The Death Penalty for It or Against it???
Debate Rounds (2)
Death penalty serves justice to victims, if a criminals knows he will be executed before commit crime thus there is a better chance that he will not commit the crime in the first place. It will create a ultimate warning against all serious crimes.
Research found that capital punishment is totally no effect on danger criminals , as they did not fear of being hold capital even if its for life because they know that the law is going to take care of their welfare and protect them even if they being hold for life. Criminals greatest fear are being death penalty, just as human fear most dead.
we are not talking about small matter crime , we talking about serious criminal,
serious criminal who are like El Chapo , he a Mexican drug lord , totally no fear of capital punishment., he know law will not have death penalty on him and he is able to make his escape from the most highly secure prison by making corruption as he is powerful networked and mult-billionairs . He make his money from many "innocent" people who pay for his debt by death and suffering.
should we stop people like him or let him carry on ? a men who not fear of capital punishment , able to make his escape from the most highly secure prison. How much suffering did he created?
Death penalty is a must to stop serious criminal, those criminal know there a loot in law because of human like us, they making us of our kindness and taken advantage on us and the law. Instead of being repent, they repeat to hurt others .
Now I'm not saying that happens in every case but for that to happen more than once can be said that there is a reoccurring error in the death penalty aspect.
I can assume that you would want the person who is on death penalty, to pay for the crime fast and be put to death fast. However that isn't the case the average death penalty case last up to about 10+ years . Which doesn't look so harmless except that the cost for one case can be up to a high of 10million which is ridiculous. It would be cheaper for the state to place the prisoner in life without parole. The average annual cost is $30,000 it would be cheaper.
This should be looked at a incapacitation aspect as a pose to Just Deserts in the long run it would be cheaper for states.
Crime will happen no matter what. Even if you say the death penalty would be a deterence, that is not true at all crime no matter what is high the recidivism rate is at a 65%.
Let me explain ,law is to ensure that justice and order is being make, if a countries are not firm on putting strong law, society would break down. will putting a strong law reduce crime compare to a relaxed law?
just a point etc, if raping
someone verdict reduced to only 1day max in prison compare to 100years max, what will happen will when u relaxed the law ? explain to me with your 65% logic.
this logic is same as death penalty, again im talking about death penalty on serious criminal, such as drug lord.
investigation will be carry out by official to find proof before verdict are being make by law, they will get their hands on every piece of evidence they can, with such modem day now , using method with science such as DNA evidence , evidence is almost 100% .
planning fool-play which shift crime of the blame to others, will be another topic to carry on... this will be the job of investigation group,which is also not linked to our topic.
you have also confused yourself with "penalty" and "cost" ,
first of all justice have to be serve for no matter amount of cost, a society cannot survive without fairness , never mix with money and justice for verdict , it will go all way wrong .
if you really have to compare, compare it with the highly secure prison , it will cost much more than you could think of.
overall, justice must be hold strong and firm, a strong law will protect everyone,outcome of a verdict must not be mixed with money issues. cost must never be the main factor that contributes to a verdict result.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had larger, more detailed arguments, Con had a decent argument.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.