The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Capital Punishment

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Pythagoras2000 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 98 times Debate No: 123417
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




There have been 166 exonerations of innocent people on death row in the US since 1973. Imagine how their lives could've ended because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's really effed up.

Now, Here's a list of people from deathpenaltyinfo. Org on people executed with strong cases for innocence. This is definitely not all of them, But it's a start.
Carlos DeLuna (Texas, Convicted 1983, Executed 1989)
Ruben Cantu (Texas, Convicted 1985, Executed 1993)
Larry Griffin (Missouri, Convicted 1981, Executed 1995)
Joseph O"Dell (Virginia, Convicted 1986, Executed 1997)
David Spence (Texas, Convicted 1984, Executed 1997)
Leo Jones (Florida, Convicted 1981, Executed 1998)
Gary Graham (Texas, Convicted 1981, Executed 2000)
Claude Jones (Texas, Convicted 1989, Executed 2000)
Cameron Todd Willingham (Texas, Convicted 1992, Executed 2004)
Troy Davis (Georiga, Convicted 1991, Executed 2011)
Lester Bower (Texas, Convicted 1984, Executed 2015)
Brian Terrell (Georgia, Convicted 1995, Executed 2015)
Richard Masterson (Texas, Convicted 2002, Executed 2016)
Robert Pruett (Texas, Convicted 2002, Executed 2017)
Carlton Michael Gary (Georgia, Convicted 1986, Executed 2018)
Larry Swearingen (Texas, Convicted 2000, Executed 2019)

A list of pardons from the same source:
Illinois 1893-Pardoned by Governor Peter Altgeld-8 Haymarket Defentants, 4 of which were executed hy hanging, A fifth having taken his life on the evening of his execution.
Massachusetts 1977-50 years after the execution, Gov. Michael Dukakis pardoned Sacco & Vanzetti.
Nebraska 1987-Governor Bob Kerry pardons William Jackson, Who was executed for the murder of a man who turned out never to have died.
Maryland 2001-Governor Paris Glendening pardoned John Snowden, Hanged in 1919 for rape and murder of the wife of a buisnessman, Two key witnessess had recanted their testimonies & before the hanging, 11/12 jurors pled for mercy.
South Carolina 2009-Pardoned 2 men, Thomas and Meeks Griffin, Who had been electrocuted for alleged murder. They were convicted on the perjured testimony of the actual murderer, Who falsely fingered the men to save himself from the executioner.

We can see that with all these innocents put to death for crimes they didn't commit, It's hard to stay in support of the death penalty. It seems hypocritical to kill people for killing others. If you're trying to stop death, More people dying doesn't help.


Hi, I will be arguing FOR capital punishment to still be used. I believe my opponent is arguing against capital punishment and proposes abolishing it, Though both the debate topic and the lack of substantive in their argument makes even this assumption quite vague.
Onto my arguments.

It is easy to attempt to take the moral high ground and to dismiss the objectively better ways of combatting an issue. It is easy to see statistics with no other context and think that something is 'really effed up' as my opponent puts it.

However, My opponent fails to provide any substantial evidence to oppose the death penalty. Their entire argument depends on subjective moral beliefs.
'It seems hypocritical to kill people for killing others. If you're trying to stop death, More people dying doesn't help. ' - this entire argument is not only absurd but also very subjective in my opponent's own view. Wouldn't killing a murderer eliminate the possibility of the murderer possibly getting out of prison and killing more people? In this case, This person dying does help.
'Imagine how their lives could've ended because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's really effed up. ' - and imagine if criminals were walking around free to kill and murder people just because one or two people were mistakenly killed. That's really effed up.

The death penalty is given to people committed crimes of a terrible nature in which a victim is killed; half of all death penalties are given due to the death of a child. Many, Many criminals killed under the death penalty would have had a stint in jail and some of them would leave after a while if the death penalty was abolished, Free to kill and commit horrors. The problem is not the process itself, As it is very necessary to kill people who could go around doing more harm.
I instead propose that the death penalty stand under more criticism and the criinal be eligible for more hearings and testimonies in order to make sure that they are innocent. Abolishing something that has ended the lives of some very evil people and bringing their victims closure is important and has worked well so far. Why get rid of it entirely when you can improve on it?
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 3 days ago
@Anonymous03 No worries, I just like to see everyone having as productive a conversation as possible.
Posted by Anonymous03 4 days ago
You really helped put the death penalty into perspective for someone who is not American. I will keep some of this in mind.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 4 days ago
The death penalty is something that can only realistically be justified via the framework that our criminal justice system should be based upon retribution rather than on rehabilitation. Financially, It doesn't really make sense because the death penalty cost significantly more than life sentences. Morally you'll find it hard to make any consistent argument for it since, 1. You would be revoking the right to life of someone who isn't an active danger to anyone at the moment (as it is implied a person facing the death penalty is already in custody), And 2, You run the risk, As con has stated, Of killing people falsely convicted of crimes which does have precedent for occurrence. Socially this doesn't really work because it reinforces the idea that our justice system is a way of getting revenge on the criminals and punishing them as opposed to reforming their behavior and reintegrating them into society, When countries that have taken the approach of restorative justice, Such as Norway, Have been shown to have significantly better outcomes for their rate of crime, Social cohesion, Outcomes for criminals, And an far lower recidivism rate, This plus the fact that life sentences do the same job capital punishment does (neutralizing the threat) at a far lower cost. There just isn't really a great argument for having Capital Punishment, The United States is the only western country that still has it, At least to my knowledge, And there's probably a reason all the other countries have moved away from it.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.