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

in the case of 1st 2nd and fourth if found guilty Have the death sentence or life in jail

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 32291
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




First degree: killing with the intent to kill. Usually requires premeditation. Also includes felony murder - an unplanned murder that occurs during the commission of a felony
Second degree: killing with the intent to do harm but not the intent to kill. Example - shooting someone in the leg with the intent to wound but not kill, and the victim bleeds to death.

Fourth degree: felony murder committed by an accomplice. Same as felony murder, but instead of one burglar there are two. Burglar A kills the homeowner and that is first degree murder. Burglar B did not take part in the killing but did take part in the burglary and that is fourth degree.

1st 2nd and fourth if found guilty, any under these surcumstances will be given the death sentence or life in jail Depending on the Judges decideing


To win this debate I need to prove that not all those who are found guilty to first,second, or fourth degree murder should either suffer life imprisonment or the death penalty. Or that these sentences are not just, I also need to prove that these actions cannot produce the results they desire to achieve.

Is it fair that people who committed these crimes under duress should be sentenced to life in prison or suffer capital punishment?
I think not. My case will stand on the grounds that it isn't just to imprison for life all people who commit these crimes due to the fact that in some crimes criminals who pose a imminent threat of danger and or death to a random victim as a captive, slave, etc... will force the people they threaten to commit crimes for various reasons. It is not just to sentence those who are coerced due to threat of bodily harm or death to have the same punishment as the criminal who coerced the person to kill. Even if the person who suffered duress is found guilty to any combination of first, second, or fourth degree murder because these crimes where done under duress. I think we must offer some type of penance to the one who suffered duress however it should not be on the same magnitude of the duressor. Therefore the victim forced to kill should not have a sentence of death or life in prison.

The purposes of prisons and/or the legal is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation.

Not all of these objectives can be accomplished for a victim of duress. They can meet retribution and incapacitation however one cannot cause detterence of the crime they committed and one cannot rehabilitize them for their actions. How do we deter a person or people for that matter to be threatened by criminals and not commit the crimes these criminals command if their lives are being threatened? It cannot be done therefore one purpose of the prison system cannot accomplish their goals. Secondly We cannot rehabilitate a person forced to commit a crime from not doing it again. Almost any human being when their lives are being threatened will do whatever it takes to stay alive. Just about anything alive in respond to a threat and cannot run will kill if it is the only way to survive. So their is no way to rehabilitize a person from doing this again. We cannot prevent cohersion from happening nor can we prevent their responses. So why should we waste taxpayer money on a lost cause? Again the prison system cannot meet the goal of rehabilitizing victims of duress no matter how much they try. So why forever imprison these people if the prisons systems full goals cannot be met? These goals can neither be met with the death penalty. We cannot be certain that criminals regret their crimes or care at all when they suffer a death sentence. If we want someone to suffer imprison them for life. But since both of these punishments are not justified for the circumstances of the crime neither should be method of punishment used for those under duress.

Debate Round No. 1


Kawaiilolitachan forfeited this round.


pro forfeited and I have effectively proven my case. Therefore a con vote is logical
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Kawaiilolitachan 3 years ago
My law applies in Washington. it do-sent work like that here. but i understand what your saying
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
I don't know where your law applies. I suppose it's conceivable that it works like that somewhere. I'm from Kansas. Two guys robbed a, I think it was a gas station. The cops caught one of them, put him in handcuffs, carried him around in the back of the car with them while the chased the other. When they found the other guy, they shot him dead, which made the arrested guy in the handcuffs guilty of 1st degree felony murder.

Here's a hypothetical I like: You rob a bank. You're running away from the bank, down the sidewalk, with a gun in one hand and a bag of money in the other. A guard comes out of the bank behind you. He shoots and misses. The bullet whizzes past your ear, and hits a bystander several steps in front of you. Hits his throat, artery, blood spurting several feet. Clearly, he's going to die, and you'll be guilty of 1st degree murder.

So, the thing to do is shoot him square in the forehead as you pass. That way, you're only guilty of second degree murder.
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
Con would argue that the offender of one of these degrees should not have life sentence NOR death penalty.
Posted by Gondun 3 years ago
Would the con be arguing that murderers should get a limited sentence or less? Or are you going for death and con argues for only life in jail?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gondun 3 years ago
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: Con had better arguments and Pro forfeited.