Login/Sign Up




Do We Need Death Penalty Again?
Politics

Ken Walter Tuazon
Mar 20, 2016
7 votes
6 debaters
2


+ Add Argument

5
Yes!


Calser Jo
Mar 20, 2016
2 convinced
Rebuttal
its cheaper then keeping them in a jail.
dead people are great fertilizers


 
Tim Houton
May 30, 2016
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I'm not even American & I believe in the death penalty!

I think the death penalty should only be given to the most serious crimes however e.g. murder.
It should also not be used unless there is substantial evidence pointing to the perpetrator, and they mustn't be mentally ill (then they belong in a psychiatric prison.

Obviously prison would still be needed, but costs would be severely reduced. Also, I think prisons should focus much more on reforming inmates (I know they already do this, but not enough in my opinion).

For those saying the death penalty is just as expensive as life in prison, how?
The cost of legal proceedings would be the same, then it differs greatly.
Prison requires investment and maintainance of the prisons, running costs (food, lighting, heat, etc.), staff costs, etc.
Death penalty cost would vary depending on the execution method, but if I were to choose, I would want a bullet to the head as it's quick and painless. This would be so much cheaper than prison. I know a lethal injection is most common (although that seems to be changing because the pharmaceutical company now refuses to supply it) or electric chair, but why? They're more painful (maybe that's the point) and more expensive than a bullet.

 
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Maya Wells Show

This depends on the kind of death penalty that you advocate. If there is not just substantial evidence, but undeniable proof that someone is a heinous human being, such as people that commit school shootings, with hundreds of witnesses, or people that have been caught on multiple rapes and child abuse charges, then it is a much simpler case. Take for example the Fritzels, who repeatedly beat and raped their daughter for several years of her life. There is no need to grant them an appeal, there is no need to detain them. Give them a choice between a bullet in the head or a cyanide pill, and have it done right after their conviction.

There are several reasons for the death penalty. First of all is the risk. Even if in prison, violent convicts can cause harm to other pisoners and guards, and that is not even mentioning the possibility of escape. Take for example if you had a murderer who killed 10 people and was seen by multiple witnesses as well as videoed himself while doing it.

Let us call him Joe.

Now let us imagine a skinny white kid, who went to jail for getting caught smoking some weed.

Let's call him Jimmy.

Joe, while in prison, could potentially rape, assault or even kill Jimmy and others in the prison, including the guards. Do you know what could stop him from hurting anyone? a bullet to the head. And it would be cheaper too, as a single bullet probably costs under a dollar.

By killing him, you are potentially saving several lives of innocent people.

Now let us assume that Joe is mentally disabled. If he has, let's say schizophrenia, he can have violent panic attacks, where he attacks anything that comes near him. This includes doctors. If he is released several years later, due to the doctors declaring him sane again, he could potentially have a relapse, and kill someone AGAIN.

Does anyone here believe that soldiers are evil? No? Good. Because a soldier kills soldiers of their country's enemies, BECAUSE THEY COULD HARM INNOCENTS IF THEY DO NOT. Sound familiar? In fact, considering that soldiers will have to learn to take a life eventually, you can just use soldiers to carry out their executions. Problem solved.

As long as we keep in mind, that I am only talking about extreme cases such as the Fritzels, there should be no problem to carry out the death penalty.

 
+ Add Argument

2
No!


Hazel Debates
Mar 28, 2016
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Calser Jo Show

you can't take a persons life away just because of a mistake they make out of the oblivion. They may have been going through something, everyone deserves a chance to get better. But on the other hand if this person is getting worse even when they are getting help, and they are still a danger to everyone around them then death penalty may have to be a choice.

 
Maya Wells
Apr 15, 2016
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Who are we to decide who deserves to live? Is a life for a life truly just?

All of the emotional appeals aside, cost effectiveness is valued over most things, and in the grand scheme of things, it seems that the death penalty would be cheaper than housing inmates. However when you look at the numbers, it is actually cheaper to have no death penalty. How can this be? Inmates that are put on death row are allowed to appeal their case. This is a lengthy process, during which the inmate is in high security spending tax payer dollars to fight for their life in court. This costs much more than just locking up inmates for life.

Not to mention, mistakes can be made. You can always let a convict out of prison if their innocents is proven. You can't revive the dead.



 
Austin Wu
Apr 28, 2016
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Calser Jo Show

A cursory google search can show that the death penalty is often not cheaper than lifetime in jail.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong