The Instigator
Aika
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
llama212
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

death penalty should be abolish

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 1 vote the winner is...
Aika
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,585 times Debate No: 31675
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Aika

Con

I think that death penalty is too cruel. In spite of the fact that somebody kills someone it does not matter that our society has rights to kill too. It means that we are murderers too. I believe that istead of death penalty it's better to give them life sentence. Because life without freedom, it is the worst think in our life. Also, we knew such situations were suffered innocent people and it is awful. That's why, before talk about every kind of death penalty, we must think about the meaning and the reason of this punishment.
llama212

Pro

First off I think my opponent has taken the wrong stand and should not be con since your argument is for abolishing the death penalty whereas the con in this debate is not to abolish the death penalty. With that in mind I will debate for the con even though it says I'm for. The death penalty should not be abolished some monsters out their deserve to die simple as that, child murderers, serial killers, terrorists, mass murderers and many other inhuman beings deserve the death penalty. To say that makes us no better than them is a completely false argument because we are stopping a very severe evil. These people who commit these acts worthy of the death sentence aren't human they are remorseless killers and fiends who committed horrendous acts against others. Ending their lives is what they deserve for their actions.
Debate Round No. 1
Aika

Con

Nowadays I know that in our world to exist violent killers are so dangerous and despite the fact the right way for them is life sentence. Moreover the death penalty is the easiest solution to get away from the problems that they have done. Also escape of the solution is not easy to do. Although if it will happen, it's better than death of guiltless person and such of situations was in the world where suffered innocent people. I recommend you to watch the speech of Bryan Stevenson "We need to talk about injustice" on ted.com and after this video I hope that you will think deeply and change your mind in a good way.
llama212

Pro

So say the unthinkable happens and someone you love and care for is viciously killed by someone who had killed before and will kill again, this person gets caught though, are you saying you would rather this person get a life sentence instead of the death penalty? Also say a murderer who was eliglbe for the death penalty but got life instead, while in prison proceeds to kill a guard in cold blood this guard had a family and friends that had this murderer gotten the death penalty instead would not be mourning the loss of a loved one. You say life in prison is worse than death? I know prisons are bad but getting 3 square meals a day a roof over your head and bed that's better than what the homeless and poor get yet these vile people who killed for the sake of killing are getting to live out their lives even though they took the lives of others. Now I'm not saying all murderers deserve the death penalty but there are people out there who commit such atrocious acts of violence they do not deserve to live they are the embodiment of evil that would keep killing until they are dead. These people who deserve to face the death penalty do so not because they made some mistakes in life they do so because they killed innocent people and destroyed families lives.
Debate Round No. 2
Aika

Con

look! Nowadays almost every State in the U.S has life in prison without parole. Moreover, states without death penalty have much lower murder rates. Unlike decades ago, a sentence of life without parole generally means exactly what it says - convicts looked away in prison until they die. Why you do not think about public works instead of giving them death penalty? The most imporant thing of giving those public works instead of giving them death penalty? The most important thing of giving those public works is government will have a benefit. For example some countries work on this system and by this they get benefit from prisoners. Why do we have to kill them when they can do such kind of things? Inspite of the fact we are not lose our humanity too. Many family members who have lost their relatives to murder feel that the death penalty will not heal their wounds nor end their pain, and the extended process prior to executions can prolong the agony experienced by the family. Funds now being used for the costly process of executions could be used to help families put their lives back together through restitution, crime victim hotlines, and other services addressing their needs. Also, when the death penalty is administered by systems and Governments that are sometimes discriminate against the poor, the mentally ill, religious minorities, women and even children it cannot be allowed to continue and must be abolished. Some people are lost forever and in my point of view some murderers and other perverted people will suffer more in jail. that's why, capital punishment is a soft realise!
llama212

