Debate Rounds (4)
Firstly, there have been many mistakes in this system. Accusing the wrong person and having them executed has happened many, many times.
What is the use of the death penalty? To be sure that the criminal can never cause such harm again? Well, if they are bad enough, they will stay inside prison forever. What else is the reason? They took a life so we take their life? But doesn't that sort of defeat the point? "life is sacred and you shouldn't take life because it's just to precious and to prove our point we are going to take your life away". So lets take a life because they wrongfully took someone else's life? How is taking a life in some way proving life is a good, sacred thing. It seems as though life is okay to waste if it's a murderer? Personally, I am against murders, and I wish no one would kill, but what would killing them do? If anything, you still hurt the world. You can put a murderer to work in some way shape or form. You're wasting possible knowledge and strength. Yes they may have killed, and some may argue that then can or can't change, and we can all agree that you can't undo what's been done, but that's just it. You can't undo what's been done. And will killing another person, wasting life, taking them off the face of the earth, really make someone feel all that much more whole? That doesn't seem barbaric? This is moral issue that doesn't occur around the world as much anymore. America used to be the country leading morality, and now it seems we're falling behind. France, a country that kept the guillotine around up until not too long ago thinks that the United States is barbaric for using the death penalty, and rightfully so.
Another reason people point to the death penalty is that it is to put fear in to people's eyes that if they take someone's life, we will take yours. Not a lot of these people who do such crimes are afraid to die.
I like the idea of setting them to work, i would be in favour of this 99% of the time. However there are some cases in which just the mere fact that the person is alive, could be a torment for the victims and/or family. For example, in rare cases where somebody could have tortured and raped multiple children, condeming them to a life of darkness and a higher likely-hood of suicide, it should be implemented. For the parents and family of these children, who are now broken people, must feel tortured by the fact that the individual responsible for this action is still walking around and protected by the system. In these circumstances the death penalty should be used too give some closure to the families. Indeed the damage could not be repaid through any amount of attack on the perpetrator, but allowing them relative comfort. Also for those victims knowing their taxes are paying for the aggressor to stay alive, has got too hurt and not help them gain closure. I do not believe murder alone should result in the death penalty.
As you have said, which I agree, that the jury system does make mistakes and wrong convictions. In any case where there isn't significant evidence (significant being defined as DNA evidence, cctv footage or even a confession not through forced interviewing), capital punishment should not stand. Although I have not tackled the moral issue yet I will try to explain that now.
I believe it should only be on the table, if the victim in most cases has been morally wronged in a severe way. I'm not arguing two wrongs make a right. But who is to say that the guilty party has a right to basic human rights, if they are not willing to follow them themselves. There acts clearly shows that they don't care for human rights, so why should they be pitied with sentiments they take from others?
I'm not deluded into thinking that the death penalty results in lower crime rates. Although it does reduce the number kept in prisons. This makes room for other criminals that would otherwise be turned lose onto the streets. Also, why should we as innocent tax payers carry on supporting someone there whole life if they couldn't make the right decisions to support themselves in the first place. This isn't an argument for the death penalty its just a bonus that comes with it.
I agree that those who can afford good lawyers may take advantage of this and it could end up targeting the economically disadvantaged. If systems were put in place where a theatre of lay people had to listen to only the evidence not the lawyers themselves, then cast their vote, it would create a fairer system where the system could not be 'worked' by the more economically advantageous.
It may seem barbaric on the surface but if you go about it in a sensitive way and have a clear judgment on what is and is not judged worthy of the penalty, then this can help to lessen the barbaric view placed on it. Barbaric in the sense means savagely cruel; primitive and unsophisticated. If long judgment in the right way was carried out and the actually penalty just an injection rather than a more brutish actions. Then this in a sense is not barbaric but a collective calculated action
A family will be brutally hurt and tortured by the loss of a family member, I agree. But, to make that family feel whole again by killing someone that seems very barbaric. You will not bring back the life of the lost one.
Unlike the death of the victim, the death of the suspect would seem more peaceful. The way that the criminal killed the victim probably wasn't peaceful. It was probably barbaric in nature, whether it be stabbed, shot, beaten to death etc, while the death penalty knocks out the criminal, then kills them, kind of putting them to sleep the way we put our beloved animals to sleep. We peacefully let them free. And you can also be serving the criminal a deed that they wanted. They killed someone, their conscience is probably messed up. They lost it. They have to deal with the extreme guilt that they, in a few cases, did not immediately exactly wanted, but seemed instinctive, so by putting them away, to sleep, the way we do with our animals, we are ceasing their pain.
The whole idea of someone dying, be that a pet or a person, hurts us all from the bottoms of our hearts, and you know what, I will admit of someone killed my family member or pet, you better be damn sure I would try to kill them myself, but how sacred is life if we are willing to take another's to prove a point? I'll say myself that the sacristy of life isn't real, and that we just made it up because... well guess what? WE'RE ALIVE. You don't see John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, and John Lennon talking about the sacristy of life because they are dead! We made it up to feel special, but this all a different argument.
If you are willing to take someone's life, because they took one from you or your family member, then wouldn't you be just as guilty? If someone is kills someone because it would bring them joy for someone to be gone, then you kill them because it will make you feel better, don't you essentially have the same goal as the killer, which is feel better after a life is gone?
Kelsey.lb forfeited this round.
Kelsey.lb forfeited this round.
Ozzyhead forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.