The Death Penalty
Debate Rounds (3)
The death penalty is just plain wrong. Why should the loss of a life result in the death of another? Or in the case of many lives, why should death = death? What is the point of killing someone when they can just spend the rest of their life in prison. I understand the cost of putting someone there but if the state can't afford jails then why put laws in place in the first place?
Additionally, who is it up to to decide what is punishable by death. In some countries it's mass murder, others speaking out against the government, others being gay, and even in some watching Desperate Housewives will get you filed for treason and executed. Who decides what is suitable and why do they have that right?
Let's say the judge decides, in what country is the judicial system without error? As long as the capital punishment persist innocent people will die at the hand of the state. Every court system makes mistakes and after you've killed someone you can't just say, "Opps, jk my bad." It's done. There's no going back.
Now, let's look at what happens when we give the state the right tot kill. The holocaust happened. The state had the right to kill these people and it escalated and no one questioned them because they were allowed to do that. For the record, as soon as the war was won Germany officially banned the death penalty and even refused to try the Nazi war criminals. Now look at Germany, it's a European Power House.
The death penalty is inhumane. In saudi Arabi a person can be publicly stoned to death and it isn't the only country in the world to do that amongst other horrors such as: hanging, electric chair, injections, fire line, etc.. the Universal Declaration of human rights states that no one should be subjected to cruel, tortures or inhumane treatment or punishment. I would say that all of these methods meet the criteria. Some may argue that injections are painless, I say how do you know the physical, let alone the emotional, pain and stress of dying? Did you ask someone? No, because they're dead and can't tell you.
In conclusion the death sentence is morally and politically wrong and should be banished world wide.
source: the universal declaration of human rights (please see article 5) http://www.un.org...
lauren1001 forfeited this round.
For each killing that occurs, 8 possible victims are spared. We can't risk the chance that execution does not save the lives of potential victims.
Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws. If the laws are not strict enough, as the Death Penalty is, it is too enticing for our criminals. Therefore making it easier for criminals to kill. Harsh, severe laws provide an important measure of society's values and morals.
How can the government be "soft on crime"" How can they let others kill innocent people? We have to enforce the Death penalty, because once again, life is the most precious thing one can receive.
You fail to view this on a bigger level, around the world innocent people are killed in countries for nothing more than their sexual orientation and this is viewed as okay or normal there. And in the world 98 countries have completely abolished the death penalty, some of these countries include Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Switzerland and the UK http://www.amnesty.org... Would you say their citizens are out of control because some of the lowest crime rates and homicide rates in the world happen to be in these countries.
The power to kill is just simply not in the hands of the state.
hopefully the voters understand.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.