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

Death penalty

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  
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: 7/30/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 442 times Debate No: 117044
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




The death penalty should be put back in place in Western society because it is a way to get rid of the extremely small percentage of people that are a public danger for members of society to be killed in a quicker and cheaper way. I only ask this. Is a perpetual prison sentence not simply a more expensive and frankly more cruel way of killing these criminals? Obviously, The death penalty should only be applied in extremely specific circumstances to ensure that only criminals that have committed crimes so horrid they lose the right to live in society. Is food and shelter for several decades really the best investment for the tax payers? Would it not be better to simply end their life in a non-painful way than to let them rot in a prison cell for so many years?


As a society we delegate the responsibilities of law enforcement to those who enact (legislative), Enforce (executive), And interpret (judicial) the laws. We may delegate these responsibilities to others, But it is us, Through choosing our leaders, That are "pulling the trigger" on the executions. They "represent" us as our delegates. If we are personally unable to pull the switch, How can we delegate this horrid responsibility to others? Are you willing to pull the switch? If so, You may have an argument, But as most of us would answer no, It would be unethical to ask that others be burdened with such a job.
Debate Round No. 1


As is the case in all representative democracies, We pass the responsibility to the person/people we elect as a society to take our decisions for us. Should the representatives then not be ready to take the decisions no one else is willing to take as it is still their job to represent their voters? Should you be more interested in that topic, I would like to recommend a short film by The Truth Podcast on this matter: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=jseknkdNfA0. In this case, As I mentioned before, I believe it should not even come down to a personal decision on whether or not to take a life. As I mentioned, I believe the laws concerning the death penalty, Should it come back into place in, For example, America, Should be extremely specific on what can be considered 'worthy' of the death penalty. Is it, In your opinion, Better to leave them to rot in a prison cell for the rest of their life, A cell that is being provided by THE VERY SOCIETY THEY ENDANGER(ED), Simply because no one is willing to take that decision? If the laws are passed, It is not even a choice, But even a duty for those representatives to execute them and to protect their society from those would try to harm it.


As this is the final round of this debate, Let me start by saying that I have really enjoyed your posts, And they are thought provoking.

I do still hold to my opinion that I should not be asking the government to do that which I myself am unwilling to do, At least when it comes to another's life.

Another issue that I do have with the death penalty is there is a gray line between what crimes are horrendous enough to qualify for the death penalty, And which deserves life in prison. There must at some point be a line of where someone is just bad enough for the death penalty, Or one is just barely good enough to qualify for life. Where exactly is that line, And does it vary by what state it is tried in, Or just by random jury selection? As with any punishment, There is a gray area, But when it comes to someone's life, That gray line is the difference between life and death.
Debate Round No. 2


In this final round I also wish to give credit to my opponent in this debate, Which has come up with excellent points. But, My opinion in this subject remains the same. I still believe it is the representative's duty to protect the people he represents, And if that means taking the life of someone who has threatened those people, So be it. In the second round, The opposition came up with a very valid point on 'what can or cannot be considered worthy of the death penalty' and the truth is, There is no right answer to this specific matter. What should be considered worthy of this sentence is obviously extremely subjective. . . But that is a decision to be made by the legislative branch of the government. And, Referring to the previous answer, No, I do not believe it should vary depending on the state as this would only create more conflicts in already-complicated situations. The crimes worthy of the death penalty should be voted for by representatives of all states if it is in a country composed of states such as the United States of America, Or even possibly by bigger organizations such as the EU, NATO, And in very idealistic situations, Even in the United Nations. If the laws are agreed on, They may not all be 'right' immediately, But it sets a foundation that learns and changes with the needs of society. The line the opposition talked about can never be dispersed as such moral reasons do not have a correct answer. But we must learn from what worked and what did not to evolve and to make sure we keep our society safe.
Thank you.


The overly stated opinions related to the death penalty are that it is not a deterrent which is debatable, And is not your argument for the death penalty, So I really cannot argue from this point. The other is the possibility of an innocent being put to death, It sounds like your burden of proof would be very high, So most likely this would not be an argument against your points. The final argument I often hear is that many of the family and friends of the victims do not find closure with an execution, But this would be an invalid argument in this case because some families probably do find closure, And this too is not an argument you use in defense of capitol punishment. What I am saying is that you have covered all of the major arguments against the death penalty by limiting it's application to a small group of people.

Outside of the standard arguments I worry about who is drawing the line. I know you mentioned a governing body like NATO, The EU, Or UN, But still some member countries of this organization do not represent what I personally consider to be a good standard to use when making moral judgments, So their line may and will be different from the ones that we/I would like to see.

An example of this is the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). I would be worried that such a body would not have the same narrow definition of where the line is drawn on who does and does not receive the death penalty. Having a body that determines where any line is would be a risky venture (though all laws are that), But when it comes to the life of another person, This would be too important to leave to an international group.
As an example, The UNHRC is made up of the countries that have questionable human rights records. For example, The current members are Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Senegal, Egypt, Rwanda, Tunisia, South Africa, Burundi, Ivory Cost, Ethiopia, Kenya, Togo, Afghanistan, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, China, Iraq, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Philippines, UAE, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela, Australia, Spain, UK, Iceland, Belgium, Germany, And Switzerland. I am not going to list names, And maybe you agree with all of them being on this counsel, But from this list I personally would only want maybe nine countries to be on a rule making board regarding human rights, And especially when it comes to the life of a person. To me the makeup of the UNHRC is a joke, A bad one at that. Many of these countries practice harsh treatment, Or even death, For things such as blasphemy, Dissidence, And homosexuality. For the UN you could not really say, We only want the "good" ones coming up with rules regarding the death penalty as it is made up of a coalition of questionable countries involved in the decision making.
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council. I have always found the countries that make up the UNHRC to be a joke. The worse your Human Rights record, The more likely you are to be nominated to be a part of this committee. I list this mostly to demonstrate that having a "subjective group, " even at the UN level, Or any other for that matter.

NATO may be a better option as many of these countries have a better Human Rights record, But there are still some I would question. I believe that even within the United States we would have trouble coming up with a fair list of how to draw the line for who deserves death. I cannot really say what states would have a broader interpretation of the death penalty, And which would have a more narrow focus, But I am sure that the contrast between the actions of Texas and Vermont may demonstrate that a national consensus would be difficult to reach. To me a problem still is that gray line, And what committee or governing body chooses it. I do not believe you can trust the UN, NATO, Or even individual states to come up with a fair definition of what deserves death. Maybe the current makeup of the EU may be a good start, But as Hitler, Stalin, And Lenin have shown us, A "good" country can go bad pretty quickly. Just because a country has a good human rights record does not mean that it will remain this way in the future.

Sorry for the rambling, So sum up, I think your arguments are solid and good. I still do think it would be difficult to create any body to come up with a fair list of what deserves death. We cannot only select "good" people to make up these boards. We cannot tell the UN that Australia, The UK, Germany, And Belgium can set the rules while ignoring the rest of the world, The same would apply to any other country. I also revert back to my original argument that if I am unwilling to literally pull the trigger, I should not nominate others to do so for me, The blood is still on my hands. The really only fair way in my mind is to call a jury pool of average citizens and assign them to carry out the death penalty. Some states do this with witnesses to the death, This could be expanded to having them as executioners. In this way, We are reminded that it is us as citizens that are putting this person down, Not some far removed group of people we do not interact with.

Pleasure to speak with you.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2 3 years ago
I say we should be able to do the death penalty more often. Especially murderers.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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