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

Death Penalty

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2016 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 917 times Debate No: 87060
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




First round is for acceptance
Debate Round No. 1


The death penalty should not be allowed for various reasons:

1. What makes it moral? Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong? It is hypocritical.

2. It violates amendment 8 of the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, for sometimes it takes a victim longer then expected and wanted to pass. This makes the punishment inhumane and unconstitutional.

3. There is no solid evidence to prove that the death penalty deteriorates crime rates. So what is the point? If anything, it is an easy way out.

4. 1/7 people executed are innocent, why take the chance?

5. The cost of the death penalty is much greater then it would cost to give prisoners/victims life imprisonment.

I will await for your rebuttals and then pose a counterargument against such rebuttals.


We kill people to get them out of the world. If we release them into the world, or even to roam around a prison. There is a chance that they could kill or seriously injure someone.

On says that an inmate in California killed and disemboweled a guard. If that inmate was given that death penalty he wouldn't have been able o kill the guard because he would have been dead.
Debate Round No. 2


That argument does not make sense. If someone committed such a vicious crime that they would get a death sentence, then if the penalty is abolished, they would get a life sentence. The would not be able to "roam around," because if they were that dangerous, they would be in either solitary, or a high security prison.

That can occur in any prison who does not have control over their inmates. This has no reflection or relation to the topic we are debating.


This is completely relevant to the topic we are debating. I said if this man was in a death sentence, this guard wouldn't have been killed.

You said that they would be in solitary confinement. When people are in solitary confinement, they con get many side effects. says that solitary confinement can cause visual and auditory hallucinations, hypersensitivity to noise and touch, insomnia and paranoia, and uncontrollable feelings of rage and fear. This contradicts your whole claim of morality. What makes solitary confinement moral?

Inmates convicted of murder, take up space in prisons. The less people they have in the prison, the less money they spend on taking care of inmates and the more money they spend on making the jail a safer, more secure place.
Debate Round No. 3


Solitary confinement is a completely different debate then this. I was just giving an example of where they would be if not sentenced to the death penalty. If someone was not put to sleep, then they would not be able to simply "roam around." They would be in a high security prison.

Why would you want to KILL people who KILL people to show KILLING people is wrong? That is a hypocritical statement.

"Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population." ~

People would be SAVING money, especially tax payers, so YOU would be saving money if the death penalty is abolished. Then, you can use that money to pay for making more prisons to contain the criminals. That would not nearly cost as much as these executions would.

Once again, 1/7 people are innocent who are sentenced to death. That is an unsettling number, for a country which wants to be fair and serve true justice.

Even though they are criminals, they still have families who love and care about them. What makes it fair to make their families' suffer when they are innocent people? That does not make sense either.

Statistics have failed to prove that the death penalty deteriorates murder or crime.

"in 82 percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." ~ The death penalty supports racism.

What about religion? The death penalty goes against many people's religions. That is against amendment 1 of freedom of religion.

Mentally ill people are executed. People who are mentally ill are expected to not be under control of their actions and should not receive such harsh of punishments, which is incorporated in the law. This does not stop 1/10 people executed to be mentally ill, which is legally wrong.

The death penalty gives publicity to criminals who do not deserve such publicity. Some criminals may be acting out to get attention, and the death penalty may be supporting that. Ever think of that? It is true and it happens often, if you don't believe me then check the news.


In a previous statement, you claimed that death penalty is a violation amendment 8 when on it says "The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the death penalty itself is not inherently cruel" How could it be violating the 8th amendment if the supreme court says it is fine?
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.