The Instigator
tucker21492
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
jenna41192
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should we nationally legalize the 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...
tucker21492
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,754 times Debate No: 23421
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

tucker21492

Pro

The United States has been in a constant state of turmoil for the past several decades. Crime has evolved and from that there have spawned even more types of criminals. It is easier now, than it has ever been for criminals to commit and get away with crimes, and its time that they are 'scared straight' so to speak. Right now there is not enough of a threat to seriously stop criminals from continuing with their illegal actions. America has become too lax in their disciplinary ways and the criminals do not suffer, the upstanding citizens do. We are the ones who are left to deal with these thieves and murderers who sometimes get out of jail in as little as a couple months. We need to collectively, as a nation, crack down on law and give Americans something to be afraid of. The government and its laws, if not abused, are our friends. When we start abusing them and going against them, we have to be punished. By instituting the death penalty on a national scale we can successfully pull together out country and gain control once again.
jenna41192

Con

Although you argue that the death penalty would be a good way to "scare" criminals from committing such crimes, there is no evidence this is the case. After all, criminals commit the crime knowing there's the possibility of jail or even being arrested, and even though the death penalty is a more serious consequence, it is not one that would solve criminal acts. First of all, it violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. It also costs more to give the death penalty to someone, then to keep them in prison for life. Plus, sentencing a criminal to time in jail is more punishable then a quick killing. Once they are dead, they don't feel anything. Prison can be torture, and torture is good punishment for crimes.
Debate Round No. 1
tucker21492

Pro

Our Bill of Rights does protect us against acts that are cruel and unusual forms of punishment, but what is cruel and unusual about death? 'They' say that there are two things in life you can count on; death and taxes. Death is not something that is cruel or unusual. Everyone dies, and most are afraid of that. By having that threat in front of them, criminals may not be so quick to act on their impulses. The death penalty would grant us, as a country, the ability to move forward in the world. By nationally legalizing this, we could potentially have the lowest crime rate in the world. I find it funny that you mention it is more expensive to kill someone, then keep them in jail for life. What is more important to you? Saving 'big brother' some cash, or bringing justice to criminals, their victims, and the families of victims? The families are the true victims of crimes. They are left to pick up the pieces and restart their lives once again due to the thoughtless actions of one individual. Should we not bring justice to them? Should we not give them the chance to stand proud, and feel safe knowing that this individual can not hurt them or anyone ever again?
jenna41192

Con

Death, of course, is something you can count on. But authorities do not have the right to bring an end to someone's life, whether they are a criminal or not. Killing someone does not guarantee that crime rates in America would decrease. We as a nation have moved past this whole "eye for an eye" punishment, because it didn't work in the past and it most likely won't work today. First off, many people who commit these crimes have serious psychological problems. How are you going to kill someone for being mentally disturbed? What they need is help, not an execution. Second, people sometimes have situations where they committed a crime in an act of defense. Such a case can be stated if a son killed his father in defense that the father was abusing him, or trying to kill him. Sending the son for the death penalty would be wrong in this case. If America were to adopt the death penalty nationally, we would have to implement a series of cases that would be acceptable for using the death penalty, and even then, how do we define those morals? It's complicated. Also, I wouldn't doubt our prisons. If anything, we can establish more prisons and prison guards to help protect the grounds from criminals escaping. Death is not always the answer, it's just the easy way out.
Debate Round No. 2
tucker21492

Pro

I find it ironic that you think an eye for an eye would not work when it is actually just what we need. Why not an eye for an eye? We learn from the time we are toddlers that we treat others as we would want to be treated. If someone treats someone else poorly, or goes so far as to even murder them, they should receive the same kind of treatment. I agree many of these people are mentally disturbed and that needs to be addressed. They are not mentally challenged and unable to care for themselves, they are exactly what you said - DISTURBED. They have issues that are beyond repair; issues that no matter how much counseling or therapy they receive, they will not pull through. When someone is a murdered, they can not just be simply cured of having homicidal tendencies. Yes its complicated to decipher which crimes would be worth of the death penalty, but just because it would require a little extra work, doesn't mean that we should not follow through with it. To achieve something great, you need to put time and effort into it. It is not our duty to define 'said morals'. We could put forth a ballot and by votes, determine which crimes would warrant the death penalty.
jenna41192

Con

To say that these people have issues beyond repair is just an assumption. There is no evidence that this is the case. To base a statement off an assumption just draws a weak conclusion. Also, the death penalty is a serious punishment. With all the psychological circumstances surrounding eye witness testimonies, false testimonies, and misled jury decisions, sometimes we are not sending the right person to jail. There were a couple cases a few years ago where we found multiple people being punished for crimes they did not commit, and this was just jail time. Imagine killing someone for a crime that they were suspected of committing but weren't the actual criminal? Cases like this arise more often than they should. And to answer your previous question "Why not an eye for an eye?", there is a very good reason. We as a nation would look unfavorable to others if we are trying to portray this message of killing people who kill people to show that killing is wrong. It's hypocritical and undermines the whole purpose of the death penalty anyway.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by JusticeBringer125 4 years ago
JusticeBringer125
yes that is sarcasm I know you're using accounts
Posted by JusticeBringer125 4 years ago
JusticeBringer125
Wow totally its so crazy that you debated each other 3 times and with the same stats.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Posted by tucker21492 4 years ago
tucker21492
Haha, Jenna I can't
Posted by jenna41192 4 years ago
jenna41192
you're right, it is. im debating myself...how am i doing?
Posted by SayWhat 4 years ago
SayWhat
For some reason I feel like Pro and Con are the same person, debating himself...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
tucker21492jenna41192Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was self contradicting. First she was like "Death is too cruel" and then she was like "Let's torture them!"