The debate "The Death penalty should be banned" was started by
August 26, 2015, 7:25 pm.
70 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 127 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Moo1 posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument, danielfello posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 3 arguments, desght posted 1 argument, steven_kh posted 1 argument, abby1212 posted 1 argument, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx posted 1 argument, sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
reganrefia posted 1 argument, ResIpsaLoquitor posted 1 argument, desght posted 1 argument, Cross posted 2 arguments, Hellrazor posted 1 argument, goldfox1987 posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
Moo1, PsychDave, amtvj, historybuff, spellbeechamp, Tristanzee, desght, tryhard2s, DanielleR123, Afshin, gouthamabi, danielfello, sloanstar1000, countrybumpkin, keshav_garg, nehagoyal, ReedSchneider, Katerina, dotdotdot, Riley, steven_kh, abby1212, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, Alex, Bobo, Thecorrector1004, drumman22, gabriel, Shadow, steady_current, Tiger1738, J_Blue and 38 visitors agree.
sabrina, Abraham, ototoxic, invincible_01, Sosocratese, thetruthhasbeenspoken, Sooraj, Maharshi, carrot, reganrefia, AstroSpace, Yuki_Amayane, Bodaciouslady16, TruthSeekerCivilSpeaker, ResIpsaLoquitor, wmd, Neaa, sidhant, Jdr772, Cross, Kamal, wayneSPEC, Ryan, Hellrazor, goldfox1987, Katana_MC, Zeno, bigB, sherry2503, brokuk20, josejose, kungnangxx, William, Preploukus, hendra24, The_unknown, fabby, RobbDebate, sharan, SirJakeR, pajrc1234, WaspToxin, athinus, carltonlasy, Zinluu, MoveThatLoser and 81 visitors disagree.
yes because punishing someone who has done wrong is such a bad idea. I would also expect recidivism rates to plunge if our country wasn't so interested in locking up people who use drugs peacefully. the almighty marijuana plant will kill everyone. take our the drug charges and recidivism drops.
countries that are more worried about punishing criminals rather than rehabilitating them have more repeat offenders.
That's why Norway's prison system is so successful, the recidivism rate is 20% while it's around 70% in the US.
too bad we can't have a system that works here because 'Muricans are too scared of lookin like pussies.
no it would not be too easy. criminals deserve justice. and staying alive in prison is not justice, its breading more violence. but if you wanna work as a correctional officer for a year and say that life in prison is justice, well, let me know
Killing people to show that killing is wrong, kinda ironic isn't it? Also wouldn't dying be way too easy for those who commited a serious crime. This way they are not able to actually have time to think about the damage they've caused and neither do they face the consequences. At least if I were a serial killer I would rather get the needle than be locked up in isolation for the rest of my life.
killing a killer.. huh makes sense.. right? let them rot in prison, then hell!
While I disagree with the idea of a reckless use of the death penalty, the fact remains that sometimes, sometimes, true justice calls for the end of a life. it is all nice and cute out in the free world to debate the use of this terrible (in the truest and most perfect definition of the word, also not meant to be seen as my unconscious desire for it to be banned) tool of justice, but when you peel back the veneer of life, justice rarely allows for cute answers. would it be nice if we could know definitely whether someone was guilty or innocent for all time? yes. is this ever possible in any case? no. this is why for capital offences there is a jury trial. before a verdict is given 12 people must believe that there is guilt, and not just that but guilt enough to warrant death. is this a perfect system? no. but I would argue that this system is far too lenient and not enough criminals face the business end of a rifle for their crimes.
btw, the system needs to expand capital offences to rapes, child mollestors, as well as murderers. as a former correctional officer, I can tell you there was more room for change in the hearts of murderers than I ever saw in the hearts of child molesters. doubt it? go to work in a prison....then tell me im wrong
We pay billions of dollars each year feeding these sick bastards that kill. Hang Em high! The only thing that keeps them alive is weak people that don't understand the mind of a killer.
what reasonable people beleive that the only way to punish murders is by killing them . We are just making there violant action but we might have a better reason this is it. I think letting a man suffer 50 60 or 70 years in jail will make him suffer and regret his actions more than the seconds before he dies . Then , judges are as guilty as he is .
My "argument" is that there are almost never cases as clear as your hypothetical scenario. By envisioning the simplest case imaginable and using it as justification you are utterly missing the root of the argument against capital punishment to avoid killing innocent people. You set up your strawman argument quite well, but in the end it is still a strawman argument. You also fail to respond to my questioning how you would determine what level of certainty would make you comfortable with ending a life. Is this because you have no answer? I do not need to fully refute your argument. By presenting what you now admit was a flawed argument, you have demonstrated that your reasoning in this instance is likewise flawed. Unless you can demonstrate a method of avoiding innocent deaths, your hypothetical perfect case is meaningless in the real world, and your argument is likewise meaningless.
