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

We should redo the death penalty.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Amphia has forfeited round #3.
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: 3/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 111051
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




What I'm proposing here is this. We should only focus on mass murdered, serial killers, and persons who torture children. We should have one trail for these individuals who commit these crimes. The death penalty is reach on unanimous 12-member jury finds "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they were met. Given the carnage in the Florida Parkland shooter here and the callous manner in which the shooter went about causing it, the prosecution would not have much difficulty meeting the burden. So once the jury find this person guilty of these crimes. The death penalty then should be in place immediately. After a week or two he should be sentenced to death by lethal injection.

One. It will diminish the cost of the trail dramatically.

Second. It will save the taxpayer millions, on the trail and incarnating that person.

Third. These cases would be special. Meaning it will only be for these mass murders and persons who torture children.

Fourth. It would be a universal law. Meaning the federal government will be hearing it. It would be for all 50 states.

Fifth. "Prosecutors can identify at least three such factors here, where Cruz: 1) created a grave risk of death to many people; 2) acted in a way that was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and 3) committed the act in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner."(1)

Sixth. If the government can start a war and stop a war. Then why can't they step in on serious heinous crimes. Such as mass shooters?

Seventh. Why should these mass shooters, or serial killers stay alive? What is the point for them to stay in jail for the rest of their lives?

Eighth. Other countries has a more affected way of handling big crime. Like "China has the largest population on Earth with 1.3 billion people; 5,000 executions would mean one in every 260,000 residents."(2) they also use lethal injection.

Ninth. "EYE for an EYE" "mean we can punish, or even take revenge upon, someone in the exact same manner they used to harm us" "There are only FOUR places in the King James Bible where the phrase "eye for eye" (or slight variation) occurs (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 and Matthew 5:38)" (3.) Why does the bible get it right?






QUESTION: With your system, would you allow prisoners to appeal to jury convictions?

My opponent offers a new system.I think it is problematic:

1.Juries are not always right, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is still up to opinion. If I think you did something, that's beyond my reasonable doubt. One person might say "Guilty!" and another might say "Not guilty!" Both feel like they know the answer. This shows that beyond a reasonable doubt is quite subjective.

2.The death penalty is biased against black people.

"The death penalty is racist and has been applied in racially-discriminatory ways. African American men are disproportionately sentenced to death. Prosecutors, juries, and judges are much more likely to apply the death penalty when the victim is white and the defendant is black."

Black people are more likely to be convicted of crimes they did not commit:

"African Americans are only 13% of the American population but a majority of innocent defendants wrongfully convicted of crimes and later exonerated. They constitute 47% of the 1,900 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations (as of October 2016), and the great majority of more than 1,800 additional innocent defendants who were framed and convicted of crimes in 15 large-scale police scandals and later cleared in "group exonerations." We see this racial disparity for all major crime categories, but we examine it in this report in the context of the three types of crime that produce the largest numbers of exonerations in the Registry: murder, sexual assault, and drug crimes. I. Murder : Judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people."


"Execution of wrongfully sentenced individuals is obviously unacceptable, yet between 1973 and 2004 in the US, 118 prisoners who had been sentenced to death were later released on grounds of innocence [8]. Of 197 convictions in the US that were subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence, 14 were at one time sentenced to death or served time on death row [9]. Racial bias in sentencing likely accounts for much of this error; more than half of the exonerees were African Americans, and the rate of death sentences in the US among those convicted of killing a white victim is considerably higher than for murderers of blacks. Given this potential for fatal error, how can any objective person support the death penalty, which allows for no correction?

If there is even a small possibility that someone innocent could die, we should not use such a system.

3.It's expensive to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to Common Dreams: "The death penalty is quite expensive and life imprisonment can be cheaper. Over the lifetime of a case, executing prisoners can be three times as expensive as life in prison, primarily due to the higher costs of capital punishment trials, automatic appeals, and the heightened security on death row with lower staff-to-prisoner ratios. Commuting all death sentences to life in prison would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the U.S. and many billions over the coming decades."


"According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel...

...citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have "uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole."

Death penalty = more $$

4.Lethal injections are not humane. There is evidence that people feel pain as they are dying. One specific example is the botched execution in Oklahoma.

"The current article by Koniaris and colleagues gives further cause for concern by questioning whether, even if "perfectly" administered, the protocols would achieve their stated aim of causing death without inflicting inhumane punishment...

