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: 1,301 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 21 through 25 records.
Posted by lokiwhite 3 years ago
Hello there, brand new to this site but an experienced debater. I would like to accept the challenge as I disagree with the idea that death is a harsher punishment than life in prison. Most of these people are looking for glory that they will believe they have achieved through being executed. Making them live out a miserable existence is a much harsher punishment and fits the crime far better in my opinion.
Posted by Coolguy11 3 years ago
But I agree with the rest, I especially think the costs need to be changed.
Posted by Coolguy11 3 years ago
One minor disagreement, but not enough to debate: I think for mentally ill people, we should hold off the death penalty (DP) for a bit because we could benefit by studying them. For example, doing experiments or trying to fit a psychological profile on them. So I think if somebody has little or no clinical significance then yea the DP would work.
Posted by PyromanGaming 3 years ago
Hello! I would like to debate you on this because while you do say some good points, I disagree with them, particularly with the mandatory death penalty idea and that hurting a child gets a worse sentence than hurting an adult. Thanks!
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
Pretty sure "reform" is the word you're looking for, not "redo".
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.