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

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,177 times Debate No: 119757
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (83)
Votes (1)




This debate will be on the death penalty. I will be arguing against the death penalty being a good thing. My opponent who will be 'pro' will argue in favour of the death penalty. Whoever my opponent will be I would like to wish them good luck and hope for an interesting and fun debate.

Here is my reasoning on why the death penalty is a bad thing.

One of the strongest reasons I think why the death penalty is a bad idea is the amount of innocent people that it has killed. The justice system is not perfect and many innocent people have been convicted by it, The problem with the death penalty is that there is no way to go back on sentences and fix mistakes when new information about a case is found. There have been a number of people in the US who have been sentenced to death who later have been found out to be innocent. If these people were just sent to prison these mistakes could have been reversed and fixed.

Secondly I find the argument that the death penalty will deter crime to be a bad one. I feel that this is very logical. If someone is that messed up in the head to even consider killing someone or doing something equally as bad and inhumane, Do you really think that the prospect of death is going to deter them from doing it?

Also, One thing that I've noticed many people who are in favour of the death penalty don't realise is that the death penalty is in fact very expensive. According to the Death Penalty Information Centre, In the US the average costs for a non-death penalty murder case is $1. 1 million ($870, 000 in imprisonment, $250, 000 in trial), While the average costs for a death penalty case are $3 million ($1. 3 million in imprisonment, $1. 7 million in trial).

For these reasons and more I strongly believe that the death penalty is a bad thing and should absolutely be repealed in countries that it is implemented in such as the US.

https://deathpenaltyinfo. Org/executed-possibly-innocent

https://deathpenaltyinfo. Org/costs-death-penalty


Well, I thank my opponent for this debate, An interesting subject, I think myself.

I'll be presenting my own reasons then on why the death penalty ought currently be a good thing.

Innocents are injured and lost in any endeavor I would say. Whether in war, Store policies, Societal regulations, And so on. This is not good. But even when one chooses no action, Events continue. Many times worse than if we had taken action.

Yes, When a person life is lost. That is rather final. Irreversible really. But, There are reasons the death penalty exists.
When a murderer is given a lifetimes worth of paroles, Is given such and murders again. Is the innocent that he murdered given any chance at life again? Does the justice system make it their business to sentence to execution the innocent?
No! I say. Innocent life lost is an unfortunate byproduct of the best path that we might take.

On deterrence. Perhaps the death penalty is not a true deterrence to them. Often they slip the proverbial noose so to speak by reason of insanity. For the slightly though no less mad, The death penalty exists to remove them from society.
And for the sane. Motivated by whatever sin is their flavor, Cunningly concocting plan or carrying through their desires in manner quite foul. Still they cannot grasp that they want if they are dead, Cannot enjoy spoils behind bar or grave. Fear makes some work there.

Yes, My opponent is correct that the death penalty is more costly at this time. But is that reason to argue against the death penalty? Or more, Is it reason to argue against the current plans. Methods of trial, And procedures that lead to the death penalty?

As an example. Do you think that people who vote against marijuana being legalized, Intend their vote to mean "I want the government to waste it's time and money ruining peoples lives if they have a gram of marijuana on them"?
No, Rather they, I think would want the government to simply seize the substance if illegal, To prosecute a dealer to children as they would a tobacco or alcohol dealer to children.

The problem is not the idea of the law, The concept. The problem is in the execution of the idea.

The prison system as it is, Is a costly sore to the public. Irritating and so often unasked by the taxpayer. Renovation, Innovation are what is needed. Laws, Prisons, The Death Penalty. These will exist in societies. It seems an unrealistic approach to try to remove them in a moment in our current society. Rather we must learn to go about them in a manner less wasteful, Less harmful, But acknowledge their existence and current permanence.

But these matters speak of the materials wasted, Of the few injustices made to the innocent. What of justice itself, By that which society or the wronged feel for those sentenced truthfully for wrongs, For horrors committed?

Google six-reasons-the-death-penalty-is-becoming-more-expensive
Google costs-why-death-penalty-costs-so-much
Debate Round No. 1


I thank 'pro' for his response and I will spend this round providing some rebuttals to his points.