These lethal injection protocols use the barbiturate thiopental (intended to sedate and to suppress breathing), the neuromuscular blocker pancuronium (which paralyzes, causing respiratory arrest but also preventing agonal movements that might indicate suffering), and the electrolyte potassium (intended to cause cardiac arrest). Such protocols are intended to provide redundancy, such that each drug is given at a dose that would by itself cause death.

However, in analyzing data from actual executions, Koniaris and colleagues report that thiopental and potassium do not consistently result in death.

In fact, individuals undergoing execution have continued to breathe after the injection of thiopental, and their hearts have continued to beat following injection of potassium; in these cases, the authors conclude, it is quite likely that those being executed have experienced asphyxiation while conscious and unable to move, and possibly an intense burning pain throughout the body from the potassium injection."

1 & 2: No, it won"t. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty requires a long trial. Not every case is as clear as the Parkland Shooting. ADeciding to use the death penalty in a case can cost more than jailing the person.

3, 4, & 5: The incidents you specify are horrendous but that doesn"t make the death penalty O.K. This is utter hypocrisy. How can we say "Don"t murder!" and then say "But we"re going to murder you."

"6" Stepping in means jailing. It means cutting people off from society temporarily or permanently should the need arise. NOT murder.

"7" That sort of thinking is abhorrent. Yes, they"re evil, but who are we to decide what to do with somebody else"s life? I"d rather nobody died but at the end of the day, if the person wanted to die they could do it themselves"they certainly don"t need the state. Saying we have the right to kill ANYBODY is absurd.

"8" Are you saying this is population control? Murder is not the way we control population.

"9" Alright, if you"re going to bring religion into this"fine.

1.The Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy quotes are from the Old Testament. Back then, times were very different. If you stole, they cut your hand off. This is because people believed harsh punishments deterred crime. Then Jesus came and he preached forgiveness. Your Matthew quote is taken out of context. If you read the whole thing it says:

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Jesus says that we should love each other, not hate. He said don't do "An Eye for an Eye", instead we need to forgive. The Bible seems to understand that murder is not okay. How did they get it so right?

2.Bible says thou shalt not kill so how is murdering people acceptable by Christian standards?

We shouldn't redo the death penalty. We should kill it. Did you like my pun there?
Debate Round No. 1


"With your system, would you allow prisoners to appeal to jury convictions"? No. I have a few reasons why. One this system will only be going to be focused on the Mass shooters, Mass Murdered, and people who torture children. My second reason is this, it will lower the cost of trials.

Now I will clarify my stand on this proposal. The Death Penalty is only for those who commit mass murder, and torture children. Nothing else. The Death Penalty will still be rare in cases. I don't see how much of a Problematic like you do. Because a lot of the information you posted doesn't translate to this new proposal. I will break that down soon.

"Juries are not always right" In cases, I'm talking about it will be 100% certainly with
"beyond a reasonable doubt" Such as Colorado theater gunman James Holmes, Florida High School shooter, Nikolas Cruz, the Sandy Hook Perpetrator, Adam Lanza, "Mother's boyfriend guilty of murder in torture death of 8-year-old Palmdale boy" (4)
There are no questions there did the crimes, there no doubt they did these crimes. So, no innocent individuals are wrongfully convicted, in this system. This System again only for the mass murderer, not everybody.

"The death penalty is biased against black people" This may be true in the old system of the Death Penalty. But it will not be true if they re-do the Death Penalty in my proposed system. So, this part of your argument is Irreverent in this debate.

"Execution of wrongfully sentenced individuals is obviously unacceptable" Yes you are corrected. But in my Proposal, there will not be any wrongfully sentenced. They will only be the 100% certainly. The Death Penalty is only for the Mass Murdered and people who torture children. Not some random act of violence against someone, Again my Proposal is only in special events like mass shooting, Not everything like you want to make it out to be. The Death Penalty is not for everyone. Like you want to make my claim to be. So, again this piece you have is Irreverent to this Debate.

"small possibility that someone innocent could die" Again what I'm saying is this. It only for the pure criminal, With all 12 jurors have found that person guilty, then he will be convicted of the Death Penalty. They will not be a Small Possibility that they are innocent in cases of a mass shooter. the ones I have already mentioned.

