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

Reform of the 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
fccorder has forfeited round #2.
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: 4/4/2018 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 778 times Debate No: 112306
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




We do not need to reform of the death penalty. definition the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. we reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers So someone that gets sencestes to the death penalty has already Murder related to the smuggling of aliens,Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death, Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting,Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation,Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice or something along those lines. Also "Some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties " up to and including life sentences or even death. Most Americans recognize this and would rather just be put down.


What I'm proposing here is this. We should only focus on mass murdered, serial killers, and persons who torture children. We should have one trail for these individuals who commit these crimes. The death penalty is reach on unanimous 12-member jury finds "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they were met. Given the carnage in the Florida Parkland shooter here and the callous manner in which the shooter went about causing it, the prosecution would not have much difficulty meeting the burden. So once the jury find this person guilty of these crimes. The death penalty then should be in place immediately. After a week or two he should be sentenced to death by lethal injection.

One. It will diminish the cost of the trail dramatically.

Second. It will save the taxpayer millions, on the trail and incarnating that person.

Third. These cases would be special. Meaning it will only be for these mass murders and persons who torture children.

Fourth. It would be a universal law. Meaning the federal government will be hearing it. It would be for all 50 states.

Fifth. "Prosecutors can identify at least three such factors here, where Cruz: 1) created a grave risk of death to many people; 2) acted in a way that was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and 3) committed the act in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner."(1)

Sixth. If the government can start a war and stop a war. Then why can't they step in on serious heinous crimes. Such as mass shooters?

Seventh. Why should these mass shooters, or serial killers stay alive? What is the point for them to stay in jail for the rest of their lives?

Eighth. Other countries has a more affected way of handling big crime. Like "China has the largest population on Earth with 1.3 billion people; 5,000 executions would mean one in every 260,000 residents."(2) they also use lethal injection.

Ninth. "EYE for an EYE" "mean we can punish, or even take revenge upon, someone in the exact same manner they used to harm us" "There are only FOUR places in the King James Bible where the phrase "eye for eye" (or slight variation) occurs (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Matthew 5:38)" (3.) Why does the bible get it right?





In your first argument, i wasn't sure if you were for or against. Justssaid this "Some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties " up to and including life sentences or even death. Most Americans recognize this and would rather just be put down." so this wasn't a clear path for being against the death penalty.

Either way, what i'm proposing is a totally reform of this current system. Making it cost efficient, and not wasting any more time on these horrible human being.
A reminder my system is for the wrost of the worst. Meaning only mass murderers, serial killers and for torturing children to death. This system is for Those individual And that's it.

The floor is yours.....

By the way thank you for accepting and inviting me to this debate...

Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
Reform the death penalty? Reform then entire America corrupt court system. A Judge who receives his pay check from the exact same place as does the prosecuting attorney, defines the biased corruption of the system. Lawyers only make a small short simple dispute into a huge drawn out complex bitter fight which costs both sides allot of money. The Judges should recieve a salary from the parties in the dispute which that Judge adjucates. The Judge or judges should ask the questions, not bought and paid for lawyers on the 2 sides of the dispute!

A man murders another man. Justice: the murderer should be put to death ... NOT sit on death row for 20 years before all the appeals play out. If the judges determine the guilt of the criminal, that criminal should be killed that day of the ruling. If later evidence proves the Judges erred, those judges failed to properly carry out their judicial duties and must stand trial for making a false judical ruling resulting in the death of an innocent man. Standing trail for murder. If later evidence proved in the eyes of the current court that the original Judges took bribes or in some manner corrupted their judicial office - then those criminals die on the same day after different Judges rule that the earlier judges made a corrupt judicial ruling resulting in the death of an innocent man.

This equally applies to all witnesses. If later evidence proves that a witness lied or perverted his testimony, resulting in the death of an innocent man, then those witnesses must stand trial for their lives.
Posted by Nd2400 2 years ago
So you Forfeited... Couldn't hang i guess....
Posted by Nd2400 2 years ago
You have one more day to post your argument...
Posted by fccorder 2 years ago
I fixed up the debate
Posted by Nd2400 2 years ago
Okay should i send you the challenge?
Posted by fccorder 2 years ago
Alright Let's do the Death Penalty one
Posted by Nd2400 2 years ago
Are we in a Thucydides Trap with China? I'm pro

Reform of the death penalty. I'm pro
This debate has 2 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.