First of all, I agree that we must take actions against criminals so that such events do not continue and are not encouraged but I do not believe the death penalty is required in order to achieve such an outcome. Life sentences, I'd argue, Are good ways to punish people who commit such terrible crimes. They remove these people from society, They are more economically efficient and having such a system would allow the reversal of any mistakes made where innocent people are convicted.

First of all I'm not entirely sure that murderers are given paroles. Paroles are only given to prisoners who are able to be rehabilitated back into society rather than simply being punished and only punished due to the crime they committed being as vile and as bad as murder. Paroles have to be earned, Prisoners are not entitled to them. Also when prisoners do go out on parole they have to follow strict rules and are sent back to prison if they break them. You mention how if a murderer is given a lifetimes worth of a parole then they will murder again. I don't deny that there are people who find loopholes in the parole system and abuse it to commit another crime, But for one criminals who commit crimes such as murder are very rarely are allowed parole and secondly to what extent this system is abused I do not know so if you have a source on this I would appreciate it.

I made the point about deterrence as I often see people who are in favour of the death penalty say that it deters people from crime which I do not believe it does. Like I said in my previous comments, If someone is as messed up in the head that they would commit a crime like murder or something equally as bad then chances are the prospect of death will not phase them. I do not believe the "fear" of the death will stop these sorts of people like you claim for the reasons that I have mentioned. On your point though about the death penalty removing such people from society, A life sentence also achieves that outcome and it is more economically efficient on the tax payer and allows for the reversal of mistakes.

On your point about costs. I'm sure there is wasteful spending which could be cut in the persecution of people who if punished would receive the death penalty but this is often minor spending and could also be made in the persecution of people who if punished would not receive the death penalty. I have done some research in why the death penalty is expensive which I have linked along with sources to other arguments that I have made down at the bottom and the extra costs that are made when persecuting those facing the death penalty is due to hearings being longer due to more evidence needing to be analysed so mistakes are minimised (and yet mistakes end up getting made anyway which would only be increased if this was cut), Judges having to be hired for longer and extra staff having to be hired by the state such as assistance attorney generals and staff and directors from other departments. These extra costs are all vital and if they were cut to levels the same as persecution of people not being faced the death penalty, Then even more mistakes would be made as they are now.

I don't believe that people argue for the death penalty because they want to put a large cost on the tax payer but they often don't realise the extra costs that there are when persecuting people who are facing the death penalty and I don't believe the arguments that these people make are at all comparable to the arguments made by people who oppose legalising marijuana like you claim. I mention the costs of the death penalty as I believe it is a matter worth mentioning when talking about a policy that is not needed in order to have a successful justice system (as we see with European countries like the UK and Germany, A justice system can be successful without the death penalty) and is plagued with all the moral and pragmatic problems that the death penalty has.

What changes would you suggest in how the death penalty is executed in order to not only solve all the problems with the death penalty that there are but make it better both morally and pragmatically better than punishing such even crimes with life sentences?

You mention how the public are tired with the financial costs of the prison system yet, As mentioned before, The financial costs of the death penalty are far larger than keeping people in prison either to punish them or to rehabilitate them. The death penalty is far more harmful in terms of mistakes that are made and financially wasteful.

"But these matters speak of the materials wasted, Of the few injustices made to the innocent. What of justice itself, By that which society or the wrong feel for those sentenced truthfully for wrongs, For horrors committed? " first of all I don't think the mistakes made under a system with the death penalty should be simply glossed over as a "few injustices" as these mistakes does destroy the lives of many and destroys the faith people have in the justice system. Also the death penalty is not needed in order to have justice, Killing people when one has been killed is not justice its revenge and I'd argue that life sentences punishes people just fine and creates justice for the innocent without the mistakes that destroy innocent people's lives and the unnecessary costs to the tax payer that the death penalty causes.

Once again I thank you for debating on this issue with me, And it is really interesting and I thank you for providing such interesting arguments in a really good and respectful manner and I am glad that this is my first proper debate on this website. After you make your second round arguments the third round will commence and I will use that round to make my closing statements and final rebuttals and then you can do the same on your round 3 comments. I look forward to your next response.

