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

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
luis_yt 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: 4/22/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,339 times Debate No: 102138
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




We reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers. This is not, as some critics argue, a kind of state-run lottery that randomly chooses an unlucky few for the ultimate penalty from among all those convicted of murder. Rather, the capital punishment system is a filter that selects the worst of the worst...

Put another way, to sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty " presumably a long period in prison " would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this essential point...

Perhaps most importantly, in its supreme gravity it [the death penalty] promotes belief in and respect for the majesty of the moral order and for the system of human law that both derives from and supports that moral order.


First, I would like to say good luck to my opponent.

To begin, I want to stress the fact that the death penalty is morally wrong. Why does the government say killing is wrong but goes ahead and does it anyway? We are taught that killing is wrong, and it should extend here too.

There is a better alternative: life without parole.
In Oregon, we have the option of sentencing convicted murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole. There are currently over 121 people in Oregon who have received this sentence.

The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk.
Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, 138 innocent men and women have been released from death row, including some who came within minutes of execution. In Missouri, Texas and Virginia investigations have been opened to determine if those states executed innocent men. To execute an innocent person is morally reprehensible; this is a risk we cannot take.

Race and place determine who lives and who dies.
Those who kill whites are more likely to be sentenced to die than those who kill African-Americans. In Oregon, prosecutors from some counties are more likely to pursue the death penalty than others are.

We pay many millions for the death penalty system.
According to the Oregonian, in 1995 the trials for three Washington County murder cases cost more than $1.5 million. One was sentenced to death. The two others, one of whom was found guilty of four murders, are not on death row. In 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year.

This shows at least four reasons why the death penalty is wrong. We pay more, we get nothing out of it, and there are essentially no consequences (other than death) for the perpetrator.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, I do see the morality issue that you have placed, which is quite intently the biggest proponent for anti-death penalty cases.

However, I see that the death penalty should only be used for the utmost important and gravest offences. Petitioners, sentenced to die for the crimes they committed (including, in the case of one petitioner since put to death, raping and murdering an 11"month-old baby), come before this Court asking us to nullify their sentences as 'cruel and unusual' under the Eighth Amendment.

Citing some sources from the American constitution and;

They rely on this provision because it is the only provision they can rely on. They were charged by a sovereign State with murder. They were afforded counsel and tried before a jury of their peers"tried twice, once to determine whether they were guilty and once to determine whether death was the appropriate sentence. They were duly convicted and sentenced...

Not once in the history of the American Republic has this Court ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible. The reason is obvious: It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth Amendment provides that No person shall be held to answer for a capital...crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,' and that no person shall be 'deprived of life...without due process of law...

Historically, the Eighth Amendment was understood to bar only those punishments that added "terror, pain, or disgrace" to an otherwise permissible capital sentence...

I would not presume to tell parents whose life has been forever altered by the brutal murder of a child that life imprisonment is punishment enough.

Which is why, due to the rare use of this penalty, there would not be much monetary problems that will ensue.


Starting with your first counter-argument you said it is only used in the "utmost important and gravest offences. " but this article right here from ( ) says, "London-based human rights watchdog Amnesty International has flayed the blatant misuse of death penalty as a political weapon in several countries with China, Iran, Iraq and Sudan topping the list.

In its annual report on capital punishment, Amnesty noted that despite an overwhelming majority favoring abolition of the practice, its extensive and politicized use continued.

"Even as world opinion and practice shift inexorably towards abolition, the extensive and politicized use of the death penalty continues," it said.

Asia, the Middle East and North Africa accounted for majority of executions with 714 people executed in 18 countries in 2009.

Of these 366 people were executed in Iran, 120 in Iraq and 52 in the U.S. and the executions were carried out by "hanging, shooting, beheading, stoning, electrocution and lethal injection."

Saudi Arabia and Iran were criticized for putting to death juvenile offenders in violation of international law.

China is believed to have executed more people in 2009 than all the countries put together, but the actual figures are not available since Beijing maintains that it is a state secret.

Even though China claimed fewer executions since 2007 after the introduction of a mandatory review of death sentences by a higher court, Amnesty maintained that "evidence from previous years and a number of current sources indicates that the figure remains in the thousands."
This shows widespread misuse throughout the world. This defeats your argument that it is only used as a last resort.

For your argument on "monetary problems" I am just going to refer back to my last remarks because it shows that it costs a lot of money.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
The Death Penalty is a definition created by unproven separation, it ignores possibilities of existence after a death and is suggesting a permanent end that cannot be established by honorably by law.
Penalty is infliction of suffering or pain for a law that is broken protecting law and not person.
Capital Punishment is a suggestion of infliction of pain or a suffering from the harm that is caused by the breaking of law.

Death Penalty is wording used to create a justification because of a flaw in Constitutional application of some Capital punishments. The problem is the problem still exists to spite wording and should be addressed by State of the Union in Congress. The moral issue is created over the incomplete integration of Constitutional separation in the Capital punishment process. The Government describes how killing can be wrong, no that killing is wrong the Constitution established rules with others. To Limit how we can hurt ourselves unintentionally or accidentally with law.

The understanding from world History is law is a written contract that can blow up in our face.
Posted by uzairmahmud 3 years ago
The death penalty is for those who become a harm for others around them, because they have harmed others, and to end the threat, we must take their life.
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.