Yes, indeed you have made a astute observation in bringing up the essential question that is the basis of why this is such a controversial issue. My ultimate argument is to keep the death penalty so it can be used in a situation, like such that ive described, presented itself, while the alternative leaves you with no decision in the matter. Please don't make the assumption that the existence of the death penalty warrants the blind and careless use of it. Ultimately, the decision of who lives and who dies in this scenario will be left to the discretion of a group of human beings, as are all decisions in our government. And while I commend the deductive reasoning exercised by you to find the flaw in my argument, it is a flaw, and you did not succeed in refuting my argument. All you did was highlight the essential question in this issue and I say this because you could've copy and pasted your reply to anybody's argument on this page and it would've revealed flaws. In the future, when attempting to play the "devil's advocate role" , for lack of a better word, try to make an argument for the opposition or propose a reason why my statements are false and offer a better alternative. If none of these things are done, the result is adding a point of view to further complicating the situation, not solving it. And if you believe that in this I am attacking you, you are mistaken, I am merely questioning the logical foundation of your "argument".
You should read the arguments rather than responding to am argument no one has made. You set up a strawman that you can knock down, then fail at even doing that.
As to the argument you made, then tried to refute, in favor of banning the death penalty, you missed one important detail. While there are cases where someone is on camera killing people or planting a bomb, there are many more where it is less definitive. How do you differentiate these cases? Someone must decide what threshold of certainty allows the legal system to end a life and almost no matter where you draw that line it potentially ends innocent lives.
To ban the death penalty all together would be a mistake. As with all arguments, to distinguish the sides as black and white is a quite parochial way of looking at things. The biggest argument arising from those in favor of banning the death penalty is that these people could be wrongly accused and executed and that these people enjoy the right to "life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." However, if the courts were presented with an individual who has pleaded guilty to the murder of 20 people or has had video evidence of him planting a bomb in a school. are you saying that these individuals rights are more important than others? by breaking the law (and depending on the circumstances), you are naturally revoked of some of the rights enjoyed by many in this country. people in prison are not allowed the right to vote however this is enjoyed by all law abiding citizens. by choosing to take the somebody's life, they are taking the risk that they might forfeit their own
Fair enough. I wasn't putting any serious research into this. These were simply my thoughts at the time
Since 1976 there have been 1414 executions in the USA. That seems like a lot, but there were 2,220,300 inmates in federal or state prisons in 2013 alone. Even had all of those executions taken place in 2013,that would remove 1 in every 1,570 prisoners. If you are using the argument that capital punishment lowers prison populations, you would need to kill a lot more people to make an appreciable difference.
If you're going to make an argument about the financial viability of the death penalty, our should really look at the actual numbers. Death penalty cases cost 10x more to prosecute and death row inmates are exponentially more expensive to house. So from a financial prospective, the death penalty is a waste.
Weelllll....I must admit literally right up until this point I thought that it should be because I do believe rotting in a cage for the rest of your life is worse punishment. However, when you look at thus from a non-objective, unemotional standpoint, the death penalty is better. Many prisons are overcrowded now, can you imagine if every person executed in the last 30 years were still alive? Plus the prisoners have to kept alive somehow, and that somehow is with your tax dollars. More prisoners equals more money. So for the sake of the economy, I think the death penalty should remain.
Death penalty is an effective means of social control.
No one has the right to end the life of another human being outside of self-defense, that includes the government. To kill an unarmed, defenseless prisoner is murder, regardless of what crime he may have committed. And I stress the may, there have been many proven accounts of innocent people being convicted and ultimately executed for crimes they never even committed.
It's a truly dangerous notion that the government has a right to kill its citizens so long as they are deemed guilty(by the government) of a killable offense.
I'm not really for or against the death penalty but your argument seems to be based on the idea that death is the worst thing you can do to someone. Which I would strongly disagree with. a lifetime in a cage, of suffering, is worse than death in my opinion. So killing an innocent person might be less terrible than imprisoning them until they're 60 then saying woops, my bad.
Death Penalty should be banned because 1st, we have a thing called human rights that everyone of us has the right to live and who do we think we are to deprive those people from having a life . Death penalty is cruel especially if its use in trial cases. Example eventhough the person is pleaded with guilty but he didnt really did or commited the act and he was granted to have death penalty. Years after the case was reopened and it should be a not guilty then how can you return the life of that person. Death penalty is a permanent punishment .
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.