Glossary- Parole (Steps to Justice)

"The Parole Process- An Early Release From Prison" (Lawyers. Com)

"COST- Why the Death Penalty Costs So Much? (Death Penalty Information Centre)

"Death-penalty wastes a lot of taxpayers' money" (The Columbus Dispatch)

"Costs of the Death Penalty" (Death Penalty Information Centre)


Myself I disagree with you on the value of the death penalty as a deterrence. Most likely we will have to agree to disagree for the moment. But I reiterate myself in saying that for the truly mad no deterrence really works, For they aren't quite there in our reality. For schizophrenics, Manics, The delusional, And the hallucinal, Death penalty won't quite deter.
But. . .
For the greedy robbers of banks who kill others in their way, Lustful serial killers of prostitutes, Or wrathfully of the homeless, Envious neighbors who'd risk killing the person next door for what they have, And so on. Whatever emotion might overwhelm them, They are reasonably sane. Better they have another emotion to better prevent them from being taken by their desires.
For the rest of us. I doubt antisocial habits or desires are so strong. But all the more would the death penalty make a normal person fear to risk it all, For desires petty and less felt.

The numbers and statistics of murderers released is something I am woefully lacking in. I do hold up source post number 4 of mine in this round for showing how frequently they can be released.
Link number 2 for how these people released 'can kill again. This however does not destroy your argument, As can be pointed out, If the life imprisonment was more ironclad, They would not have gotten out.
However, That is a disagreement of how one goes about a policy, Not the policy itself as I say for the death penalty, Some of your arguments such as cost deal with how one implements the policy, But not the policy itself.
In any case, For the sane criminals, Do they not fear death? Do they not feel some relief at life, Even if in prison? Why else do they fight so hard, Rack up such costs in court as they desperately try to live?

You have a point about costs. This close packed world of ours with millions of humans in a city, With no true experience of community. Surely this retards the human experience of society, Or at least is creating a new one.
Cost in making certain of guilt. I agree, Those of whom there is doubt ought not have death. But those of which their crime is certain? What cost more is needed to verify?
What more does this cost of a legal system tell us, Than a need to revise it's function? It's ends may still be our ends. But change in function is needed. Societal obligation perhaps. Jury duty is a duty. Should experts not have a duty to give testimony without being paid?

The argument is not the same as marijuana. But the intentions are similar. The voter feels the law is correct. But the details and implementation is f***ed by politicians. I am unfamiliar with the justice system in any nation but the USA, And even in that knowledge I am a novice.

Justice. A whole conversation might be had on what that is. But none the less.
Source link 3. Of course the death of a murderer does not fix anything for a family, Does not erase memories, Or revive loved ones to life again.
But for them to live, Even in prison. To be able to have a life, Pursuits, Purpose, Books. That is not justice. Perhaps, Humans should strive for more than justice. But laws are passed to satisfy their people. And people. . . Desire justice. The simplest of which is an eye for an eye.
Yes, Yes, Makes the world blind. But a murderer put to death shall hardly have the chance to take your remaining eye.

Hmm, I'm not sure how to fix the system myself. Modern world feels so blasted complicated sometimes. So many people and institutions, Such a tidal wave to struggle against. I would have to study law, And start a political and social movement I think to know what to change or cause any. Society being fellow lawmakers and citizens themselves.

1 Google death-penalty cases mental illness clemency
2 Google owlcation cosocial sciences Killers Who Kill Again
3 Google nytimes father-says execution won't erase his memories
4 Google 80 percent of murderers eligible for parole released abc7
5 JOKE YouTube Seven psychopaths eye for an eye scene
Debate Round No. 2


I agree with you that nothing will completely deter people from crime and that we should find a system that deters people as much as possible from committing the most terrible acts of crime but I do not believe that the death penalty will deter people any more than life time sentences as the sorts of people who commit these crimes who have completely given up on life and wouldn't be phased by the prospect of death.

I agree with you that the people who commit the crimes that you have listed are completely evil and should be punished so that their victims have justice but for one I don't believe that killing the criminals back is justice and is more of an act of revenge. I also wouldn't say that the sort of people that are "lustful serial killers of prostitutes" are the sort of people that I would describe as "reasonably sane". Maybe bank robbers aren't completely insane but to undergo an act like that you would have to of given up on the prospects of life already and would have to be somewhat messed up in the head. For that reason I don't believe that a death penalty deters those people any more than life sentences would. And this way we avoid the extra financial cost and the risk of making irreversible mistakes.

