The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points


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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 650 times Debate No: 120382
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I think execution can't be justified. How will executing someone solve any problems? Even if it does end a criminal(s) life, It won't make the world better. Give the criminal a life time sentence, So he can actually reflect on himself, And feel bad. Killing the criminal, Will not make the victim feel better. The criminal has already done the crime.

According to a February 2015 study by the Brennan Center for Justicce: "Empirically, Capital punishment is too infrequent to have a measureable effect on the crime drop. Criminologically, The existence and use of the death penalty may not even create the deterrent effect on potential offenders that lawmakers hoped when enacting such laws. " Which basically means that the death sentence is too infrequent to impact the world. If it's not helping, Why should we use it?

Also, According to the world renowned Washington Post, There"s still no evidence that executions deter criminals.

So, Execution does not deter criminals, And does not make the criminal rate decline. It's useless, And damaging to the person who's being executed's family.


Let me reply to your arguments in the order that you have presented them.

First, You claim that executing will not solve any problems, The reason for this, You argue, Is because it "won't make the world better. " However, In should we really be basing our laws off of whatever is best for the world as a whole? If this were true then we would be obligated to sacrifice the rights of the minorities for the advantage of the majority.

You are correct in assuming that execution will not make the person who has died feel better, However, Let us not forget that the family members and friends of the person who has died are often affected in tremendous ways, Especially if the person killed is supporting a family. According to a 2015 FBI reports that in the event of a homicide 6 to 10 family members are individually victimized. There are countless stories of these family members waiting for the perpetrator to receive justice.

The quote that you provide also does not necessarily prove you point, If anything it shows that we should increase the frequency of capital punishment in order to increase effectiveness, A point that I would agree with. Your quote from the Washington Post also proves nothing, In fact is considered a logical fallacy called proof by failure to find a counter example.

Finally, Should we not be more concerned with the family of the victim rather than that of the perpetrator. In your argument you seem to be very concerned about the later, However fail to realize the effect on the family of the victim.
Debate Round No. 1


I will also reply to your arguments in order.

We should be basing our economy, World, And politics on what benefits the majority the most. Let me give you an example. Say, Somehow, There is a world where everybody has access to guns. Then, There's a shooting, Killing 3/4 of the population(this is not very logical). Would you take away the guns, Or leave everybody with a weapon? Of course you would choose the former.

You claim that the families and friends will be affected in tremendous ways, That I agree. But not all of them will be solved by Capital Punishment. According to Lorrain Taylor, Whose sons were tragically murdered "Revenge is not justice, ". Also, She stated that "Taking another person"s life does not stop violence, ". Another example of this would be the murdering of Derrell Myers and Naomi White's son name JoJo White. "We do not think that the execution of Jojo"s killer will make the world a better place, " says Jojo"s parents. "We honor Jojo"s life by working for peace and social justice " goals that were important to him. " This proves that even though the families of the victim might be affected, It doesn't mean they want to get revenge or kill the perpetrator.

You also say that there are countless stories of family members waiting for the perpetrator to get justice. This statement does not prove anything about your topic. Justice can mean that the perpetrator can get a life sentence.

I see your point about my quotes, And that I am sorry about. But, I have some more research to show to you. According to the Los Angeles Times, California spent 57. 5 million USD more annually to house prisoners and criminals on the death row instead of a life sentence without a possibility of parole. You say that you would like to increase the number of prisoners on death row. This will cause not just California, But probably the United States to lose millions of dollars. Also, The cost of a federal death penalty case that goes to trial is increasing. "The Judicial Conference of the United States found that between 1989 and 1997 the median cost of a federal death penalty case that went to trial was $269, 139; between 1998 and 2004 it had grown to $620, 932. " (The Marshall Project). This means that even if a criminal wins a case, He will lose thousands of dollars because someone gave him the death penalty.

Finally, We should be equally concerned about both the family of the victim and the family of the perpetrator. They will both suffer equal trauma.

Thank you, And I hope you reply soon


You make a very bold statement in you introduction, However, It is extremely flawed. First lets begin with the scenario that you presented. I would not agree with either of the solutions that you have presented. The correct line of action would be to prosecute the individual on the crimes that they committed. Also, According to your statement, You would be fine with the re-institution of slavery if it was determined that slavery was the best economical choice and the majority of people supported it.

