The Instigator
Mopi
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
FantumHeist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Death Penalty for the guilty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Mopi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,018 times Debate No: 61975
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Mopi

Con

Right, I'll be going against why there should be no death penalty for the guilty.

1)Firstly, it goes agaisnt the very law of Right to protection of life, by awarding a person the death penalty, we ourselves are violating the law and a violation of law is not acceptable

2) Its does not teach the guilty anything, if you look at it. The death penalty, the person just dies there is no learning and no going through pain and realizing the mistake they've made, wehreas as prison is a place where they can learn and recover.

These are just 2 of my points, looking forward to go against you. :D
FantumHeist

Pro

Here we go if there was not death penalty there will be convict killer, rapist, pedo's every where do you want to get rape no than rape that guys brain with a deadly electro shock and all cannibals deserve to be killed one less lector I say. all those Nazi's would have been release instead of hung and shot. now tell me do you want criminals who rape, murder, molest and torture for fun in a world of today... NO THEN TELL THAT HOODED MAN TO PULL THE LEVER. and now I'm not insane for saying this now small crime like theft and thing like that death penalty would be unnecessary.
Debate Round No. 1
Mopi

Con

I will chronically rebut all your points one by one show you why they are redundant. All is the sport of debate. :)

1)Looking at the facts, by the first statement you've made saying that there will be no killers, rapists if there is the death penalty, might I bring to your notice that in countries like the Republic Of India, where the death penalty does exist, over 24,023 cases have been registered in 2012 and the number has only been increasing, hence you point is redundant.

2) I hope you do realize, in first argument in round 1, I've stated that the people who break the law deserve to go to prison, and a prison is a place where they can learn through their mistake, you've stated " rape that guys brain with a deadly electro shock ", I hope to clear your misconception that electro shock is a method of torture and we're currently talking about death penalty by hanging a person. To also correct you saying that torture is illegal. In 1948, following the horrific abuses of World War II, the General Assembly of the United Nations inserted the prohibition against torture in the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5 states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This ban on torture and other ill-treatment has subsequently been incorporated into the extensive network of international and regional human rights treaties. It is contained in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by 153 countries. So your point is again redundant as torture is illegal and killing someone by torturing is an offence.

3) You've referred the word cannibal and asked them to be killed. I hope you do know that this is practised in the tribal zones and its a system in the tribes and that governments do not have a say in that. And asking for them to be killed without them committing any offense is a violation of the right to life, so your point in redundant. As to ask for someone to be killed is highly condemnable.

4) Your point on the Nazis is redundant as we're talking about present world scenario, where there are laws firmly established. Nazis being hanged is after the World War 2 for the guilty to be hanged. But that was then. When there was no law and order. We are talking about present day whether is should exist even after all the laws have been laid down.

5) You also can't generalize that all the criminal who rape, do murder are doing it for "fun" as you stated. The Nazis did it because they believed the Jews were an unpure race

6) Also your last point is again highly not valid because people are not given the death penalty anyhow by committing petty crimes like theft, its usually a short imprisonment.

So I hence stand by that there is no use of the death penalty, everyone deserves a second chance to live. By implementing the death penalty will be a violation of law in our part which is incorrect. The prison is the hell on earth and is worse than a death punishment. Thank you.
FantumHeist

Pro

My point is do we really want criminals of the highest degree to be in the world where kids grow up if we don't stop these insane and mentally ill criminals they will shape the youth of the world so I say teach them serious crime is wrong like murder by killing the criminal scum. And maybe the family of the criminal will learn not to put another sick and mentally ill seed on the earth again and maybe more people will learn and kid's will be safe from crime and they will not be shaped to be a criminal
Debate Round No. 2
Mopi

Con

I will again chronically rebut all your points one by one show you why they are redundant

1) You've in your first line mentioned on whether we want criminals living in our society! the criminals who've committed grave crimes. OF COURSE WE DON'T!, that's why I have clearly stated, the law breakers deserve a punishment and that punishment is not the death penalty but it is imprisonment. So the first one is redundant as you haven't stated the punishment for the people. And I'm just saying the punishment shouldn't be the death penalty.

2) And it is highly incorrect on how you blatantly stated every family has a role to play in their children becoming a criminal. You can't generalize like that. That point can't be even considered as it is a fallacy

3) You also stated more people will learn if there was the death penalty. But let me prove you wrong here by taking the example of the states who implemented the death penalty in around 33 states I guess. Now before the implementation of the penalty, the crime rates were very high, over 12,000 registered. And after thee penalty was implemented, there was no reduction in the crime rate! so your point is not valid as the fear in most of the criminals is gone. In fact most criminals are ready to die after committing a crime than rather go to prison. So by giving him the death sentence is giving him the ticket to heave. But by giving him a life imprisonment, well that's the punishment.