On your point about how the death penalty would make more normal people too scared to commit terrible crimes, Although I think that to commit crimes such as murder you would have to be somewhat messed up in the head enough to not care about death, Even if we were to pretend that a level headed and logical person were to commit such a crime, I would argue that the prospect of life sentences is just as scary as the prospect of death. After all if you were to commit such a crime you would have to spend the rest of your days in a high security prison with very little freedom or prospects. I find that just as terrifying as death.

I appreciate the sources, Especially source number 4 and I completely agree with you that when it comes to life sentences, Even as someone who is very pro rehabilitation, There is a need to make it more punishment orientated as the statistic that 80% of murderers are eligible to parole is scary to say the least. While it is worth noting after reading the article you linked that these are just people eligible for parole rather than people actually going out on parole the fact that 80% of murderers are even being considered is scary. However like you say this is something that can very easily be solved by making life sentences more punishment orientated and doesn't require a death penalty to resolve.

On your point about how the success of a policy does often depend as heavily on how the policy is carried out as much as the policy itself, On your point about costs I don't see a way to necessarily reduce the costs of prosecuting someone for a crime punishable by the death penalty by anything more than a minor amount. Like I mentioned and sourced in my second round comments, A lot of the costs when trying to punish someone with the death penalty are just uncuttable. More security is needed to stop an all or nothing escape in the prisons, Judges are needed to spend more time on a case, Hearing times are longer and staff and directors from various departments need to be present. If costs like these were cuts the possibility of making irreversible mistakes would grow even more.

On your point about sane criminals and them fighting cases where they would be sent to death showing that they have not all simply given up on life, I feel that more comes down to human instinct more than anything else, That even when you are backed into a corner and even if you know this is probably the end and you accept it, You probably still will fight until the very end even if you know that it is hopeless. Also like I mentioned earlier, I think the prospect of spending the rest of your life in a high security prison with little freedom and no prospects is arguably just as scary to people as being put to death. Only difference is it allows mistakes to be reversed and it is a process that is cheaper to carry out.

On your point about punishing those who's guilt is certain, This is where we go into the morality of the death penalty. Say that the person being punished for a terrible crime is undoubtedly guilty, They pleaded guilty immediately and the costs aren't even a factor, I don't believe killing them is necessarily the right and just thing to do. For one I don't like the idea of the state having the power to kill someone. I also think that to take a life when one has been taken is revenge, Not justice. I also think we as a big society should show that we are moral and are better than the sort of barbaric people who commit terrible acts and punish them without having to take lives ourselves.

On your point about the costs of the legal system. While yes things like jury duty is a duty but people whose occupation is something like being a judge and being an attorney, Some very stressful jobs and a role where they spend large part of their lives fulfilling, Especially in a public sector which seems to be constantly being cut in countries the world over, I think they should be paid for the work that they do, Frankly I think many in the justice system in the world over (a part from lawyers) are not paid enough. Your point about making the justice system a societal obligation and more society and community based is an interesting one though but arguably for such a system to arise we would have to change a number of other aspects of society and life to achieve. It is not impossible by any means but I don't believe that the justice system could be run like that in a country that runs on a capitalist system and where the centralised state plays such a large role.

I would disagree. I think anyone who argues against the legalisation of marijuana realises the cost of it, While when it comes to the death penalty, I have seen quite a few people who argue for it (not all) often seem to think that the process is cheaper than life sentences.

I would disagree. I think that having to spend the rest of your life in a prison is not a glamorous one. You would have very little chance of getting out and little personal freedom. I'd argue that it does punish the person for their crimes without having to stoop down to their levels of having to kill people. If we start going down the route of "an aye for an eye" then we are having to commit the same barbaric acts.

Yeah no kidding. The modern world is incredibly complicated and there are many things that need fixing. You have the best line of thinking that anyone could have, Not only the belief that things can change and get better but the drive to take action and try and improve society yourself.

