should capitol punishment be legal
Debate Rounds (4)
Seeing as my opponent wishes to oppose the norm, he must carry the primary burden of proof.
Best of luck.
What if the cops or whoever makes a mistake and the convicted person was not the one who actually committed the crime and years later after the person was killed they found out it wasn't the convicted person then what? An innocent man would have died for something that he /she didn't do and there are better alternatives for homicide committers for example they could be sentenced to prison for life. I understand that Capitol Punishment can be necessary at times so there should be a law or statement that states that Capitol Punishment could be used only when there is a mass destruction or mass killing time.
Capital punishment, or the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime, has been a part of society for thousands of years, including the entire existence of the United States. Since ancient times, it has been a proven way to deter crime by severity. In the days of Rome, those killed on crosses or stakes were displayed at city entrances. While this is brutal, it resulted in a much more orderly society than otherwise existed at the time. In a much more refined and advanced way, capital punishment still keeps peace. The logic behind this is apparent: if a person is considering murder in any degree, and they consider the death penalty as a risk, they are less likely to go through with their action. There are several strong point that enforce the idea of capital punishment, as follows.
1. The punishment fits the crime.
Justice is only justice if punishment is at least somewhat equal to the crime committed. If a person chooses to murder another in cold blood, it is only just that he is in turn killed. Whether or not this is morally permissible is up to the household to decide, but it is, by definition, just. If a nation's legal system wishes to uphold justice, it must uphold capital punishment.
2. Certain cases of error are bound to happen.
Whether it is capital punishment, jail time, or anything else, wrongful conviction is bound to happen sometimes. No system is perfect, we as a society can only try to limit the amount of error in a system. This being said, we should not alter the forms of punishment we use for the very small chance of error. This being said, the "what if" argument that many use against capital punishment is weak. "What if" a person is wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for 30 years? Maybe they aren't dead, but the same principle applies. We must not alter our system for a margin of error.
3. Wrongful convictions happen far less often than implied.
Media, politicians, and people like my opponent would have us believe that every other case of capital punishment is a wrongful conviction. This, unfortunately is far from the truth. In fact, only about 4% MAY have been innocent . This statistic is no worse than any other statistic regarding capital punishment. Our justice system is thorough, and rarely does a solid case of wrongful death come up.
4. People who take lives have forfeited their rights.
When a person makes the decision to kill, they are willfully giving up their own right to life over to the government. Plain and simple, murderers made a choice to die. This is not the fault of the government, and especially not of capital punishment.
Capital punishment must be included in a just society. By definition, it is the just response to a murderers actions, is fairly precise, and is fitting for crimes committed. Unless con can prove beyond any doubt that capital punishment is unjust, ineffective, or morally wrong, capital punishment stands.
dude234 forfeited this round.
dude234 forfeited this round.
Jonnykelly forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 12 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited more turns.
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.