The Instigator
superkamal26
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnnyC
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

There should be a death penalty for murderers

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 5 votes the winner is...
JohnnyC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,679 times Debate No: 29091
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

superkamal26

Pro

There should be a death penalty for murderers to deter future murders. The death penalty would deter some future murders because some people who want to commit murder won't do it because they know that they will get killed if they do so. Studies have shown that it deters crime. Most criminals don't want to die. The death penalty should be done in a painful, harsh way so that it would be more likely to deter crime. Some People will be scared to commit murder if the death penalty is done by getting shot with a gun.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
JohnnyC

Con

I should let you know that I believe that life is far to valuable to be wasted and there are additionally another number of reasons why I am against Capital Punishment:

Murderers could be rehabilitated:
Although there will always be some people who might carry on with murder after being released from prison, killing those who would be rehabilitated would be an unnecessary loss of life which would no longer be a lethal threat to others.

There are other ways to lower murder rates:
Firstly, attempting to deter people from murder by killing those who do would not stop psychopaths, people who are willing to die for their murder or those who think that they can get away with the crime. Things like teaching moral values to children from a young age or teaching the value of life may work better as it gives someone a real conviction to be against murder rather than just fear. Furthermore, legal changes such as the prohibition of arms could and has worked to lower crime rates.

Other punishments could be more productive:
Killing someone as a punishment doesn't really solve much - they are taught nothing by it. Making their death painful as a punishment is simply inhumane. On the premise that they need to be punished (which is morally debatable), perhaps something along the lines of mental and psychological punishment would achieve something more than ceasing their entity.

Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:
On the face of it, this may sound strange but I will explain with examples: manslaughter where the death is accidental; being forced by something to murder; being involved in circumstances where if one does not murder, something worse may happen etc.
Debate Round No. 1
superkamal26

Pro

Let me rebut each of your arguments one by one. The arguments you stated are in bold.

Murderers could be rehabilitated:
The death penalty does not cause an unnessesary loss of life. It kills criminals who killled innocent people. The murder victim's family would most likely want the murderer to get killed. Murderers should not have the right to live because they took away someone's life. The murder victim could have had a bright future and done good things for society if the victim didn't get killled. Therefore murderers deserve to get the death penalty.

There are other ways to lower murder rates:
Sure there are other ways to lower murder rates but the death penalty is one of the ways to do it. You're right that a lot potential murderers will still commit murder even if there is a death penalty but some won't commit murder. Some murderers care about the punishment. Not all murderers are pyschopaths or willing to die. You can't expect all potential murderers to still commit murder when there's a death penalty for doing it. If some potential murderers don't commit murder than the murder rate will go down. Teaching moral values to children may prevent them from commiting murder but adults should also be detered from commiting murder by having a harsher punishment for doing it.

Other punishments could be more productive:
The only other punishment that is as productive as the death penalty is solitary confinement for many years. Solitary confinement is also a really harsh punishment and would deter crime as well. Just putting murderers in prison is not the right punishment for them because it's not as bad as what the murderer did to the person.

Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:
If a person kills someone by accident or for self defense then that person should not get a punishment. The person would go court and be investigated but would most likely not get a punishment. This is not a good argument because there's no way that a person should get the death penalty for killing someone accidentally or for self defense. The death penalty should be given to people who commit murder intentionally and to take away someone's life.
JohnnyC

Con

Time for me to rebut what you rebutted...

Murderers could be rehabilitated:

We seem to disagree on the matter that anyone who kills deserves death - I would say, in the words of Ghandi, "An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind." Families of the victim would want the murderer dead but that would be from an emotional point rather than a logical one. I think that they deserve another chance. And suppose someone was falsely accused of murder? Then they would get the death penalty which they did not deserve.

There are other ways to lower murder rates and other punishment could be more effective:
Teaching moral values would be far more effective. It would not only stop people from killing, it would make them realise that it is wrong. 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. Solitary confinement is unnecessary in the case of a murder but so is the death penalty. I believe that the value of one life is far too important to be taken away just to get even.

Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:
We seem to agree that at east the death penalty should not happen when it is by accident or in self defense. But what if the court didn't believe that it was this way?


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Debate Round No. 2
superkamal26

Pro

Let me respond to your rebuttal one by one

Murderers could be rehabilitated:
An eye for an eye is a good policy for murderers. They deserve to lose their life because they killed innocent people. If murderers get a second chance than most potential murderers will still commit murder. Giving murderers a second chance does not deter future murders. If murderers get a second chance than some of them might commit murder after they get out of prison. Some people do commit a crime again after they get out of prison. The government shouldn't take the risk of that happening. The government should keep inncocent people safe by making sure that murderers lose their life instead of getting a second chance. The government should only use the death penalty when there is clear evidence of murder. This way innocent people will not get the death penalty.