"It's expensive to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". That is true.
"The criminal court case against Colorado theater gunman James Holmes has already absorbed at least $5.5 million in public monies, according to records obtained by Yahoo News". (5) And that was just in the first few months of the trial. "Other top expenses so far include $463,000 on additional security, Experts hired by the prosecution have received more than $220,000 to date. More than $90,000 was used to install a closed-circuit television system in the courtroom. It cost $20,000 to print 9,000 juror notices and questionnaires". (5&6) This is very stupid how the court is spending this kind of money for a person that committed mass murder. The other figure here has "Aurora Mass Shooting Cost More Than $100 Million" (7) That's just crazy. Why a person that killed so many people need to cost so much for the court system and on the taxpayer? In my system, it would dramatically drop these prices. With just one trial and the processing would be a low less. Instead of lasting months to years, it would only last couple of weeks. "The New York City paid $167,731 to feed, house and guard each inmate last year, according to a study the Independent Budget Office released this week". (8&9) ... And that just an Average Inmate. " The annual average taxpayer cost in these states was $31,286 per inmate". (9) That just doesn't make sense to me. Why are we paying these Mass Murder, to stay alive? We'll it cost so much. The poor or a homeless person could never see this kind of money. And yet a person who commented these murders get so much attention to house and feed them. Again just doesn't make sense to me.

Could you Image what else we could do with that type of money being spent on these Murderers? I will get to that in round 3.

"Death penalty = more $$" You are correct. In the system we are under right now it does cost more. But the system I'm Proposing it would cost a lot less. Because it would only be one trial and it would be two weeks. No reason to have these court trails cost so much for these murderers.

"Lethal injections are not humane" So, what is Humane keeping these individuals in jail for the rest of their lives? And have them go crazier. Would you rather have these individuals shoot in the head instead? Plus Show What, if some of these individuals "feel pain". They did kill multiple people and yet had no remorse or guilt. But we should for them. That also doesn't make sense to me. Most Lethal injections are safe. You only pointed one case that was a very rare instance.

"Not every case is as clear as the Parkland Shooting" But that what I'm talking about. I only talking about the serious crime like Parkland Shooting.

Regards to your "Don"t murder!" comment. I will say this. They give up there right when they started killing people in the Masses. You think it right for them to stay in Jail for the rest of their lives when it cost the taxpayer. Actually, they get three meals a day when some people struggle to get there own food in the streets, and they get housing and get medicals for free. That doesn't sound right to me at all.

Jailing them doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help society when we the taxpayer having to pay for them get food and medicals. Helping these poor senseless people stay alive just doesn't add up in my book.

"instead we need to forgive" Let me ask you something. Would you forgive that shooter if they shoot your mother and brother to death? And even if you do, It doesn't make it right that society still has to feed these worthless murderers and give them medical for free. When most people have to struggle to get food or medical.

"Bible says thou shalt not kill" We'll these individuals who committed these murders didn't follow the Bible rule nor society rules. So, why should we keep them alive? and help them stay alive as long as possible. Sorry, this just doesn't add up to me...

"We shouldn't redo the death penalty. We should kill it. Did you like my pun there"? Yeah, that's was a nice touch to it. But unfortunately, the Death Penalty does need to be Re-done. Because the current system we have in place does not work. And my does make sense.


PRO: Trials will be cheaper

Two-week Trial/No Appeals

Nd2400 talks about how we'll only convict people who we know for sure are guilty. But how do you define “know for sure”? In the case of mass shootings, it’s going to be pretty obvious who did it. But what about people who torture children? It isn’t as easy as “I saw you torture her so death penalty for you!” Children are raped and suffer from incest daily but to prove that an adult hurt them takes a lot more digging and investigation. You have to get testimonies and you have to either get the person to admit, find DNA evidence of some sort, or get a credible witness. Those things are hard to do.

And for mass murder, that isn’t as easy as you’d think either. Serial killers like the Zodiac Killer got away with their crimes, they were never caught. To find the culprit AND THEN prove that they’re the culprit is hard. It takes WAY longer than simply two weeks. What if two weeks passed and there was no substantial evidence? You’re going to let the person walk? Or are you going to just kill them and hope they were guilty?

To prove for the cases of mass murder and child torture, you need a longer trial. Sometimes, you DO need months or years because eventually you might catch the criminal. However, this costs money. This is expensive, as I said earlier it’ll cost the government millions of dollars. I’m not okay with the government using millions of dollars just to justify murder.

My opponent also mentioned how my argument about black people was irrelevant but actually, it is. Black people are more likely to be accused and jailed for crimes they did not commit. They are also more likely to be put on death row. In the cases of mass murder, the jury would be very likely to convict a black person for the crime, even if they didn’t do it. And since you wouldn’t allow appeals, the person would die—despite their innocent—without a chance to fight back. I don’t see how that is acceptable.