I completely agree with your point that revenge is not justice, However, I would also add that, Justice is not revenge. This point is best presented by Frederick A. Romano, Whose sister and two other individuals: Patricia Antoinette Hirt and Lori Elizabeth Ward, Were murdered. When asked his opinion of the death penalty for the murderer he stated "It's justice. . . It's not revenge, " he went further to explain that "Revenge would be going out and killing one of [the murderer's] family members. " Justice is administered when the perpetrator is held fully accountable for his crimes, Life imprisonment is not in anyway similar to execution, While in prison you can be visited by family members, Have contact with the outside world and you are treated well. The only type of imprisonment that would be similar to execution would be solitary confinement, However, I think we can both agree, That would fall under the category of cruel and unusual punishment.

As far as the amount of money that is spent on prisoners on death row. First, I would agree that there are many inefficiencies our current execution system, However, This does not mean that we should completely abolish the system. All that this goes to show is we need to reform the largely bureaucratized system that we currently have in place. Also, That 57. 5 billion dollars is a very small number when you look at Californian's annual spending of 209. 1 billion dollars, Which equates to a meager. 027% of the annual budget. Also, The amount of money spent by the government is a largely irrelevant topic when discussing something of such a moral principle as execution.

Concerning the individual involved in a death penalty trial. The problem of innocent individuals being wrongly convicted and losing astronomical amounts of money for it extends far past the death penalty. Also, Let us not forget that an equal sum is also paid by the accusers, And unlike many other lawsuits, When the death penalty is involved, One would not be taken to court unless there was overwhelming evidence in the affirmative.

Lastly, Yes we should be concerned about both families in this case, However, Let us not pretend that the trauma faced by both are equal. While the level may be the same, The type is quite different.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your response. The solutions presented are saying that the criminals were fighting each other. Basically, People were shooting each other. Wouldn't it make sense to take the guns away? It's the same things with children and teenagers. Hypothetically, If a child was gaming for several hours a day, And not doing their homework, Would you take away the gaming console, Let the child fail, Or, According to your philosophy, Scold the child and don't take the gaming console away. Most would agree on the first one.

Research by University of Minnesota sociology-anthropology professor Scott Vollum and colleagues found ambivalence in families and friends of the victim"s reactions to the death penalty. Their study showed that only 2. 5 percent achieved true closure, And 20. 1 percent said that the execution did not help them heal. Co-victims in the study also expressed feelings of emptiness when the death penalty did not "bring back the victim. " So, This statement says only a small minority of people feel that the death penalty is right. Also, Your quote doesn't really support your argument. After some research, I found that Romano said this BEFORE the murderer was executed. But, Lula Redmond, A therapists stated that "More often than not, Families of murder victims do not experience the relief they expected to feel at the execution, " She then went on to say "Taking a life doesn"t fill that void, But it"s generally not until after the execution that families realize this. " Which means that Romano was probably was so angry at the murderer that he forgot to realize that the death penalty won't fix his anger and sadness.

Also, You said that "life imprisonment is not in anyway similar to execution, " but that is a good thing. If you didn't have contact with the outside world, That would probably torture. And you said yourself that solitary confinement was a cruel and unusual punishment. But, You also stated that solitary confinement was similar to execution. So, You basically stated that execution was similar to a cruel and unusual punishment.

You also say that the government spending is a largely irrelevant topic, And also say that 57. 5 million dollars is a small amount. But you forgot to mention that I say that the system costs 57. 5 million dollars MORE per year. California actually spends 137 million dollars on just the holding prisoners on the death penalty. That could be put into better use, Like improving the air quality, And using it on earthquake and natural disaster relief.

The death penalty is one of the most expensive cases, And your statement that "the problem of innocent individuals being wrongly convicted and losing astronomical amounts of money for it extends far past the death penalty" is off the subject. If we eliminate the death penalty, It will be one less expensive court case we have to deal with. In Maryland, Death penalties cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, Or $3 million for a single case.

Finally, The trauma faced by more are equal, Both have suffered humongous shock. In the Parkland School shooting, Nikolas Cruz's brother, Zach had been ostracized by his community, Involuntarily confined to a psychiatric facility, Arrested twice, Kicked out of his guardian"s home, Taken in by strangers who moved him 900 miles north to Virginia, And blamed, Not so much by others but by himself. "I always carry it with me. Every day. There is no forgetting, " Zach says. "I"m stuck between loving him and hating him because of what he did. "
Since I hardly have anymore characters remaining, I'll have to leave you with this question: "Would you like to meet your demise involuntarily? "


j.noahs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cyborghacker 3 years ago
Voting will start soon. Please vote.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct point to Con for the forfeit. Con's arguments seemed to stretch to absurd lengths to make his point. Con used better resources to derive his arguments.

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