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

Should capital punishment be abolished?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 867 times Debate No: 102109
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




This is actually the first debate that I have brought forth to this website, so please bear with me as I get used to it. I would also ask that you argue the topic, don't merely attack your opponent. Lastly, I ask that you bring new relevant information into the debate to make it more enjoyable for both sides.

My official argument will begin here:
The death penalty is an inhumane and outdated form of punishment that blatantly violates human rights, doesn't deter crime, puts innocent civilians at risk, costs taxpayers millions of dollars more and should be abolished at a federal level.


The death penalty is not inhumane, we are putting down monsters. These are people who have committed the worst crimes, have destroyed the lives of entire families, and deserve to be put down for it. Frankly I think death doesn't do justice to many of these crimes, prolonged torture would be more just.

There is always the argument that you may put down people who are incorrectly sentenced. I have faith in the justice system for this not to happen frequently. The death penalty is a serious deterrent for crime, criminals will think twice before doing these things if they think they'll be killed for it, as opposed to just a light jail sentence. When it does happen, it is a far more acceptable "collateral damage" than the many thousands of innocents who would die at the hands of potential murderers had they not been deterred by possibility of a death sentence.
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, when we talk about "justice" we're debating mostly personal opinions. We are debating our own personal views of whether an "eye for an eye" is a just system. Personally, I believe that criminals do deserve punishment for their crimes, and this can be accomplished without state sanctioned killings. I also share these beliefs with various people such as Mahatma Gandhi, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and many other great leaders and thinkers of their time. What we should mainly focus on is the consequences of the death penalty. As I stated before, the death penalty does not deter crime. I found that murder rates in states without the death penalty have consistently been lower than states with the death penalty. Therefore, I believe that the death penalty truly doesn't do it's part in deterring crime. Also, you said it wouldn't happen frequently? There have 158 people on death row found to be innocent for various reasons. They were the lucky ones, there were plenty of cases where innocent people were executed. The court system doesn't spend time and money in order to see if they incorrectly executed someone; although, private researchers such as Professor James Liebman and other researchers at Columbia University Law School. They found that it was irrefutable that we executed an innocent person. Also, we can not accept the risk that we take with every execution that we permanently end an innocents human life, an irreversible and reprehensible crime. Lastly, I have multiple new points that I would like to bring forth. Firstly, it has to be accepted that there is a large racial bias and sexual bias in our criminal justice system; we can not racism and sexism influence our decision in whether someone deserves to die. Another thing that should be noted is that capital punishment blatantly violates article three in the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Lastly, I would like to look at how the rest of the world views capital punishment. All of our closest allies have abolished the death penalty for some time now. Even the United Nations decided for a moratorium (hold) on capital punishment. Although countries that still use it include China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia,= and Syria. We should not be sharing matters of criminal justice with these countries


I disagree that we cannot be sharing matters of justice with the countries you mentioned. There is no crime committed by citizens (the state is another matter) in North Korea. In North Korea, you can leave a suitcase in the middle of a hotel lobby and it will still be there the next day. If the death penalty is not acting as a deterrent in certain US states, it is because it is not made scary enough. The Chinese execute criminals in public and broadcast it on TV, you'll think twice about committing a crime after seeing that. There isn't a single person in North Korea who would even think about committing a crime without shitting their pants.

If the death penalty is not acting as a deterrent in America, they are going about it the wrong way. When the justice system is proper, crime goes way down, and the countries you mentioned are clear evidence of that.

As to the possibility of innocents being put down, I concede that this will happen occasionally. But my argument comes down to a matter of scope. If the death penalty is instituted competently enough to act as a real deterrent towards crime, the innocent lives saved from criminals will far outweigh infrequent mistakes made by the justice system.
Debate Round No. 2


Firstly, I noted that you failed to refute all but one of my points and you didn't introduce any new points. Secondly, of the countries I mentioned, two are have civil wars and four of them are totalitarian governments. There are still crimes committed in North Korea, the government there just claims they never happen. Also, North Korea doesn't respect individual rights, which our country is built upon. Over there they blindly slaughter their own citizens, are you really suggesting we become more like them? Also, we can't stand by and watch innocent people be executed in order to "deter" crime. There are so many other forms of punishment that don't involve threat to innocent lives that would work just as well.


You are far less likely to get shot walking down the street in China, than you are in certain parts of Chicago.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
This is not Constitutional, "The killer is guilty they deserve to suffer the full extent of the law." Really the Constitutional stance describes the thought as, when a convicted is found guilty it is not the burden of the judicial separation to hold them from the path created outside its separation process.

Clear separation needs to be directed by a State of the Union on a Congressional level. The issue is not in the cost of money this may never change. The issue is in a cost outside the value of money, in law and how the Capital sentence is undertaken. The system needs to reflect a basic impartiality which alienates single person blame.
Posted by Unjust_Life 3 years ago
I'm okay with humans that don't contribute to society, but when humans start to harm society, they become trash. Trash should be thrown away and burned (killed). Of course we should always check if the human trash can become reformed in order to contribute to society or at the very least, stop their harmful ways.
Posted by GrimlyF 3 years ago
The only reason for the huge cost of the Death Penalty is that we don't execute the guilty at the required time. When a date is given for execution only a finding of reasonable doubt as to the guilty verdict should be considered. No extenuating circumstances or technical failings should apply. If the killer is guilty they deserve to suffer the full extent of the law.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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