“This may be true in the old system of the Death Penalty. But it will not be true if they re-do the Death Penalty in my proposed system. So, this part of your argument is Irreverent in this debate.” This was in regards to my argument about race. I don’t understand this argument. Are you somehow saying that with your system, racism will be over? Because with your system, there is going to be a higher chance of wrongfully convicted people who don’t get a chance to appeal. You r system leads to a higher likelihood of innocent people dying.

It is indeed very stupid that the court is using all this money to kill people. We need to get rid of the death penalty.

PRO: Allowing criminals to stay in prison is wrong

Not humane to let them stay in jail

I don’t know why people assume that going to jail means someone is going to go crazy. It doesn’t. Also, these people probably already are crazy—which is why some of them need rehabilitation. Obviously for some criminals, trying to rehabilitate them is pointless but for others, maybe there is hope for them. I would not rather these people be shot in the head—I’d rather they don’t die at all. But that the end of the say WHO ARE YOU TO TELL SOMEONE WHETHER THEIR LIFE IS WORTH LIVIN OR NOT? You’re no one. And neither am I. Again, if these people wanted die, they could kill themselves—that isn’t up to you.

“if some of these individuals "feel pain". They did kill multiple people and yet had no remorse or guilt. But we should for them.” This is such disgusting, detestable, despicable, abominable, repulsive thinking. What kind of world do we live in where we have convinced ourselves that torturing others is acceptable if they hurt someone else? And also, governments always claim that the lethal injection is perfectly safe—but it isn’t. They say it’s humane—it isn’t. The lethal injection becomes inhumane when you use it kill someone. Why is that? Because it’s murder.

We could be using this money for poor people

As I said before, letting criminals stay in jail is cheaper than trying to implement the death penalty. Your system would still need long trials in the cases of mass murders and the torturing of children. We are paying for them to stay alive because the state should not sanction murder. Yes, we feed them but don’t mistake keeping someone alive with worshipping them. No one is saying that we’re going to love these people and treat them like kings—because we’re not.

And even if we used your system and saved money (which we won’t), don’t try and lie to me that the government would use it to for welfare. They won’t. We all know that. So changing the death penalty is not going to somehow benefit the poor.

Criminals give up their rights

“They give up there right when they started killing people in the Masses.” No they don’t actually. If they gave up their rights then that means we can do whatever we want to criminals, right? We can send a bunch of attack dogs on em, or have them get raped right? Or maybe we can dump them into a pool of acid alive. And no one will arrest me because they’re not human and on one cares, right? Because they have no rights according to you.

I don’t care what evil things you have done as a person, you still have rights. That doesn’t necessarily mean I have to like you, I just need to acknowledge that as a human being I have no right to take away yours. Maybe that bothers people, that criminals are human beings, but that’s too bad. They are.

Criminals give up their ability to live freely about society but that doesn’t mean they suddenly aren’t human.

“You think it right for them to stay in Jail for the rest of their lives when it cost the taxpayer.” It’s funny that you say that because your system would also cost the taxpayer. In fact, millions of dollars because your system doesn’t somehow male trials easy. Your system doesn’t make racism go away, it doesn’t make catching criminals any easier, and it certainly doesn’t make the taxpayer pay less.

“Actually, they get three meals a day when some people struggle to get there own food in the streets, and they get housing and get medicals for free. That doesn't sound right to me at all.”

Listen, it’s sad that people are suffering but that doesn’t make murder acceptable. Yes, criminals get free food and medical care, but so do poor people. There are soup kitchens, welfare, shelters. Not all of these people are able to access these benefits but at least we have them. As a country, we need to improve our welfare programs, I understand that, but we also need to look progressively and realize that the death penalty is barbaric thinking.

PRO: Bible supports this

You are the one who brought religion into this argument, not me. I was simply telling you that you were taking the Bible out of context to suit your own twisted argument. The Bible says we must forgive, that doesn’t mean it’s easy, and I’m not saying that I can decide what you do with your life. I’m just telling what the Bible says.

I would probably forgive the killer (though after a really long time), why you ask? Because holding on to that anger and pain my hurts me. A lot of these people don’t care how you feel, so hating them isn’t going to make them feel bad. They’re in jail, they don’t know who you are.

“We'll these individuals who committed these murders didn't follow the Bible rule nor society rules. So, why should we keep them alive? And help them stay alive as long as possible. Sorry, this just doesn't add up to me…” Are trying to say that since these people didn’t follow the Bible, we should be able to kill them? This is wrong mainly because in the Bible it literally says “thou shalt no murder”! If they killed someone, they get punished—prison. We don’t get to decide that we’re somehow above the rules of the Bible because they broke the rules!