I will end off by summarising the points that I have made throughout this debate in a list format:

-The death penalty in the US has resulted in a number of innocent deaths and incorrect decisions by courts are not reversible when they sentence someone to death rather than giving them life sentences.

-If someone is messed up enough in the head to commit a crime that would warrant a death penalty then chances are the prospect of death would phase them no more than life sentences.

-It is significantly more expensive to punish someone with the death penalty than it is to simply punish them with life sentences and a number of these costs are simply uncuttable.

-Taking a life when a life has been taken is not justice, It is revenge.

Thanks for being a great debate partner and I have enjoyed this debate a lot and I look forward to reading your last rebuttals and closing statement.


I've enjoyed the debate, Good reminder for myself that I still need to study in life.

Deterrence. . . For the sane people, Were they to balance a scale in their heads about the pros and cons of a decision, The possibility of death, It would seem to me would weigh heavy as a reason not to. Usually people fear death. While one lives new experiences and changes of circumstance are possible. And if one is religious or possessing some view of an after, Karma and the judgement of ones soul sooner rather than later, May seem a terror. When you speak of sane people not being motivated to commit or risk crime, I think you underestimate what lurks in the hearts of men. But perhaps not.

Justice has many different forms and interpretations. If I go by this ten minute video I just watched source number 1, I appear to be advocating for the interests of the wronged in the form of 6:57 Retributive Justice. While you argue for an overall justice for society 7:48 Welfare Maximization. There are two closely related right next to the two I mentioned, But I'll pass over them. Still I say, You do not address the justice of the people. Closely aligned with revenge perhaps, But justice none the less. Equitable, A sense of what is fair.

As for how the form of death or imprisonment is carried out. There are flaws in both systems, Which again can be seen as a failure in execution rather than the concepts themselves.

If costs were added over time, So too can they be taken away. If substitutes can be found using innovation and technology all the better. But this is about the concepts themselves. The cost of the death penalty, As with the failure of Life Imprisonment, Can be solved with how one goes about the execution of the concept.

Perhaps my mind does go to an older epoch in time. I think I'm thinking back to Old Testament judge like courts.
you may be right about marijuana. That is based more on my personal feelings and actions on the subject. But still, I think people may agree with the concept of a law, But be disappointed with how it is carried out.

Prison is not a penthouse. But it is life. Existence. Meaning and purpose can be found even behind those walls I say. A world in which material, Positive experience, And people are limited in scope. But the mind and spirit can overcome. Books. . . Such books have been dreamed in prison. Whether by men admired as with Dostoevsky: The House of the Dead and Nelson Mandela's Conversations With Myself or men despised Albert Speers: Spandau: The Secret Diaries and Hitler's: Mein Kampf.

As for the innocent
Innocents are harmed even by a butterfly's wings. More so policies and actions, Even in the best of plans in a bad situation, Innocents are harmed. As innocents are harmed by faulty implementation of the Death Penalty, So too have they ben harmed by faulty implementation of the Life sentence as demonstrated by my source in round 2.

Source1 Youtube What Is Justice? : Crash Course Philosophy #40
(Joke)Source2 YouTube: Supreme Court: Death Penalty Is 'Totally Badass'
Both sides Source3 Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime? Pro Con. Org
Debate Round No. 3
83 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheLiberalGeorgist 3 years ago

Yeah I agree. I do often end up repeating myself and writing sentences that are longer than they need to be.

Yeah I definitely do need to stop using pointless words like very and either replace it with a word that has more meaning or delete it altogether.

Cheers for the advice and the link mate, Appreciate it.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Some grammatical and spelling issues as well.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Reading through a few of them again, You repeat your points a bit too much. "this idea is bad" "i feel this idea is not good. " Just on a brief reading. A few other wordy sentences. Some sentences are super long that could be shortened. Same idea, Read your debates and ask "Did I already say this? " or "Can I make this sentence shorter and keep its meaning? "

On top of that the word "very" is used a lot. If you delete this word everywhere you use it your debate will seem more intellectual. It is a word that adds little value. Use other words. Look up Synonym Wheels on google.


i. Pinimg. Com/736x/8a/ab/a2/8aaba286a3306ca8ee8d7cade43b9857. Jpg
Posted by TheLiberalGeorgist 3 years ago

What specific parts of my arguments do you think I could improve on?
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
The weak part of your argument will be several experimental prison systems that are in place in other countries that work well if not better than our current one.

