The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

The death permanently needs to be completely removed.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 875 times Debate No: 43387
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Death Penalty:
Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime

The existence of the death penalty in any society raises one underlying question: have we established our justice systems out of a desire for rehabilitation, or out of a desire for retribution?

People think the death penalty is acceptable maybe because one has taken a life or done terrible crime.
It is strange that a nation would denounce the practice of murder by committing the very same act. By doing so, we"re essentially championing the right to life by taking it from others.
I strongly disagree the death penalty should not be approved of anywhere in the world, taking a life is wrong and the offender will not learn anything for it, how will justice be made if the offender is not alive to understand the full consequences of there actions?

Maybe even torture is probably a better method to make an offender understand right from wrong in extreme cases?

I'm interested in others opinions!


I would like to thank my opponent for a very good resolution and topic.

One of the main things that people overlook when it comes to the death penalty is the issue of fear. The fact that the death penalty exists is fear, when a person is considering a crime they worry about being put on death row. Thus the death penalty is in all reality saving lives because it stops people from committing these crimes. If we where to simply remove the death penalty the crime rates would go up because criminals would not be afraid of the death penalty.

Although I agree with my opponent that taking a life is wrong, it is a necessity because if a criminal is not executed it could result in the deaths of many more. I understand that taking a life is wrong, but when that person has taken the lives of others he has given up his right to life because as a society we can not allow these criminals the ability to get back on the street. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

My opponent stated that the death penalty will not make the offender learn anything, however the point of the death penalty is not for him to learn, it is to keep the masses safe. Often many mob bosses and gang leaders have networks within prison that allows them to communicate with the mob and carry out crime. Because of this even behind bars these people are a threat to society, when a prison can't keep the criminal from carrying out crime then there is no other option.

The point of the death penalty is not to teach them a lesson, the point is to teach future criminals a lesson. When a person wants to kill someone they will think twice when they think about the death penalty. Thus executing someone on death row is doing two things at once, stopping the person from continuing crime and stopping future criminals from partaking in it. It is not an easy decision, but it is a necessary decision.
Debate Round No. 1


Death penalty can be seen as a punishment.

However, if the foreknowledge of any punishment is meant to dissuade the criminal from committing the crime, why do people still murder others? The US had a 2012 murder rate of 4.8 victims per 100,000"meaning that nearly 15,000 people were victims of homicide that year. Capital punishment does not appear to be doing its job; it doesn't seem to be changing every criminal"s mind about killing innocent people. If it does not dissuade, then it serves no purpose. The warning of life in prison without parole must equally dissuade criminals.

This is a scenario that should be followed threw and often is;
So when the child grows up, breaks into a home, and steals electronics, he gets caught and goes to prison. His time in prison is meant to deprive him of the freedom to go where he wants anywhere in the world, and to do what he wants when he wants. This is the punishment, and most people do learn from it. In general, no one wants to go back. But if that child grows up and murders someone for their wallet or just for fun, and they are in turn put to death, they are taught precisely nothing, because they are no longer alive to learn from it. We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing him or her.

You have stated some very good and true points but real hardcore criminals should be put in maximum security prisons were their not allowed any outside communication.


My opponent presented a few statistics on the murder rate in the US. However he has not linked these statistics too the death penalty. Until he can prove that these statistics are not linked to the death penalty these statistics must be overlooked.

Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).
The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.
Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein told the associated that: "If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple, Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

My opponent presented the example of a child who grows up and breaks into a home, gets arrested and does not learn from his mistake and is put in jail. He says that the person is taught nothing from being put to death, however I don't believe he is seeing the purpose of the death penalty. In this situation as he has presented, the person has lost any moral compass, he doesn't know right from wrong and thus is a danger to society. In this case there is no other option but the death penalty, nothing that we can do will teach him morals and thus he is a danger to society. Once again the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the needs of the few.
Debate Round No. 2


CreativeGenius forfeited this round.


Please vote for con for all of the reasons presented
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Logicblock 3 years ago
The instigator currently fails to find a secondary solution to the death penalty. In countries like China where a massive population of criminals exists; continuously sending them to jail is not a viable option.
Posted by legodude123 3 years ago
agree with CON
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Con because he participated in all rounds. Reliable sources for Con because the death penalty isn't used for gross misdemeanors as he claims in round 2. And more convincing arguments for Con based on the Poor Implementation of the death penalty described by pro which is an argument in favor of the death penalty, and Con's adequate representation of recidivism.
Vote Placed by debatinghoe123 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Could have been better, but still it was good. Pro would have won this if he stated on how much the death penalty cost per year. Both had sources, but Con won the debate because of FF in round three