The Instigator
tucker21492
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
jenna41192
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,221 times Debate No: 23464
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

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
tucker21492

Pro

Yes, it is true that there have been cases in our nations past where people have been wrongfully accused of a crime. However the chance of that happening is extremely low, especially today in a world of such technical and scientific achievements. The vast majority of people in jail, deserve to be punished. There is a reason that someone who commits a misdemeanor pays a ticket, or spends a day or two in jail. Everyone can agree that murderers and thieves, should be punished more severely. The death penalty is something that our country needs. The overpopulation of jails in this country is becoming progressively worse. Most of these criminals come from low-income neighborhoods and in many cases, poverty. Jail is often a huge step up in the world. It can provide them with amenities that they do not experience daily. Some of these people have no food to eat at home, and are now provided with steady meals, shelter, television, recreation and the opportunity to socialize. As taxpayers, it is not our duty to pay for these murderers to sit back and relax. It is our duty, as a nation, to serve justice. Why spend money sustaining the lives of these criminals who have no regard for human life? We are better off ridding our prisons, and our world of these individuals.
jenna41192

Con

Actually, we are just finding out about the high occurrence of false testimonies, so who are you to say that our scientific and technological advancements are up to speed with such highly complicated cases? Criminals have every right to be punished. No one committing a crime should be let off easy. Killing these people is letting them off easy. Jail time is not the easy way out. You make it seem like jail is a haven for criminals in poverty. Jail requires that you share a cell with a stranger, you must do recreational work outside for long hours, you get meals which consist mainly of bread and water, and you're basically wasting away behind bars. It's slow torture. What better way to punish someone then letting them waste away their life, slowly and painfully, behind bars? In fact, most criminals would actually prefer the death penalty over jail. This just goes to prove that the death penalty isn't a true way to kill off criminals and thieves. In all honestly, justice is being served either way the government decides to punish these people. Jail just seems to more humane, and practical, thing to do.
Debate Round No. 4
tucker21492

Pro

You have done nothing but prove my point that these individuals have a total disregard for human life. If they would prefer death over jail, then they truly do not see the value in life. Jail, whether you agree or not, can give these people things that they did not get at home, or living on the streets; it gives them stability, routine and guidance. The death penalty is something that has worked for us in the past and could continue to today. We life in a fearless society in which criminals are not afraid of the law. Our youth have too many chances to fail in modern society, and they need to see that there are serious and fatal consequences to their future actions. They could use a little fear in their lives; as could all Americans. The bottom line, is that jailing isn't doing enough; we need something bigger and with more impact. Death can be a serious threat to those who have not committed crimes and are afraid, and can also be something that those who do not value life have had coming to them. Killing someone is a crime that can not be taken lightly; murderers should not be lumped in the same category as those who commit white collar crimes, nor should they suffer in the same way. The bottom line is that the death penalty should be nationally legalized in the United States of America.
jenna41192

Con

First off, you make a good point stating that murderers do not have a regard for human life. But does the government, in that case, if we are continuously sending people for the death penalty? It's hypocrisy, like I mentioned earlier. Also, if citizens weren't afraid of the law, way more crime rates would be occurring than what is happening in today's society. You're undermining the American Justice System that has been in place for hundreds of years. These people committing the crimes are not afraid of the law, or it's consequences, which is why they endure in such behavior to begin with. Implementing the death penalty will only cause even more turmoil in our justice system. Scaring Americans isn't a good way to make sure our society stays safe. Fear can ruin a society, as is what's happened throughout most of history. Think of the emotional stresses that are placed on the victims family members and friends if you sentence them to the death penalty. Fighting fire with fire only creates a bigger fire, and with that statement, I still believe that nationally legalizing the death penalty in America has more cons than pros.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
tucker21492jenna41192Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This vote is bought to you by, Anti Vote Bombers of America. The member know as TAA has officially been added to the black list of death, and should no longer be a problem in approximately three business days. Thank you for your patience.
Vote Placed by TAA 4 years ago
TAA
tucker21492jenna41192Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: the death penalty results in less crime and is more justice than life in prison.