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

The Death Penalty should be kept and enforced.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/27/2014 Category: People
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,532 times Debate No: 51048
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Now let's keep it simple.This is just for practice.For the first two rounds let's state our points and the third the rebuttals.
I shall state my argument.The Death penalty should be kept and in fact enforced.Let me tell you why.As we all know every crime should face its punishments.People should pay for what they've done.Yes,even now with the death penalty being enforced in certain countries and states people are still committing crimes worthy of the death penalty.However,they who commit those crimes are obviously unaware of what it feels like to be sentenced to death or rather they are too emotionally affected that nothing matters during the crime.This is where the Death Penalty should come in,to remind the people of what would happen if they did such crimes deserving death.Without it,can you imagine how chaotic the world could become?People would never fear committing crimes ever again!Criminal activities will soar to an all time high and there would be nothing to stop it!Why?Well,the answer is simple.Even if you caught the criminal and proved him or her guilty,could you kill him or her?No!Why?Because you removed the death penalty.Crime rate will increase because no matter what you do to the criminal he or she would never be sentenced to death!More people will not think twice anymore about what they're about to do because they'll never be killed by the law!This is why I believe the Death Penalty should be enforced.


Okay, so the death penalty is wrong. innocent people die from it. All judicial systems make mistakes and as long as the death penalty persist innocent people will die. Additionally, in some countries (who shall not be names) where governments are corrupt, innocent people are put to death in order to send a political message or to "silence" their justified peaceful protesting.

Let's go back in time to the holocaust and the horrific death counts. Would that number be so high if the death penalty was banned then? Let's remind people that Nazi's were a government run group and Hitler was the leader of Germany. It was the STATE killing these people, but what if the state didn't have the right to kill them? What if someone spoke up and said that they can't do that. Well no one did because they(the state) were allowed to. After the Holocaust of course the state of Germany abolished the death penalty and it's been like that since.

98 countries in the world have abolished the death penalty completely for ALL crimes. Countries such as, Germany, the UK, Poland, Iceland, Spain, Norway, Ireland, Italy and many more. These countries are still safe and orderly without the death penalty. If anything they are safer than other countries because the people are protected from the state. Many have signed the Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights or look at for more statistics. These countries also have some of the lowest crime rates/ homicide rates in the world and they don't use the death penalty.

The Death penalty is not an effective scare tactic either. Many countries who use the death penalty have high homicide rates. The death penalty is a fear factor. But does it incite citizens to stay in line or does it make them want to rebel against an abusive government.

Countries such as North Korea have been known to use the death penalty to their advantage. Some may not take it as far as North Korea where watching Desperate Housewives is an act of treason punishable by death.

So does the death penalty protect society or does it pose a threat? By the evidence, I'd say that it would pose more of a threat than it's so called "protection" by a fear factor is worth.
Debate Round No. 1


My second point on why the Death Penalty should be kept and enforced.
The death penalty must be kept and enforced because people must learn their place as human beings and not gods to show them that they have no right to murder anyone no matter what.Sure,there's proof that in states where the death penalty is enforced the rate of homicide is higher and we must also realize that not all cases of homicide are intentional murder.However,it still does not mean the death penalty should be abolished.Despite mistakes made by the judicial systems and unintentional murder cases crimes are still crimes.It is not the death penalty that should be blamed for the killing of the innocent or supposedly innocent people but rather the people who have committed the crimes.I'm sure you would agree yourself that just because homicide rates are higher in states that enforce the death penalty than in those states that don't it doesn't mean that the death penalty has anything to do with it!In fact,I believe that it is good that the death penalty is put in those states with higher homicide rates because there is a very real possibility that homicide rates would increase rather than decrease if the states that enforced the death penalty removed it.
What I am saying is that the death penalty shouldn't be abolished just because innocents are being sentenced wrongfully but it is the people who have made the mistakes in the judicial system and the criminals who should be blamed!Let's look at an example.Since you have used an example of the past,I shall use one of the past as well.If you read The Bible,you will know that in Exodus when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments,one of them stated that you should not work on The Sabbath Day also known now as Sunday.However,a man picked up sticks on Sunday and God told Moses to command the people to kill him.If you think that that judgement was too harsh for a minor thing,then why shouldn't we be punished with the death penalty for much bigger cases like homicide?!Wouldn't you yourself think that it is fair?Sure,the book of Exodus was written a very very long time ago but it still relates to the topic at hand as explained by me just now.
I end my debate by saying this...Your move.


I would like to suggest that we leave religion out of this considering that the bible is a book that can be questioned but the Holocaust was a real event that no one can deny. But for argument's sake let's use the bible. One of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not kill"..... I'm sorry I must have missed the commandment where he says "oh wait unless someone is a murderer then it is ok" how about "thou shalt have no other gods" by allowing our government to make the decision to kill a "criminal" doesn't that give them a godly power as god himself can only chose between life and death and it is not a decision they should have the power to make.

I agree that killing a person is an awful crime and the perpetrator should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but the law should not extend to the point of killing. There's an old saying from the code of Hammurabi, "an eye for an eye' but there was also a wise man who said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"-Gandhi Should we base our modern system of laws on a code written in 1728BCE . and if we do what other traditions should we embrace? The ancient Spartans left children to die on mountain sides if they cried for too long, most ancient societies were patriarchal, the appropriate way to decide feuds was to command an army and then annex the land you either won or lost, Jews are to blame for all the world's problems, slaves are an appropriate way to do work. Why have these ancient practices been declared wrong by most countries and people but the death penalty still resides?