So having proved your points in your last argument are also redundant, I strongly stand against the death penalty. I would like to conclude saying, a second chance is a must.
FantumHeist

Pro

Crime does not pay actually it does it pay's with your life no more criminals of the highest degree a world where are afraid to commit a crime now a perfect world that sounds great almost a paradise all we need is a social cleansing am I crazy for saying we need that of course not the crazy ones are the criminals the one's that need to be put down like a cow at a slaughter house hell people can even pay to see it would be great
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Spedman
Those prisoners you speak of never murdered anyone. Nelson Mandela was a prisoner, but he never murdered anyone. Martin Luther King Jr. was a prisoner yet he never murdered anyone. I am not talking about people who have stolen and cheated because they deserve a second chance. A first-degree murderer should always be executed because they felt the need to take the life of another human being without remorse or conscience. The reason we give them a few years in prison is to give him the chance to reflect on his wrongs. To give him the chance to make the arrangements to atone for the terrible thing they did. Some are seeking to shorten those years because many say it is cruel to make someone wait that long for their death. I have a nephew who robbed a store once and spent three years in prison. He came out a much better man, and he has committed no crime since his imprisonment.
However, HE WAS NOT A MURDERER. I believe a thief should be able to get a second chance, but a murderer should not because the person they killed doesn't get a second chance. The death penalty is for those who saw fit to take the life of an innocent and therefore they must pay with their life. You are making it seem as if the death penalty executes anyone who commits a crime. It is for those monstrous enough to kill an innocent human being in cold blood.
Posted by Mopi 2 years ago
Mopi
See Spedman, the point is give people another chance? in your logic lets say people do get a jail time for 10 years before death penalty, that the actual waster of resource, why give a person food, water, bedding when you're going to kill him any way? it'll be a logical fallcie considering you've said its a "Waste" . Also, prison is not only a place where they see their mistake its also a rehabilitation zone so they can be re- integrated into society. There also loads of prisoners who've come out of jail and have changed the world. Of course the family will go through pain, but there no need for a death of another citizen, even the criminal will have a family. A life imprisonment make more sense. Its not about the emotion and sentiment here. Its about the law and sticking to it.
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Spedman
You do know they serve jail time before execution, right? They serve at least ten years before execution. That gives them plenty of time to think. As for serving jail time. Exactly how many murderers and rapists actually feel remorse for the crimes they have committed. The only they will feel REAL remorse is if they are sentenced to death because now they will have to pay with their life for the crime they committed. That is the ultimate lesson you can learn from a terrible decision that took the life of an innocent human being who was trying to live their life. Who most likely had a family that loved them dearly and they will never see them on this Earth ever again. Fathers, Mothers, Husbands, Wives, Sons, Daughters, and Close Friends. The pain those people suffered only to see a murderer who killed their loved ones to get a life-time of free food and bedding paid by them while having a nasty smirk on their face. You have no idea the amount of suffering the victims and their families went through. It should only be appropriate that they get the satisfaction that this murderer paid with his life for the killing of their loved ones. That is real justice, not letting someone have a life-time vacation at a strictly run hotel.
Posted by Mopi 2 years ago
Mopi
Okay, so spedman. It is true that it might bring a little sense of fear in people. But that was long gone. A survey proved that criminals are willing to committee a mistake and go for the death penalty than go to prison. So that clear implies that giving a prisoner a death sentence is helping him go through no pain, no learning. But the prison is where he will face his difficulties of not being a part of the outside world. In the case of Texas, the crimes have reduced, but not significantly. There also a lot of other places where the implementation of the death penalty has caused no difference in the rate of crimes. So we have to take a larger case. And there is no point in killing some one after they've committed a crime. Its time for them to serve behind bars.
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Spedman
It is common sense MyDinosaurHands. There is a significant amount of crime in Illinois vs Texas. Illinois has a lot of crime and they don't have the death penalty. Texas strictly enforces it death penalty and they don't have a lot of crime.
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Spedman
I never said I was going Con. I was addressing Con hence the comma I put after it.
Posted by Mopi 2 years ago
Mopi
Spedman, you're mistaken. You're going for or "pro" on this topic, you've stated you're going Con. :P
Posted by Mopi 2 years ago
Mopi
Thank you Ragnar, it is my first debate. This is fun! :D
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Spedman, could you show me where you got that statistic? Because all the evidence I've seen points to a slight correlation towards states where CP is banned having less crime.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Pro's rant was godly, IDGAF.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
MopiFantumHeistTied
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: pro failed to show that prisons are more effective than the death penalty.
Vote Placed by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
MopiFantumHeistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I had trouble following Pro's short arguments due to bad grammar and punctuation. Con presented a reason to use prison instead of the death penalty. Pro argued that the death penalty removes them from society, but Pro failed to address Con's position that prison has the same effect.