It'd be an easy split along partisan lines in the US. Republicans will be for retributive justice regardless of data. Oddly enough, The majority of the US would likely be in favor of it. Chances are not low that we'd actually save money by doing it, Not spend more money.

All in all, It is hard to argue against. The only challenge is really political willpower and quelling the will of the vocal minority. The same issue national healthcare has. It's been proven to be superior in nearly every way, The majority of the US favors it population wise, Yet the vocal minority on the Republican side oppose it due to campaign contributions, More likely than not.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Well, I appreciate the feedback. Hmm, Maybe I will take you up on that debate about justice. While I'll agree that if we had the infrastructure and resources, Redemptive justice would be preferable, We don't have the resources and infrastructure. Or the will of the people to create it at this time.

So, For this debate if we have it. I'd like to be arguing that in our current society retributive justice has a place. In that the people have a need of it in their definition of justice. That we do not have the resources to make such a system (The peoples will counting as one of those resources). Nor have people proven worthy of trust when we have given it to them (Much of the time)

Weak parts of my argument are going to be facts and data probably.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Redemptive Justice has a few ideas behind it.

1. People are not 100% inherently responsible for their actions. Society has largely set people up for failure. Whether that be an imperfect economic system, An imperfect government, Or simply imperfect environments and imperfect protections.

2. Since the environment in which people are born has clear ties to what kind of life they have. . . IE criminality, And other outcomes, Retributive justice is not morally correct.

3. People can potentially change for the better if given the opportunity. You can say that not all would take this path, But I'd argue it would be better for all involved to try, For many reasons.

4. Retributive justice often fuels increases in crime. A cycle of hatred. Our current system has a great deal of what is basically slavery, Et cetera.

These are the basic ideas.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
The problem with using complex words with much meaning behind them is people interpret those meaning differently. You start speaking past one another quickly. It's best to keep things simple and eliminate unnecessary words. Sam Harris falls into this trap with nearly everyone he speaks with. It is his most critical flaw. He has largely forgotten that we are all teachers, And that the wisest person in the world is nothing if he can't convey his meaning to others clearly.

Clarity should be the focus, As you rightly put it. There are many issues with the way you structure sentences that impair clarity. I'm not pretending my own writing is perfect yet, But I do my best. The best way to start working on it is to read your own writing. Try to eliminate as many unnecessary words as you can. Try to think of ways your writing could be misinterpreted.

People who use single words to refer to complex subjects often find themselves having to explain what they meant. It takes less time in the end to spell it out with simple words the first time rather than seeding confusion and having to use simple words after people have already misinterpreted you.

The sad fact is many political speakers use complex language or use language to infer things they later claim not to mean. Guess to whom I refer! They are intelligent enough to guide people where they want them to go without outright stating what they mean. It is disgraceful.

It should be said that the ones most in need of Redemption are those who receive the Death Penalty. A primary goal of our society should be to prevent people from ever walking that path, But when that fails to be able to bring them back. That cannot happen if they are slain. This is one of the things I'd lay out against it, And one of the reasons I am Con the Death Penalty.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Hmm, Alright. I appreciate the feedback.
Posted by TheLiberalGeorgist 3 years ago

I don't know what Thoht thinks but I thought your arguments read well. I never had any problems with reading or understanding your arguments or anything.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Thoht 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that the death penalty's implementation is what makes it cost more. This is true. Would you feel comfortable living in a country where the government killing its citizens is easy? It is how it is with delays et cetera to allow a shadow of doubt to save the person's life. That is because we value the life of 1 innocent more than the lives of the guilty. There is a difference between the government killing an innocent and murderers killing an innocent. Over time, who we parole can be improved. We can find telltale markers as to who will murder again and who will not. If we kill them all by making the death penalty easier, we will not get this information. It seems neither of you is terribly interested in redemptive justice, but mostly interested in retributive justice. The 80% eligible for parole figure you cite is not a problem if the recidivism rate is zero or low. The government killing innocents is unacceptable. Improvements can be made to parole processes.

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