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

Should the death penalty be abolished?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anonymous 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: 1/12/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,306 times Debate No: 106632
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)



The death penalty should not be abolished. It provides justice for murder victims families and deters crime. Abolishing the death penalty will result in absolutely no benefits.


First off, thank you for letting anyone like me to accept this debate.

The death penalty, though it has flaws and misconceptions, it does not necessarily mean that it should be abolished, it just means we need to use it and do it a lot better than we are using it and doing it now.

Let's define the death penalty.
"A death penalty is the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes (serious crimes, especially murder, which are punishable by death). The death penalty, or capital punishment, may be prescribed by Congress or any state legislature for murder and other capital crimes. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury trial in capital crime cases.

A majority, but not all states provide for the death penalty. Most states that do allow capital punishment have an age requirement, although it is permissible to impose a death penalty on a minor in certain cases. Recently, challenges to death penalties have arisen based upon the mental capacity of the convicted to understand the wrongfulness of their actions.In addition to the death penalty laws in many states, the federal government has also employed capital punishment for certain federal offenses, such as murder of a government official, kidnapping resulting in death, running a large-scale drug enterprise, and treason.

In April 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Commission passed the Resolution Supporting Worldwide Moratorium On Executions. The resolution calls on countries which have not abolished the death penalty to restrict its use of the death penalty, including not imposing it on juvenile offenders and limiting the number of offenses for which it can be imposed. Ten countries, including the United States, China, Pakistan, Rwanda and Sudan voted against the resolution." [1]

It just needs to be used and done better, so we'll have no problem about it. Yes, we do all need justice for murder victims, this seems like the best way of serving that justice, but it needs to be used and done better.

Source (s):
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
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Pill_Junkie_Monkey 3 years ago
It is a question of morality. Obviously using the minimum amount of force to stop a violent act, or a violation of property rights is justifiable, but is the death penalty justifiable?

Here is my opinion

Is killing in defense justified: If necessary, yes.

Is the death penalty justified: Rarely. If some crazy psychopath swears he will kill again, it could be argued that is virtuous to execute him to save others.

Just my silly opinion though.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 3 years ago
Here we go, again!
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.