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

Death Penalty Applicability

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
LucciDamus has forfeited round #3.
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: 8/7/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 357 times Debate No: 117404
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




The death penalty is a valid sentence when the inmate would be a reasonable threat to other inmates, Correctional officers, Correctional staff, And old conflicts of interest in the community or abroad. If somebody has an extensive history of violence, A current protensity to be violent, Or a connection to a violent organized crime group or gang with likely potential to be conducting illegal activities or business within or outside of the prison system, The death penalty should be considered a valid option due to the inmate being a reasonable threat to society. In conclusion for safety and moral concerns, The inmate should no longer be granted or given the ability to conduct such violence towards others or the communities in which they would or likely could effect.


Great start, As con i will first flaws in the argument and then state mind.

I argue the death penalty is never applicable for 3 reasons: the pros definition of reasonable threat to society, Fairness amd morality

1. A reasonable threat to society is to be reasonably removed from society. I understand ur argument regarding the penal system so i prospose, Death is not a reasonable removal but a cruel one as the parties taking the life did not breed the life. Leading to #2

2. In fairness, One could argue society is dangerous to the criminal. This is not my argument, But i argue, Said society may learn more by not utilizing a death penalty and may understand how something in the society may be perpetuating the unfavored behaviour.

3. Moraly it is not right to kill if not in self defense. Generally, Once a person is apprehended self defense is no longer an issue. And to end a life because of a judgement is moraly unjust, Even in revenge as it does not serve a common good as beneficial as learning from said negative experiences with said psycho.
Debate Round No. 1


In regards to never killing a human being other than in self defense, I cannot agree that it is Never morally acceptable to kill another human if you are not being personally engaged in a high risk personal defense situation with the individual you are attempting to terminate yourself

1. Killing, Not to be confused with murdering, Is unfortunately sometimes one of the options that superior officials in society and military are forced to make for the well-being and safety of the people around them i. E. Using a drone strike on an unaware High Value Target in military combat

2. There are definitely situations where inmates who have committed crimes that meet the criteria for apropriating the death penalty are permanently unable to function around others without inflicting violence onto prison staff or other inmates. For example, There brain structure may have been changed due to compulsive drug use inhibiting there ability to not turn quickly to violence. Even though it was not necessarily there fault for having compulsive drug use, The end result is still the same, An incurable and highly untreatable protensity for extreme violence being perpetrated by the inmate

3. Using the death penalty has also been a powerful deterrent of homicide in the US. States that have the death penalty as an asset are having success in deterring homicide according to this study [1]. Therefore the death penalty has likely saved hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives from premature death by murder in all the years that it has been legalized as a viable option. This includes woman and children.

Now that being said, We should not confuse making unethical examples out of first time offenders as an ethical act to attempt to deter crime. I. E. Giving somebody 20 years in prison for a crime that they committed when they were mentally incompetent or incapacitated.
[1]-https://www. Cbsnews. Com/news/death-penalty-deters-murders-studies-say/


I can not argue the stats that states with the death penalty have lower homicide rates nor can i argue the need for killing in military combat. So i argue, Pros flaws are: international threats vs external, Is lower homocide rates morally justified and environmental influences in said inmate (who is perceivably intolerable)

1. In military combat we are faced with, As a people or nation, The possibility of a change in our way of life if we loose. A change worth defending. Therefore it is in essence self defense even though you dont have to be in a one on one combat to justify self defense. In the inmates case, No part of our way of life is at risk if said inmate is in a hole or mental institution designed for long term isolation.

2. If the death penalty deters said behavior well enough to lower homocide rates, Then we are not speaking of the same mental condition you explained. Laws dont alter the thought pattern of psychopaths only there ability to follow there impulse. Were talking about people so evil the thought of death os scarier than a life in prison. Those people are uneffected by laws. But killing them still effects our morality.

3. A hole or isolation is the key to removing said risk from society while not playing the role of a creator by taking a life based on our judgement.
Debate Round No. 2


I will now introduce the economical aspect on the death penalty and why it is an ethical option in maintaining the lives of Americans if we use some logical aspects of how the US government conducts it's activities to protect American lives.

