The Instigator
Cooldudebro
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Scollins9
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

death penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 363 times Debate No: 43906
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Cooldudebro

Pro

First round is for acceptance. Good luck!
Scollins9

Con

Although capital punishment seems to be less expensive, it isn't. It costs more to attempt to kill a convicted criminal than it does to keep him alive. This is according to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org..., and they provide an unbiased view. Furthermore, the use of capital punishment opens up the use of racial targeting and blacks and Hispanics have been executed much more than whites. That is just plain wrong. The purpose of punishment is to make sure the criminal doesn't happen again and with capital punishment, there is no chance for improvement. In addition, the question comes down to how one value human life. At least the criminal can rot away in jail with the comfort of their own minds. Why end their life when it is not at all necessary?
Debate Round No. 1
Cooldudebro

Pro

Case 1: Hemorabi got it right!

Have you ever heard the saying an eye for an eye? Hemorabi made that! In ancient Mesopotamia, Hemorabi was their ruler. He made a judicial system that went like this. You steal from me, I steal from you. You killed my family member, I kill you. The system worked to repel crime in Mesopotamia. It would be the opposite if we would ban the death penalty. People would not be afraid of the chair, and would commit more murders! They would think when they go to prison that they would rule it or escape! That brings me to my next point.

Case 2: Over Population

It would not be long before the prisons would begin to pile up! With all these new murders, the prison would run out of room! This would certainly lead to bad security and it would allow more and more people to escape! You then argue we could keep them in separate compartments. This would not work because of too many men in that section.

Which then brings me to my scenarios!

Scenario 1:

Albert was on a walk of night when a stranger came out of the corner, and stabbed Albert to death. His family is in deep pain because he just got married. The man is convicted of killing Albert, and instead of being put to death, he is sentenced to life in prison. Now fast forward 10 years. Prisons are becoming more and more overpopulated and Albert makes up a scheme. He starts a mob, which occupies all the security. He then uses that time to escape. He then lives a life on the lamb, never really getting punished for what he has done. With the death penalty, he would finally get the punishment he deserved.

Scenario 2:

Max is a serial killer who recently got convicted by the cops. He is thrown into jail! He then brags to the inmates about all of his crimes. the inmates are awed, and will do whatever he says! This man called Lupe, has been threatening to beat him up for a week. He then sends 3 prisoners to teach him a lesson. But instead of beating him up, they kill him. Max has friends on the outside, so he then can get cigarettes and drugs! Max is the king of the prison! He is causing havoc everywhere! With the death penalty, he would have been shown the chair, and none of that would have happened.

Scenario 3:

Lindsay tried to kill her ex- boyfriend, but swore it was self defense because there was marks on her. However, the jury does not believe Lindsay, and convicts her. She stays in prison for a few years, and then tries to push for parole. In the parole hearing, she states she has never tried to kill her boyfriend and that it was only in self defense. She says he was drunk that night, and tried to kill her. This jury is not as wise as the last one at her hearing, and they let her go on parole. She then kills her ex boyfriend for revenge of keeping her in prison for years, ditches her parole officer, and lives a life on the lamb. If the death penalty was active, Lindsay would have never been able to kill her ex boyfriend, and she would have got the punishment she deserved.

Three scenarios. All having un-happy endings. This would actually be possible if the death penalty would be banned! Thank you for reading! It is now my opponent's turn
Scollins9

Con

Scollins9 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Cooldudebro

Pro

Cooldudebro forfeited this round.
Scollins9

Con

Scollins9 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Cooldudebro

Pro

this argument kills them every time. :)
Scollins9

Con

Scollins9 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by VISUALMoney6 2 years ago
VISUALMoney6
If a person is willing to kill someone else I think the death penalty is reasonable for them and why is it we let criminals get painless deaths is most of the time their victims aren't as lucky why don't we do on to them as they did on to others'
Posted by zrg4848 2 years ago
zrg4848
@Scollins9
Almost forgot. You're correct the point of our prison system is to rehabilitate which is why the death penalty is meant for those sad few that cannot be rehabilitated because they have no remorse or their crime is so brutal that it shows a lack of recognition of fellow humanity. Although, an argument could be made that by committing the crime you consent to the death penalty, or forfeit your right to life, and allow your peers to judge if you deserve a second chance. Furthermore, one could go a step further to suggest that the criminal makes an autonomous decision to kill and society has to respect their autonomy by giving them an appropriate punishment for their crime, i.e. death.
Posted by zrg4848 2 years ago
zrg4848
@Scollins9
Have you ever heard of Michael Skakel? I saw the first sentence you claimed when accepting but I find that as an illogical argument. Skakel has spent well into the millions of the states money for retrials and continues to increase the bill each day. He's a life in prison inmate and has spent every moment of his inprisonment filing appeals and fighting for his release. Anyone can spend an absurd amount of money on appeals. But money doesn't matter here because if we really wanted to choose the cheapest option we wouldn't have prisons and just have street justice. But we choose to spend money on justice because it's something worth pursuing; man has never seeked justice to save money.

Next, racial discrimination. Guilt is personal. It is not part of any group or a race and no one is immune to it. You are convicted on your own actions and it is up to the judge to decide the harshness of your sentence. That means a racist jury won't be responsible for a convict being sentenced to death but rather a judge who is selected very carefully as to avoid racism. However, it is true that minorities are convicted more often, but take this argument into account. Murders usually happen within the same race, not always but usually, and there is a higher amount, on percentage, of minorities that escape the death penalty. This happens in even the most racist districts, assumably because the jury doesn't want to fully vindicate the murder of a minority and find the defendant guilty on a lower murder charge or recommend a light sentence. So while the intent may be to ignore the feelings of minority victims families the outcome has favored the race as a whole. However, more minorities are on death row still because many more go on trial for worthy crimes than whites. Also, if a punishment is moral than no maldistribution of the moral punishment will make it immoral. If I am commuting something moral by giving out candy and I don't distribute fairly the action is still mor
Posted by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
No person has the right to take someone's life. Death is the only solution for murderers, Rapists and terrorist. If there is Punishment even harsh than Death Penalty, Even that should be implemented to these criminals.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
I contend that every human has a right to life. It's fundamental.
Posted by nburch 2 years ago
nburch
I think there should not be any death penalties on a person ever!
Why is because it is pretty much murder just in the law where they may thing they have to but really, they don't!! No person deserves to die! Because God made them to live for as long as they can!! Not get killed just because they made a wrong choice! The law could just put he or she in prison for life!
No votes have been placed for this debate.