The Instigator
WestDoggies
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
shadowqueen123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Death Sentence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 88520
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

WestDoggies

Con

Should the Death Sentence, should it be abolished in the United States, join if you think it shouldn't be banned.
shadowqueen123

Pro

The death penalty is currently is currently legal in only 32 states is America. This debate, I assume, will be regarding whether or not the sentence should remain in place in these states or be abolished altogether.

I will be debating that the death penalty should not be abolished, and remain in place in the states that currently allow it. I look forward to a good debate,
Debate Round No. 1
WestDoggies

Con

OK, I think that the death penalty should be abolished. The death penalty is a punishment given in 32 states in the U.S. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming. The death penalty is given to people who unlawfully kill someone else (murder, or, assassination). I do not think that it is right to end two lives because one was already ended by another individual. As President Obama said at the start of the year, "the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness", should indeed be stripped of the murderers, but, not their life. Again President Obama stressed that 30,000 Americans have their lives ended by a bullet from a gun. If 30,000 killers ended other's lives, then 60,000 people would be killed each year due to gun incidents. That's a lot! And I know that would be over all fifty states, but it gives the basic idea. That is my first argument!
shadowqueen123

Pro

I shall begin by addressing my opponent's points.

"The death penalty is given to people who unlawfully kill someone else (murder, or, assassination)"

Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty is not given to every murderer, as that would both be a strain on public resources and rather unethical. The drunk driver who slams into another car and kills the driver, the wife who snaps and murders her abusive husband, and the serial killer who mutilates and rapes his victims could all be considered 'murderers', but only one would be considered for the death penalty. Under Federal law, only first-degree murder, which is intentional murder with premeditation and forethought, can be issued the death penalty.

"I do not think that it is right to end two lives because one was already ended by another individual."

As explained above, the death penalty conviction is not as simple as taking a life because they took another's life. The conviction explores both the crime, the motives of the murderer, and the afterthought.

The crime itself is explored. Both a slash across the jugular vein and repeated stabbings to the chest area and mutilation of the victim are methods of murder. However, they reveal different information about the killer. The identity of the victim, the murder weapon, and immediate action following the murder reveal facts about the killer.

Premeditation and willful murder is the primary factor in issuing the death penalty. Those on death row plan their murders. They fully intend to take lives when they commit the act, and are fully aware of what they are doing. In many cases, murder is gratification to them. The taking of lives thrills them. Serial killers such as John Wayne Gacy admit to a degree of sexual excitation when they murder their victims, and the rest that follow the first kill are the killer's way of recapturing that satisfaction.

The afterthought of these murderers is not regret. Given the chance, these people would be highly likely to commit more crimes. They operate under a different moral spectrum, and their sense of remorse is impacted because of it. That is if they feel remorse at all. Serial killers often have antisocial personality disorder, which prevents them from feeling remorse at all.

The death penalty is issued to murderers who have violated the basic human rights, feel no remorse for it, and have no opportunity for change or rehabilitation. Often times, these people are murderers of multiple victims. Gary Ridgway, the "Green River Killer", confessed to 71 but may have had over 90 victims. Had he not been caught, he would have been likely to continue killing. He ended a multitude of lives. To maintain that he still has a right to his own is grossly unfair to his victims and their families.

"the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The United States Declaration of Independence states as the inalienable rights that everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Killers take all three of those from their victims. You may argue that they still have a right to their own lives, but what of their victims? Their rights were so brutally taken from them. If the commo thief should pay for violating the rights of people to their own property, then should a murderer not have to pay for violating the most important right of all?

The death penalty has long been a controversial issue. Con has chosen to argue the ethics of the topic, so that is what I shall focus on as well.

1) The murderers who end up on death row are not the people who commit crimes of passion or involuntary manslaughter. These are some of the darkest and sickest people in society. These are serial killers, rapists, torturers, mutilators, and severely disturbed individuals. They are dangers to society. No one in their right mind would allow these people to continue to practice killing among citizens.

2) Some will argue that perhaps life sentence or rehabilitation would better serve these individuals. Those who are issued e death penalty often exhibit antisocial personality tendencies. They feel next to no remorse for their actions. Change is impossible when one does not recognize that a problem exists in the first place. Babies do not try to quiet their crying so they do not wake their parents or the neighbours. Why? Because at their age, they lack an understanding that others have feelings too. As they grow older, this understanding is clearer. Serial killers lack the remorse to understand the fault of their actions and the empathy to attempt to understand it. How does someone rehabilitate a person who will never understand why they need to change?

This was a lot longer than I thought it would be. I look forward to your reply.
Debate Round No. 2
WestDoggies

Con

WestDoggies forfeited this round.
shadowqueen123

Pro

shadowqueen123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
WestDoggies

Con

WestDoggies forfeited this round.
shadowqueen123

Pro

shadowqueen123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
WestDoggies

Con

WestDoggies forfeited this round.
shadowqueen123

Pro

shadowqueen123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Why it is the death penalty opponents never speak of justice?
No votes have been placed for this debate.