Pro

Yet there is the major issue now of overpopulation in prisons in America so certain criminals are being let out due to that issue so people who are in prison for a life sentence with good behaviour and "rehabilitation" they are being released and causing more of a danger to society again. So you're saying we should put these prisoners to work instead? In other words the government gets cheap or free labor while screwing over the little guy and taking away work from the people who actually need the work and money. How is allowing a monster to work helping anyone? Answer? It isn't. Giving them the death penalty is what these inhuman people deserve for the unspeakable crimes they have committed. We do not lose our humanity in taking the life of a person who has committed acts of such evil, we are protecting future victims and punishing this person or crimes worthy of death. Also many families also want the person who took their loved one away to die, their will always be families who have lost a loved one to a murderer who would rather them rot in jail than death whereas there will also be many who want that person to die for stealing the life of their loved one or ones. Also the cost itself is debatable as well, all agree the initial cost of the death penalty process is quite expensive but in the long term life in prison can cost even more. Also there are laws protecting mentally challenged people and children from being given the death penalty so your argument there is invalid. Also by the sounds of it the governments you are talking about there are corrupt ones anyway which even if they didn't have the death penalty would still scurry off certain people and have them killed in secret anyway. That is not the death penalty it is an assassination that even if the death penalty was abolished would still happen anyway. In America you get judged by a jury of your peers you have evidence brought before the court to prove your guilt and even when found guilty are still given certain rights which protect you. Death is never the soft release death is the final release and most of these criminals would rather life in prison than the death penalty and the ones who don't care are the ones where life in prison wouldn't cause them any suffering anyway because they don't feel like we do they are inhuman. In the end the death penalty shouldn't be abolished it is a punishment reserved for those certain monsters that commit such evil acts that letting them live is the crime. In conclusion I believe I have given enough reason to show why the death penalty should not be abolished.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Lovebotlass17 3 years ago
Lovebotlass17
Actually, states where the death penalty is used more compared to those that don't use it have a higher crime rate. Is it really deterring crime? If this is the case, then I would think that the death penalty is actually for retribution, which has no place in our justice system.

Allowing for one innocent person to be murdered "legally" by the death penalty is one too many, and it HAS happened. Compensating their loved ones does not give these innocent people justice since we all know the justice system is corrupt and not infallible.
Posted by DenzelUram 3 years ago
DenzelUram
The death penalty instates a greater fear into the people, mainly criminals, that would help in preventing future crimes from being committed.
Posted by rogerb 3 years ago
rogerb
simple response to tolman8r, is almost good enough.
if 1 innocent person is executed hasn't the state then committed murder
Posted by Tolman8r 3 years ago
Tolman8r
Lovebotlass:
As I appreciate your quote of Ghandi, it is misplaced. It is against revenge, whereas our court system (generally), serves as an arbiter of impartial justice. Not mentioning the supreme difficulty in prosecuting a death penalty case on legal grounds, the aggregation of evidence must make a reasonable person conclude that the person is so violent and unrepentant that redemption is impossible, and they are only an affront to society ( Charles Manson, James Holmes etc). The appeals process is so robust that a false trial in a Capitol crime case is almost nonexistent.
Posted by Lovebotlass17 3 years ago
Lovebotlass17
Nathan, I understand what you are saying, but what about those who have been later found to be innocent after they were put to death? Let those who have been convicted of some atrocious crime live in a meaningless, miserable cell for the rest of their lives. That is justice.
Posted by Sleezehead 3 years ago
Sleezehead
The death penalty contradicts modern social life. It's barbaerrik to the highest extremes. A man commits a crime, ten kill him! This is ideology of a terrorist or a dictator. I would hate to see the president advocating for the death penalty. An eye for eye? It's a metaphor people. You do a wrong, your are taken out of society for a certain period.
Posted by Sleezehead 3 years ago
Sleezehead
The death penalty contradicts modern social life. It's barbaerrik to the highest extremes. A man commits a crime, ten kill him! This is ideology of a terrorist or a dictator. I would hate to see the president advocating for the death penalty. An eye for eye? It's a metaphor people. You do a wrong, your are taken out of society for a certain period.
Posted by nathanknickerbocker.9 3 years ago
nathanknickerbocker.9
So your telling me you'd rather let murderers and rapist and terrible people Taliban and terrorist LIVE what about the victims huh people hurt others people its a fact of life.
Posted by Lovebotlass17 3 years ago
Lovebotlass17
Mahatma Gandhi, a wise man, once said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." I believe him. In my opinion, killing someone who has been found guilty of an atrocious crime is inexcusable. I used to be for death penalty, but after conducting some research, I changed my mind. There are many individuals who are on death row right now who may or may not be guilty. It's been found in past cases that an innocent person was executed. Where is the justice in that?

It is also more expensive to keep someone on death row than to have them rot in prison for a lifetime. Fact. Let them suffer, because death is the easy way out.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Aikallama212Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstguy lacked cogency, didn't try to argue well until the final round, where new arguments don't count.