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

should there be death penalties and if so how should you kill that person

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/19/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 46287
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




should there be death penalties? yes I do partially believe there should be death penalties but only for horrible crimes. I believe that if there is a death penalty, the person should be killed by an injection, this is because of many reasons. 1) if we use a shocking chair, it uses up a lot of power. 2) it is less expensive. 3) it is a natural ay of dying instead of being shocked, starved, or what ever else they do to people, but back to the death penalties. if people do something horrible like kill multiple people then they should get one if there was no reason. But, if there was a good excuse i.e. if one feared his own life or the stand your ground law, then no death penalty should be sentenced, but if lied about or not good enough, one should be stated


[[Firstly, I'd like to state that I do believe in the death penalty on a personal level, but I fancied a go at being Con to challenge myself. Good luck. Here we go...]]

You claim that the death penalty should be enforced on the most serious of crimes; this is indeed how most death penalties work, but what if somebody is wrongly convicted for a serious crime that they did not commit? How much certainty does the jury need to have before sentencing somebody to death? I live in the UK. The UK used to have the death penalty, but then we got it horribly wrong: a teenager, Derek Bentley, with the mental age of 10, was hanged by the court in 1953. It was later revealed that he was innocent. [1] And that's not the only high profile case of wrongful execution. [2] How many other executions were performed on innocent people? Nobody could possibly know now -- death is irreversible.

Your next claim is that a lethal injection is a natural and cost-effective method of capital punishment, which I refute completely. Synthetic chemicals are man-made (not found in nature) and cost over a thousand US dollars to administer: "The state of Texas is scheduled to spend $1,286.86 ("811) to kill Keith Thurmond on Wednesday night." ~ BBC Report. [3] One would be hard-pressed to find somebody 'naturally' dying of lethal injection, but you will find many examples of people naturally dying from electrocution, starvation and the such all over the world. It doesn't cost a penny to starve somebody to death, but it's not a matter of whether the execution is natural and cost-effective or not -- at the end of the day, death is not a reversible punishment, regardless of how it is performed, and compensation can never be issued in the event of a wrongful ruling.

Your final claim reiterates your belief that the most horrible of crimes, specifically mass murder, should receive a death penalty, with the exception of a good excuse (fearing for their life or the 'stand your ground' law). I also reiterate that the jury may wrongfully sentence an innocent person; what if every murderer had a 'good' excuse that couldn't be proven? What if the jury doubt what the murderer is says, issues a life sentence, but are later informed that the murderer was in fact telling the truth? The grey area is too vague when people's lives are at stake.

[1] -
[2] -
[3] -
Debate Round No. 1


First off, deth penalties should only happen if a definite guilty verdict is put apon someone for something horrible. As you mentioned in your statement, that stare action is also an option, that is true, and I agree with you, however, when you get a leithle injection, it feel much more natural and it is much quicker than any other way and much much safer. When you use an electrical chair for example, you risk others lives and loss of power.


The problem with a 'definite guilty verdict' is that the jury may get it wrong. Why would it be any more acceptable to give someone a 'probably guilty verdict'? They could still go to prison for the rest of their lives, and it actually seems worse because everybody has agreed that they do not know whether or not the suspect is truly guilty.

On the topic of lethal injection feeling the most natural; have you ever died from lethal injection? Where are you getting your evidence from? I read an article a couple of weeks ago that described a recent lethal injection as being a very slow and agonising death:

'(The execution of Dennis McGuire at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility took 25 minutes, a death that defense attorney Allen Bohnert called a "failed, agonizing experiment.")' ~ USA Today, January 16, 2014 [1]

The UK, although having the death penalty abolished for a long time, preferred to hang people via a long drop. The person condemned to death would be weighed and hanged from a sufficient height that would ensure the breakage of their spinal cord upon tension of the rope. Unconsciousness and death were instantaneous; long drop hanging is widely believed to be one of the most pain-free and quickest way to die, without creating too much visible damage on the deceased. [2]


Although I have stated clear reasons against the death penalty, I have also made clear that lethal injection is not the best way for an execution to be carried out, which is what my adversary is in favour for.

[1] -
[2] -
Debate Round No. 2


Debate_master_11 forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had sources, and Pro FF'd.