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

Should the Death Penalty be an acceptable form of punishment?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 9/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,298 times Debate No: 118270
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Depending on the crime committed, I believe that the Death Penalty is definitely an option to be considered. However, Again, It is all circumstantial.
Looking forward to seeing your opinions on this and where you stand.


This delicate will not support Death Penalties.

The only and main reason of death penalty is to prevent dangerous people or drug uses from carrying out what they have done before. Death penalties are given to murderers to prevent them from going any further. Most people will think death penalty prevents many crimes but there are people with mental illness or are psychopaths out there in the world.

There is always another way to prevent those people from committing these kind of crimes. We should create a facility where they can be treated properly and a facility for people who have regrets and have already committed a crime. For example an enclosed area just to keep those insane people from the outside world but at the same time live a fulfilled life.

One very serious problem of death penalty is that it puts innocent people risks.
Another reason is that Race and Place still determines who lives and dies. A person killing a African-American has more chance of survival than a person killing an White-American.

Having deaths sentences also costs millions for the country. If there is no death penalties countries can use millions on more useful places in helping the citizens.

Family members of executed member often suffer trauma leading to another and another crime.
Debate Round No. 1


Your points are very valid and I do agree with most of them. However, In the second paragraph you state that putting these psychopaths in an enclosed area will help them to lead a 'fulfilled life'. Why should a person, Who clearly has no empathy toward other humans, Be allowed to live a fulfilled life if they had murdered an innocent person?
Old habits die hard and for a person who could have been involved in extreme child abuse cases or had violently damaged a person both physically and psychologically, I highly doubt that they would change their psychotic ways. How many times have murderers been in and out of jail in their life times?

As I had said in the first debate, I believe it is all circumstantial. It would not make much sense to send a thief to death or a person who has done a few counts of harassment. Those sorts of people should, As you had mentioned, Be in a facility that will rehabilitate them and help them to live 'fulfilled' lives. But a pedophile, Rapist or a killer? No, They do not deserve fulfilling lives at all. But maybe death would be a blessing for people like that. Nevertheless, I do agree with you about the high cost of sending a person to death. However, There needs to be more of a punishment for these people. Pedophiles, For example, Will continue to have sexual feelings for children. It's just how their brain is. I guess you could compare it to being homosexual or heterosexual. Its a chemical in their brain that has been wired to think differently. They can't help it and no amount of counselling or therapy would be able to either. And, When convicted, They only get six months to three years in jail. Isn't that crazy? And, Yet, A person who smuggled drugs into another country illegally gets much longer in prison. So, As I said, It is all circumstantial and convicted pedophiles are definitely a group that need to be eliminated.

As for the part where you say that it puts 'innocent people at risk', Sure there is always that possibility. This is why the death penalty should only be given out if they are proved, 100% without doubt, Guilty of the crime they are being accused of.


Yes, You are correct by saying that rapist or killers should not be rehabilitated and help them live a fulfilled life. However, If you put yourself in the situation of a person that is about to take a death penalty you would feel really helpless. So I have came up with a solution. Criminals that are found guilty should get an option whether to face the death penalty or go for a life sentence in jail. If they go for the life sentence in jail they should be a given works to do just like a normal everyday life. For example, Making them cook food or bread so it can be donated to the ones in need of food. This way we enable those criminals to still be able to do good things in their life for a change.
Having them sent to this kind of life sentence also brings down the countries costs.

Another reason why death penalty should not allowed is that now days it is very hard to be 100% sure that a person is found guilty since there are numerous corruption within the court and false imprisonment. If innocents are sent to death penalties and are found innocent a few years later it will already be too late for them since they have already faced death penalty. If the innocent was sent to life sentence instead they would be freed after they have been found innocent.

One other point is that drugs cases can be easily pushed on innocent. For example, Drugs have been smuggled into other people's car so that the criminals won't get caught when the drug is been detected the criminal will get away freely but the innocent will get caught.
Debate Round No. 2


I like your idea in that criminals should have the option to die or be imprisoned for life. I think that it is a really good idea, In fact. I am unsure of whether or not I would trust some sort of cannibalistic murderer to cook for me if I were homeless, So they'd all have to be strictly monitored. Especially if they are using sharp cooking utensils.
I also do agree with pretty much everything else you have said. My opinions sit on the fence, Though I still believe that it is all circumstantial.


Giving them a job as a cook is kind of dangerous and more work also have to be put in to monitor those prisoners. But this is only an example of a job they could do. There are many other jobs such as washing laundry or manufacturer simple good of everyday needs.
My conclusion is that criminals should be able to choose between die or be imprisoned for life.
We as humans should still respect someone else decision even though how bad they are.
If they choose a death penalty then we will respect them by giving them the death penalty, If they choose life sentence then we will also respect them by giving them the life sentence.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by FT 3 years ago
Maybe one should take a look at the prison systems of the countries of the lowest crime rates like Norway
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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