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

We should reform the death penalty.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
rowey2000 has forfeited round #1.
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: 4/1/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,314 times Debate No: 111361
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
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?





Keep in mind, the first round is NOT acceptance only. You will be getting right into your argument in round one.

If you are interested, comment in the comment section.
Tell me why you want the challenge....
This round has not been posted yet.
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rowey2000 3 years ago
Sorry, I think I accepted the challenge and didn't post my first argument, I'm a bit new to this site...
I do have an argument, it was not my intention to forfeit.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
So you wanted this debate. and what did you do?

YOU Forfeited.......
Posted by rowey2000 3 years ago
I still cannot accept as I do not meet the criteria.
Posted by LibertyChristian999 3 years ago
I'd be willing to debate this issue, but I apparently don't meet your criteria.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
The death penalty is unconditional it is a capital punishment that is conducted by a State. Death penalty is the accusation made against a state. This accusation can be even made from the position of prosecution for political gain within the public.

By using an unconstitutional term we expose the State to liabilities that occur by lack of representation to the gender welfare of the public. The Idea is two wrongs do not make a right. Yet, with the wording death penalty people are trying publicly to do just that. Form a right from two wrongs.

I would debate this but it is wrong by its educated principle being used as a tactic for debate.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
Is there any new challenger?
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
And rowey2000 don't forget there is no acceptance. So, your opening RD will be getting right in to your argument.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
Okay. rowey2000. If no one else show any interest by tonight i will send you the challenge.
Posted by rowey2000 3 years ago
I am interested, but will not outline my arguments now lest you think of rebuttals. As I said previously, I would propose banning the death penalty entirely.
Posted by Boey_Boman 3 years ago
I would like to accept the challenge because, even though i am new to the site and even debating, i see multiple flaws i would like to challenge you on. The main ones being A) how is a mass shooting defined? Because as of now a mass shooting is defined generally as such, a scenario in which a shooter injures 3 or more people regardless of deaths. This is the reason why the number of mass shootings are high. which means that for reforming the death penalty we would have to reform how other laws are defined as well. B) I believe that other crimes should be included in this new death sentence as well not just child torture and mass shootings, i under stand you say mass murder but most mass murders are committed using firearms and on top of that a mass murder is a killing of 4 or more people which frankly is low for a death sentence. C) Are serial killers, child torturers and mass killers/shooters not people? i believe that we all deserve equal trial which is our right. Not just a hit or miss one time and done trial which may be unfair considering more evidence may come up later in the case. Which the reopening of a case is more costly than continuing one. D) I would argue that all serial killers and mass killers are mentally ill, which why should we throw them into the bucket with all stable minded people and judge them by our standards, now some cases, especially heinous ones like parkland, call for extreme action. But how are you supposed to know how they truly interpreted their crimes? this is why i feel incarceration would be more of a justifiable punishment as well as reform for these sick minded people. E) Final point in this comment since i am running out of characters, your eighth point also suggests that we should allow past crimes to be revenged for in modern society. That would be an Eye for an eye as you suggest, such as "you enslaved us we enslave you now" but that is not just. Just because something is fair does not mean it is just.
This debate has 6 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.