There are other ways to lower murder rates and other punishment could be more effective:
I agree that teaching moral values will prevent people from commiting murder but that's not the only way to do it. The government should also prevent people from commiting murder by making the punishment is a lot worse. There are studies that show that the death penalty deters future murders. The studies are described in this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com... the death penaty may not have an effect on the murder rate but abolishing it would not deter future murders. If the death penalty is done in a painful way than it will deter murder by even more because more people will be scared to commit murder. Why would anyone want to get killled in a painful way? The way they should use the death penalty is by shooting the murderer with a gun. The key to lowering the murder rate is teaching moral values and scaring potential murderers by using harsher punishments.


Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:
If the court is not sure if the murder happned by accident, for self defense or intentionally than they should not give the defendant a punishment. The court should get clear evidence and find out if the muder happened intentionally or not before they give the defendant a punishment.

Conclusion:
It was a pleasure having this debate with you. The voters will vote for the person that did a better job debating. Good Luck on your last chance to argue.

JohnnyC

Con

An eye for an eye:
I don't believe in an eye for an eye. If one keeps fighting in the name of vengeance then others will needlessly suffer and there will be no peace. The concept is more from an emotional point of revenge. Some might commit murder after being released from prison but many won't and having a system of capital punishment will kill more than it saves. I don't believe that someone deserves death for killing another.

There are other ways to lower murder rates and other punishment could be more effective:
How could one teach moral values by shooting someone for their wrong-doing? I think that we have a different idea of moral values. Unfortunately the hyperlink didn't open for me so I couldn't see what it said.

Murderers could have killed without intention of destruction:
I agree that no one should be sentenced until conclusive evidence is found but a trial cannot go on forever. On many occasions the person is sentenced before proved guilty because their trial would last too long.

Conclusion:
It was also a pleasure for me to debate with you. Ultimately I believe that life is too precious to take away even if it caused the destruction of another.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Faithhfambroo 2 years ago
Faithhfambroo
If all murderers should be sentenced to the death penalty.. Is it fair for a driver who slid on ice ,crashed and killed someone to be sentenced to death for an accident?
Posted by goulart 4 years ago
goulart
It is an obligation from the State do protect every single one of it's citizens, taking away someone's life is not just a controversy of the State's obligations, but is also a disrespect to mankind. Death penalty is not a solution for the future, we have to prevent the murder, and not kill the murderer
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
superkamal26JohnnyCTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Call me biased, but this line did Pro in: "The death penalty should be done in a painful, harsh way" Yea, I just skimmed over the rest of the debate after that. Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
superkamal26JohnnyCTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe if someone murders someone then, how is it justice for gov to kill the killer, which makes the gov now the killer that should bring him death, then it just keeps on going and going, with no peace.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
superkamal26JohnnyCTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In my younger years, I was pro death penalty. As I near midlife, I've begun to understand that the death penalty is not punishment but vengeance. Vengeance has no place in civilized society. But now to the reason for my voting. Both sides did a great job presenting their cases. Each cited the same number of reliable sources in the course of the debate (1), and each had comparable spelling and grammar. Neither lost conduct points for anything. But con had the more convincing arguments by a slight margin, so that vote goes to Con.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
superkamal26JohnnyCTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides have some moral high ground. One argues for justice. One argues for Gandhi. Pro's sources show that the death penalty saves lives. Con's sources are a direct response, picking apart Pro's studies and showing top ASC criminologists favor life sentences. I felt that deserved a reply, and Pro's subsequent link was non-functional. The sources were very important in this debate, and and award them to Con. Pro did not prove the death penalty is a greater deterrant than life in prison. Among side considerations: (1) I agreed that whether other methods such as better childhood education was effective was irrelevant to this debate; (2) Con's study advocated life sentences not rehabilitation, and (3) I agreed the death penalty makes correcting bad sentences much harder.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
superkamal26JohnnyCTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Con, Pro had a few grammatical errors that should not have occurred. Pro refuted his position by stating that "the death penaty[sic] may not have an effect on the murder rate[...]". Pro went on to claim that a painful death, such as a gunshot, would deter future murders; this grandiose claim was made with no evidence supporting it, frankly it is a frighteningly archaic notion. Pro's 1st link criticized the conclusions supporting capital punishment as lacking required data, 2nd link was dead thus Con received sources.