Anyway, the Bible aside, the death penalty is wrong morally. It’s murder. Think about it, you’re killing someone for killing someone else! What is that logic? What is wrong with our society and being obsessed with revenge?

Debate Round No. 2


I want to say thank you Amphia for your willingness to continued to do this debate. You made some very good points. And I'm more than happy to go deeper on this propose discussion. Now of course my proposal for a re-do of the death penalty will be limited. I don't think you fully understand this. But that's fine i will explain this further. You may very well disagree regardless. I will defend what I'm proposing.

Trail cost
"But how do you define "know for sure"? In the case of mass shootings, it"s going to be pretty obvious who did it". I think you answer your own question to this. Oh how do you know for sure? Because it will be" obvious who did it in cases of mass shootings. This re-do of the death penalty will ONLY target these cases not much else. And yes it will TARGET children being tortured too. I will admit in those cases it will take some time, just like right now. But after the case, and these person or persons are convicted of these crimes. Then it will be death for them. No waiting around just a week or two after being convicted. So, it will still be saving in the long run. I understand in children being tortured cases it will take a little longer. It will take 2 or 4 years. But after that. It will be a fast sentence. Honestly, i don't not know why they should stay alive in jail for who ever knows how long. Just because it morally wrong. They Actually did the morally wrong thing by torturing their children or somebody elses. You still give no answer why they should stay alive in jail. It doesn't add up, for them to stay in jail for the rest of there lives. It will still cost money to feed them, give them medical attention and give them medication. It still add millions of dollars to keep them alive in the long haul. Doesn't make sense to....

Mass murder

"Serial killers like the Zodiac is still out" Yeah okay. Justice can't prosecute if they don't have that person. Not everyone going to get caught, unfortunately. But these cases are rare. Just like this guy I going to bring up "He"s blamed for 12 killings, 45 rapes " and authorities don"t know who he is" but "Investigators have matched the East Area Rapist's DNA".(10) So, this mean when and if they find this guy. The evidence will be overwhelming, and will not have a problem getting a conviction. But you did bring up another good point. In cases of a Serial killers, it will take longer than a two week period. It may take a year or two. But after they find these Serial killers guilty. It will not be a problem to sentence them to death within a two week time period. You said this "You"re going to let the person walk?" the answer is of course not. In Serial killers cases it may take some time. But when the court has this person it will wait for a trail. And it will wait for the evidence to grow. Then it will wait on what the jurors decide. So, yes it could a little time just like now. But in this re-do the death penalty it will not have any Appeals. Appeals just cost too much. And in my proposal we are looking for the mass shootings as the main concern here.

"Black people are more likely to be accused and jailed for crimes they did not commit" Again in my propose new system it not after the everyday crime. It only after the mass shooting, serial killers and children being tortured. "56 out of 97" were white who committed mass shootings. That a 57% white people doing these mass shootings (11) Another pretty interesting stat
'In approximately 90 percent of all homicides the killer and victim are from the same race".(12) No my system will not end racism. Better education will one day hopefully end racism. But in regards to what i actually meant. The new proposal for the death penalty is only in three main categories. And i already mention what they are. So, really blacks would be in the minorities in these three categories. Now for everyday crime yeah blacks would be very high same with Latino. But my proposal only cover mass shootings, serial killers and children being tortured to death.

"wrongfully convicted people who don"t get a chance to appeal" Again my system only target three main area. And that's it. It not for every crime. Heck it not even going to cover somebody murdering one another. And that what happen in my cases dealing with just one murder or even two murders. My system is for more serious crimes three people being killed or higher.

"Not humane to let them stay in jail"

They proof Solitary Confinement in prisons cause more psychology problem.
According to Craig Haney who wrote an article on "Mental health issues in long-term solitary and "supermax" confinement" he added "There are few if any forms of imprisonment that appear to produce so much psychological trauma and in which so many symptoms psychopathology are manifested."(13) page 125 a lot of other proof that it causes more harm. You said "maybe there is hope for them" they is no hope for the criminals I'm referring too. Not the mass murdered and serial killers. I think you getting them confused. Acting like killing 10 or more people is okay, and let them just sit in jail for the rest of they days."

