, and most likely repeat what they have done. "WASHINGTON " Mississippi is a tough-on-crime state, and in 1995, like many tough-on-crime states, it approved a version of "truth in sentencing" " a popular law requiring inmates to serve at least 85 percent of their prison terms before they could be considered for parole. More than half the states have similar laws on the books. Mississippi, however, changed course two years ago. Responding to budget constraints and a surge in its prison population " from about 12,000 inmates in 1995 to more than 22,000 in 2008 " lawmakers revisited truth in sentencing." In cases like this, they must let prisoners go free due to the excessive rate of inmates, which is why the death penalty is a good thing, so the inmates aren't able to go back on the streets and commit more crimes

"Throughout history, statistics have proved that Capital

Punishment or otherwise known as the death penalty, has been

an effective deterrent of major crime. Capital Punishment is the

lawful infliction of death among criminals and has been used to

punish a wide variety of offenses for many years all over the

world (Bedau 16). When the death penalty is enforced, it shows

society that committing a capital crime has deadly consequences.

In early times, many methods of Capital Punishment were

used to deter a variety of crimes. For over a century, the uniform

method for executing persons in America was hanging, although

starvation was very common also. There were exceptions which

included spies, traitors, and deserters who would face a firing

squad. Then in 1888, New York directed the construction of an

'electric chair' (Flanders 11). It was believed that the new

harnessed power of electricity would prove to be a more scientific

and humane means of execution. The first electrocution took place"
Showing that there will be a big and deadly punishment based on a persons crime, will make them more likely think about the effect of what they do.

It rarely happens that someone is wrongly convicted. But most times if they were executed my accident, they had something to do with the crime or another crime.
""Irrefutable DNA evidence has exonerated some 15 death-row inmates and almost 200 other men convicted of murder or rape, mostly since the late 1990s. This DNA-evidence revolution, along with non-DNA evidence proving the innocence of a great many more condemned men and other prisoners, has alerted many who support the death penalty in principle to the fallibility of the criminal-justice system and the risk of executing innocent people."

Your turn con:)



I will have to concede; I recently got accepted to one of the biggest jobs I can ever think of joining. I know this is very disrespectful to my opponent on my part, and I am very sorry for that. Get angry at me all you want, but it won't change.

However, this has been a great debate. Thanks to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 3


I don't understand?


RESEARCHPreacher forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Mike01506 2 years ago
By con, I mean the contender - RESEARCHPreacher.
Posted by Mike01506 2 years ago
A good debate, a shame that con couldn't/wouldn't finish though.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.