1. Since the attacks in Manhatten and Washington D. C. On September 11, 2001, There have been only 95 US citizens murdered on American soil by individuals claiming to pledge allegiance to islamic terrorist organizations. This has justified keeping us in the longest military conflict in US history costing trillions of dollars and causing thousands of American casualties. If we could save just 100 lives a year by using the death penalty to prevent homicides, We would be saving as many lives on American soil as have been taken by islamic extremists in over 15 years. Thereby giving more than enough reason to suggest that legalizing the death penalty at the federal level is an ethical and civil way to protect American lives. .

2. My second argument is that prison likely is not as bad as it is projected in Hollywood films and media. It is very common for criminals to be recitivized into the prison system for committing additional crime(s) and therefore begs the question "if prison is so bad, So inhumane and torturous to inmates than how is it possible that they would get involved in activities that would risk them going back to that torturous hole". I think the answer is obvious, But to explain it better I need to make clear some perks of being a prisoner. Free housing (you can't be homeless if your in prison), Ability to have a job in prison and be put on work release (you can work but have to come back to the prison when shift is over), Camraderie with other prisoners, Access to television and a library, And access to a basketball and exercise gym. If you don't want to work, You don't have to, Taxpayers pay for your food and housing. Now as incorrect as this sounds because of what you've been told your whole life by the media and Hollywood what prison is like, Just tell yourself this, How would I know, I've never been to prison.

3. For my final point, I want to point out that correctional officers are people too and can often make mistakes. Being a correctional officer is not at all a lucrative career as even LPN nurses make more than they do per hour clearly showing that correctional officers are not very high on the exonomic ladder. Correctional officers under the new tax implement done by the Republican party with Donald Trump qualify to only have to pay a 15% income tax which is the lowest income tax you can possibly pay in America's progressive tax system. In other words correctional officers aren't exactly a high end societal figure and over the course of a few decades of being locked in solitaire confinement an inmate would have more than enough opportunity to cause serious bodily harm or even death to other individuals in the prison system.

Overall implementing the death penalty is not only an ethical choice, But in many situations a moral obligation to not only protect other people in society from homicide, But also to protect the inmates involved in there surroundings along with law enforcement officers and correctional staff.
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 darkwolf 3 years ago
I believe it should be reserved for the worst off the worst. People who if imprisoned pose a threat too other inmates, Or the security personnel. Or if there is a chance they may escape and commit further crimes. The death penalty is a full proof system used to safe guard people both in and our of the prison, From people enjoy killing. Another reason is cost, Lets say Hitler didn't kill himself but was imprisoned in america, Now the government must tell the people, " hey remember that guy, You know the one that killed like 5 million people? Yeah so here"s the thing your tax payer dollars are going to make sure he's feed, Washed, Was a bed too sleep in, And has a roof over his head. " You see the problem? And @Lucci the inhuman prion idea is a bad one no offence, Because under though conditions a person is likely too be more resentful, Which can transition into violence toward inmates, And guards. Or they may even commit suicide and then despite our best efforts and tax payer dollar spent to construct this facility he died anyway and in a manner more painful and cruel then leathul injection. And yes it would happen people kill themselves these days so they don't have too go on trail, And they do that to save themselves from having to admit they've do the crime. But imagine if their basic right were stripped away, No more protection from cruel and unusual punishments, Overall the quality of life would be pretty be so at that point what is the good of living? If you were in one of these hypothetical prisons you would probably have done something so bad you wouldn't be leaving and at that point what's the point in living?
Posted by LucciDamus 3 years ago
Oohh good questions and very valid point. I guess would rather see inhuman prisons as next option vs putting them to death. Its like a: we ran out of reasons to let you live vs b: we ran out of ways to keep you comfortable. .
Posted by Thomas.williams10010 3 years ago
I think if someone murders someone to rot in a prison cell is a sentence enough (however this is costly) but if the offender is just going about himself then that's fine. But if an inmate is killing other inmates then this should be punishable (multiple offences) buy death, However what if an inmate wants to die, This just puts the prison inmates in danger
This debate has 0 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.