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

Death Penalty?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,340 times Debate No: 118551
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I believe the death penalty should be legal. Please present your arguments.


I would like to accept this debate from the point that the death penalty should not be legalised.
Debate Round No. 1


Justice, 'An eye for an eye'. The death penalty would not be dished out randomly or for light crimes- it is reserved for the most heinous of crimes, The most conscienceless of murderers. In other words, Even a whole life spent in prison would be disproportionate to the magnitude of the crime the person has committed. It would be a mockery of justice if the murderer was able to spend the rest of his days in relative comfort that is paid for by innocents. They gave up their own right to a life when they took another's- the family of the victim can no doubt understand this the best. The execution of the criminal is the best way to provide closure to the family of the victim.

The death penalty in fact saves lives. Murderers think twice about killing if they know that their own life is on the line. They would then know that taking an innocent life means forfeiting your own. There have been cases in the past, In certain countries, Where murderers have claimed that they killed with no fear as they knew the worst that could happen is a lifetime in jail, That they would not be killed because in their region of living, The death penalty was never legalized.


A eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind-Mahatma Ghandi
It is all to easy to see the flaws in the death penalty and while the theory that fear of death would deter crime seems stable, It falls apart under scrutiny with no significant change in crime rates, On top of that it can make it harder to prosecute criminals as juries are unwilling to sentence people to death in many cases, Especially where joint enterprise is involved and gangs or groups of people are being sentenced, Like in cases of gang rape or violence. A current example of this is the introduction of the death penalty in India for rapists which has failed to stem the epidemic.

I would instead argue that life imprisonment is a suitable punishment, Let the perpetrator repay their debt to society through their labour and if they can truly ever change then allow that option to be open. Prisons are not pleasant places, It should go without saying, And no criminal would desire a life behind bars; this would also be (from a utilitarian point of view much better) as at the moment the USA spends millions of taxpayer dollars on acquiring the drugs necessary for a 'ethical' execution.

Carrying on from the last point many on death row are incorrectly convicted, Some estimates put the figure as high as 4%, This high a number is simply unacceptable and morally abhorrent as it kills the very innocents such a law would hope to prevent.

Finally, We must take a stand against this kind of capital punishment as it legitimises the actions of far more totalitarian regimes; the US would struggle to criticise China or Saudi Arabia as they would lack a clearly defined moral high ground. Assuming you are arguing for the death penalty in the US specifically there is a additional problem of world views; the US presents it's self as the representatives of the free world and most of the free world is united in their condemnation of the death penalty.
Debate Round No. 2


The death penalty is always carried out with regret. It does not joy in killing even murderers. It aims to bring safety to our innocent citizens.

Studies undertaken over a number of years show, Unequivocally that between 3 and 18 lives could be saved by each execution of a guilty killer. Results from the University of Colorado in Denver show that an execution saves 5 lives while the commuting of a death sentence results in about five more. More research has shown that when the state of Illinois suspended executions in 2000 there were an extra 150 homicides over the following 4 years. There is no doubt that sentencing of the death penalty saves innocents- would you rather those innocent people die instead of a proven murderer? The point of the death penalty is not to kill and destroy- it is aimed to create a safer world.

In truth, Death penalty costs the government less compared to the costs of life imprisonment because they will be given the expenses of food, Health care and other costs that will sustain their lives.

Of course, No criminal would desire a life behind bars; but they would desire death even less. And we are NOT first and foremost committed to the wishes of murders. We must learn, Society must learn, And most of all they must learn that there are consequences to our actions. Murderers and Rapists who have committed crime of enough magnitude to be in review of a death sentence are not to grow repentant and change; if they know there is no fear of their death, What is to stop them from committing the same crimes again should they escape?

Whilst the death penalty would bring closure to the victim's relatives, It is by no means a hot-blooded reaction. A violent, Destructive crime means retribution-they have to pay for the price of their actions, And it should be in equal measure.

There have been cases where people are wrongly sentenced, Due mainly to false witness identification, False evidence, And so on. But mistakes happen in every existing system- it cannot be helped. Even with that in mind, More people would die if the death penalty was not legalized.

Some cases argue that the death penalty is in breach of the eighth amendment, But this is untrue. The supreme court has ruled that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, On the conditions of there being certain procedural aspects on when a jury may use the death penalty and how it must be carried out.

Death penalty is not a form of revenge. It is retribution- the payment of debt to society, And justice. For penalties we have police and a subsequent legal process which is to prevent personal emotions from taking over, Instead ensuring a rational, Logical and fair response to crime. This is why death penalty is reasonable and proportionate to a killing but never to a crime where the victim does not lose their life.

In conclusion, There is a need for the death penalty to exist. The most beneficial action taken would be to continue the process of distributing the death penalty as a punishment. When you put someone else in harm"s way, And ruin their lives, You deserve to be treated with the same respect. The death penalty, Although scary in the eyes of some citizens, Is beneficial to every citizen and increases the safety of our country every day.


ComradeAlexander forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ComradeAlexander 3 years ago
A point to those who vote is that I did write out a answer to the debate, But due to a glitch on the site it was deleted and I simply didn't have time to redo it all. Regardless it was a good debate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Pandanelephant2001 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Amazing!!

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