"WHO ARE YOU TO TELL SOMEONE WHETHER THEIR LIFE IS WORTH LIVIN OR NOT" As for me i'm just telling society another good option on dealing with these horrible people. You making me look like I'm the bad person here. And reality it just the opposite. They committed these horrible crimes not me. And now you want the taxpayers to pay for there every need for the rest of there lives. There lives are worthless the second they started killing 5 to 20 people. If they wanted to die they would had done it. Some try, but couldn't. And if they just committed suicide that would be whatever. But when you bring multiple of others, that's totally different.

"Lethal injection becomes inhumane when you use it kill someone. Why is that? Because it"s murder." it not murder. We wouldn't be sitting here doing this if they hadn't done something so extreme. It there doing. Not the government fault nor society. We'll maybe to a degree. But still they killed 5 or more people, something else have to be done. Instead of them just living life up toward there 70's to 80's.
Lethal injection is the safer way. Unless you want to shot them 8n the head. But i rather use the Lethal injection. Less gruesome.
You may be right, the government probably wouldn't give back to the people who really need it. But they could. Plus there are many other things the government could spend on while saving in my proposal system. Like schools, infrastructure, hospital, there are many. Shouldn't be spend on these murdered who killed so many people. "Your system would still need long trials in the cases of mass murders and the torturing of children." i will give you the long trail part for some of these cases. But not the sentencing. Because they are sentence, it would only be a week or two before putting them to the death penalty.
Another thing that doesn't add up. It not just the homeless, who have a hard time getting food it regular people too. But the biggest thing is medication and medical attention. These murdered get pills every day and get medical treatment for free. While the poor or regular people like you and me have to paid for our medication or medical treatment. Like i said before in my round 2. It cost the taxpayers an average of 31k a year or higher for these convicted killers. Another 168k or higher just to house these murdered. Most of these murdered live while beyond 20 to 50 years in prison. So add all of this, it well over 4 millions. I have more to say, but it will be continue in the comment area
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Lookingatissues 3 years ago
When you say," We should redo the death penalty,...." What you are Implicating by what you posted is that the value of life isn't to be weighted by the personal value of each individual life but only by the volume of human lives taken.
All we have to do though is ask a mother, or a father, or perhaps ask a husband or wife, if the murder of their loved ones deserved the death penalty or would they perhaps be blase and say that since the killer only killed one person it was a small matter and not worth the expense or trouble of executing someone over.
If expense were the only consideration that society weighted in putting a killer to death then the number of human lives taked by the killer would then be logical and reasonable but the taking of another persons life by execution isn't the only reason for putting a killer to death for their crime.
For a society to continue to exist there much be laws that procribe what that society will permit and penalties exacted for violations of those established laws.
Could you imagine a society without laws and consequences for violating those laws , perhaps some could , but there will be a law that controls how humans conduct themselves towards others and that's the law of nature, the law of the beasts of the jungle, where only the strongest survive. Our present laws may not be perfect but they have been established and tested over time and has served society well that is until relativism was being taught to America's youth.... after all, If it feels right to kill someone who are we to judge someone else.
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
It wasn't about the post being difficult to counter...I was just lazy

But I'm sorry since this is the second time I've forfeited.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
I understand the last post was going to be hard to counter.

But im a little disappointed.

On the bright side life goes on. LoL
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
I legit have no good excise to give you. And for that I am sorry.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
That probably going to be more than you and me make in our life time. We'll we could be saving and putting this money in other much more needed areas. You could be making 75k a year for 25 years and still only make half of what they spend to keep these murdered alive. Does that make sense?

"Criminals give up their rights" they do when they start killing 5 people or more.
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?"(14) so they still have some rights. But after being convicted of multiple murder they do not. That's why we need to have a re-do of the death penalty.

"death penalty is barbaric thinking" it maybe for some like you. But it could save money if done right, and they being human is not a not a good reason for them to stay alive when they kill so many people.

"The military death penalty was reinstated by an executive order of President Ronald Reagan in 1984"(15) it would be nice to see this process speed up too. Our own military sometime think it is necessary to use the death penalty. So, why does it have to take 15 years after they been convicted? Doesn't make sense to me.

I want to ask you something. I sure you remember what happen in Las Vegas late of last year. The shooter killing 58 people and injury another 500. What if he didn't kill himself. Would you want my system then? Or does it have to be 100 or more or like a thousand?
"The death penalty is wrong morally. It"s murder. Think about it, you"re killing someone for killing someone else! What is that logic?" you thinking about some killing just one person. Not 5 or more people. Sorry
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago

That's a human rights violation.
Posted by soanm 3 years ago
i think we should redo death penalties because dead is easy for criminal because it is only one sec on pain and they are dead i think they torture them
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.