the death penalty should be legalized everywhere
Debate Rounds (3)
I think it is time for us to talk about how we deal with individuals who just don't have any morals at all and just don"t care about the majority of society
I will argue that the Death penalty should not be legal 'everywhere'.
I assume that we will do arguments in round 2, then rebuttals and closing statements in round 3.
Reasons why the death penalty should be legalized is because it ensures justice to those affected by said crime. Secondly, people sometimes go to jail, serve their time, and are released and commit another crime. Thirdly, it is cheaper to execute people.
why should merciless killers live for the rest of their lives when they brutally ended innocent lives and caused a lifetime of endless pain to the victim"s family and loved ones? Would you really be able to live the rest of your life knowing the man who tragically murdered your precious daughter and or son is still alive and could even one day be out in the world again? There"s only one way to get justice, and it"s only fair that the murderers and rapists should die. some people may say that it is not fair to those who committed the crime. but is it fair for the victim to live the rest of their life knowing and reliving the incident over and over again in the head?
People can go to jail and serve their time and be released for what? To commit the very same crime if not worse? Some people may argue that people can change. According to statistics people don"t change. It is statistically proven that 52% of the people that go to jail end up back to where they started. Prison doesn"t work 50% of the time, so why do we keep sending people there? If something didn"t work 50% of the time, would you keep doing it? There are so many cases of repeat offenders. specifically repeat sex offenders. Not only are they almost certain to continue sexually abusing people after having served their time but some eventually kill their young victims. bobby stovall, mana tengu tamaiparea, william scott, robert vanbraeckel, timothy fredrick, dallas harvell, roger charette, and stephan haord all these people are repeat sex offenders the list goes on and on and on. an interesting yet so devastating of a story that caught my eye. is the donald blom case. In 1975, Blom kidnapped a 14-year-old girl, gagged her and raped her. He locked her up in his car trunk, but she managed to escape and turned him in. He went to trial and was convicted. Three years later, in 1978, he committed aggravated assault. In 1983, he was arrested again for criminal sexual conduct. The same year, he also threatened two teenage girls at knifepoint in a remote area. He tied them to a tree, and put socks in their mouths. He choked and revived one of them several times, and said he was going to rape them. would you want a man like this roaming the streets of your neighbourhood? offenders like these should to be put to death. therefore, ensuring the safety of the people in their society and giving justice to the families of the victims.
Alright, so I will begin by giving a definition.
Miscarriage of justice "A miscarriage of justice primarily is the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime he or she did not commit. "
I'd like to start off my debate by explaining that I will begin by given three contingencies, and then summing them all together with a conclusion paragraph.
Contingency 1: While I'm not entirely sure of what Canada's government looks like, I am imagine that it's judicial system is somewhat similar to Americas in the sense that a judge gives the final ruling. This article: http://www.cbc.ca...
will give you an idea of how wrongful charges come about. Since there is no law, stating when a situation deserve the death penalty, it is highly interpretive, which is simply not fair. I should not be put to to death after committing half the crime the next person committed, which resulted in a life sentence.
Contingency 2: Next, studies have shown that simply putting someone down, is just as and if not more expensive then putting someone in prison for life.
Contingency 3: Is eye for an eye, really a smart system to go by? If we are to go by this system, then what should we do to people who kill multiple people? Certainly we cannot bring them back to life, only to give them another lethal dosage. Also, some judges may give a rapist a death penalty, while others would give a much lighter sentence. This is not fair. While I am not justifying the actions of a rapist, it's just not fair to get a sentence based on a judges philosophy.
To sum it all up, there are just too many issues with the death-penalty to allow it to remain everywhere. Could there be situations where the death penalty is a suitable punishment? Of course! But that is not what the topic is asking us to debate. the death penalty should not necessarily be legal everywhere.
Thanks, I am finished.
my final conclusion is:
It is cheaper to execute people
It is a lot of money that the government has to pay to keep people imprisoned for a long period of time due to the cost of supplying foods daily. Necessities such as water for drinking, showering, and toilets.
Execution on average costs about 90,000 for one person. Every year that an inmate spends in prison costs approximately 22,000. So if a person commits murder to the first degree disregarding any circumstances the amount of years the person would be sentenced is 20-25 years so the cost of the inmate would be approximately 506,000. And just to put the cherry on top.... each prisoner in Canada's 54 federal penitentiaries costs tax payers approximately $177,788 up 46% from a decade ago.
the resolution be it resolve that the legalization of the death penalty must stand
AbandonedSpring 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.