I would like to state that the death penalty is barbaric and simply a fear factor. It may seem like a good idea to use to "show humans their place" but all it does is incite fear in people and it doesn't even prevent homicide. It's barbaric in the ways that it is carried out in some places. Such as Saudi Arabia where they will stone you to death for being Gay. Yes, many countries will kill you because of your sexual orientation and that is by enforcing the death penalty. Some countries even promote the idea of infanticide. The killing of a new born. Countries like China do this for overpopulation reasons and countries like North Korea do this to preserve the Korean race if a child is not "pure" or has any visible physical disability.

Is that right? You argue that the death penalty needs to be kept and enforced yet you deny that it kills innocents. You must be nice and cozy where ever you live because you're failing to see the consequences of it world wide. You may say it's appropriate for those who commit murder but what happens when it escalates out of control and truly innocent people are killed? Because it was enforced.

The truth is the death penalty does nothing to stop homicide, just to give some one a sick sense of comfort knowing that one person's death resulted in another's. And this is what we call justice, I'd rather they rot in a cell than be ut to death and quite frankly It might be more effective.

Check and Mate, your move.
Debate Round No. 2


Now for the rebuttals.
Alright,so you have said that the death penalty is wrong because innocents die from it.Now let me repeat what I have said and allow me to explain just what I've been trying to say.Here's the thing,the judicial systems and the people are the one to blame!They are the ones who committed the crime!The death penalty is definitely not to be blamed because it is corrupt judges and corrupt law systems that sentence people to death.The death penalty is just misused from what it was really intended for.Next,what makes you think that the countries that have abolished the death penalty are safer and more orderly just because the death penalty was abolished?You don't happen to have any statistics of them becoming safer and major events that have happened in those countries because of the death penalty do you?
Besides that,you used the holocaust as an example for corrupt governments using the DP(Death Penalty) to silence its people.Well here's the thing,the holocaust was run by the Germans to kill the Jews during World War II.The Germans hated the Jews at that time.You see,we are debating on the DP here but you involved the holocaust which was based on some racial or religious factor.Did the holocaust mention anything about what crimes the Jews performed to deserve this?Absolutely not!The holocaust was in fact the genocide of the Jews and not criminals!I am here debating on whether CRIMINALS should be sentenced to death by the DP.Not some ethnic or racial group!
Next,you said that Mahatma Gandhi said that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.So are you saying that if I took one of your eyes out on purpose you wouldn't take mine?Besides,he was merely using an analogy,a saying.It is better to have one eye left to see the world fair and square than to have both eyes to see a world full of crimes happening around the world!Or if you were to state that we would be completely blind wouldn't you agree to rather be blind than to see the world full of evil and agony?
You also argued on my example of the Bible by stating that we leave it out of this.But as I said before,it is merely an EXAMPLE not something to say that we should kill because of this!I am saying that if Moses had the right given by God to command the people to kill that one man who worked on a Sunday wouldn't it be fair for people to die because of killing one another?
I agree that the DP has its flaws and not all crimes are worthy of death but at the same time it doesn't mean that it should be abolished!
Also,I didn't say that I support the DP but deny it kills innocents.Like I said before time and time again,it is not the DP that should be blamed.Besides,if I did say that I would be contradicting myself because I believe that EVERYONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
You also said that the DP is not an effective scare tactic either and that it doesn't really incite fear among the people.How sure are you about that?Is it the majority of the people of every country that commits crimes?Of course not!You even agreed with me that the DP puts people in their rightful place!Don't you see that people see just that?You can't blame the DP for failing to do that if a couple of daredevils choose to go against it now can you?
About the cultural matter.You say that if the DP was right what cultures should we embrace?Well,that is another topic on whether tradition is really a necessity or not and I do intend to stay on topic.However,I will still argue on what you did say.You used the fact of the ancient Spartans leaving children out to die if they cried for too long.Here's the thing.I am arguing on whether the DP should be kept and enforced.Not about irresponsible parents!
And finally the personal matter you have brought in.You said that I must be very comfortable where I live but believe it or not I live in Malaysia.Malaysia does have the death penalty!It has its flaws and its systems don't really want it there but it remains there.You also say that I fail to see its consequences of it world wide.Here's the thing,my friend,you are arguing about WHAT IFS not what is happening.Besides,the world doesn't make such big mistakes anymore and it can't.Why?Because countries have learned from their mistakes and have taken a vow to never do those things again and even if they didn't and tried to do it again,there are nations united around the world to stop them from doing so.
This was an indeed interesting debate.I thank you that you have agreed to debate with me on this one.


I see your argument completely. I understand the point you are trying to get across. That criminals should be sentence to the death penalty, if they in fact commit murder. That is, in my opinion, barbaric. I do not believe one death should result in another, one sadness in another, one eye for another. That is a way of the past that we should abolish. The death penalty doesn't always JUST kill criminals. Innocent people are tried for crimes and may be convicted even if they didn't commit said crime. Then they are put to death. Now, not all people who are sentenced the death penalty are innocent, many are guilty of said crimes, but what crimes here are appropriate? You want statistics, here are mine:

7 countries have the death penalty for being gay (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc...)
Countries have the death penalty for rape, robbery, drug possession or trafficking, adultery, treason, etc...

How about some of the inhumane ways it is carried out:
Firing Squad
Public Stoning to death

This is the barbaric truth about what the death punishment is. And the fact is it shouldn't be allowed. No human should be subject to this. Life is valuable and should not be left to the hands of the judicial system to decide.

My final argument is that mistakes are made. Innocent people are killed, and was it really worth it? All of those lives ended because you couldn't just settle for locking them up for life?
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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