frame

Why is the Capital Punishment/Death Sentence for murderers wrong?

Opening Argument

Persuade me why the Why is the Capital Punishmest/Death Sentence for murderers and other similar criminals wrong? Even in cases where there is infallible evidence, murderers are let go with imprisonment. 

Also if we kill them all, then prison costs will be much lower.
natbaronsBlank
  1. Is capital punishment for murderers wrong?

    14 votes
    1. Yes
      28.57%
    2. No
      71.43%
«1

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • @1Hacker0, I can take either side of this debate.  From economic standpoint if the process of aiuthorizing death penalty would be simplified it has potential of great economic savings.  The reason many will argue it is wrong is because of religious believes that it is wrong for us to condemn someone to death.
  • Yes, the death sentence is inhumane and shouldn't be allowed. Jail may result in less or more suffering for the person. 
  • @islander507 Religion and the state are separate. Religion can't interfere with laws. 
  • @natbarons Yes, but what is your argument. Why is it inhumane. 
  • At one time, I thought my science book was infallible. Nothing is absolute. People get set-up. I think I'd rather let God make the decision to take someone out.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat There are a number of cases with infallible evidence. One recent case is the Barcelona van attack. The driver of a van drove through a crowd killing 13 people. It continuously plowed through for seven blocks before the they tried to escape and two out of the three suspects got caught. There is no way someone could have set that up. 

    This is not the only case with infallible evidence. There are also many cases where video evidence of the murder taking place was recorded. 
  • I see you've never heard of a false flag. You thing Osama bin Laden attacked America don't you. What about the Boston Bombers, you know they were innocent? Don't believe everything you see on t.v.. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 88 Pts
    edited August 18
    @Erfisflat Then what is the best way to serve justice to murderers? Also what religion do you imply when you say I think I'd rather let God make the decision to take someone out.
  • 1Hacker0 said:
    @Erfisflat Then what is the best way to serve justice to murderers? Also what religion do you imply when you say I think I'd rather let God make the decision to take someone out.
    https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/sentencing-life-americans-embrace-alternatives-death-penalty

    No religion needed to be a theist.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    This is one of those debates that has two appealing sides to it no matter how you approach it.

    1.  I support killing murderers.  Looks pretty good on your resume, casts your character in Justice, makes you appealing to the victims and generally says that you care enough to not let innocent people die.

    2.  I don't condone the murder penalty: Makes you look sympathetic, speaks volumes about your view of Humanity, casts you as "Above retribution and revenge" and generally says that you're more willing than others to "Turn the other cheek".

    We all know that the death penalty is legal.  That's not the question here, this is a matter of what ought to be...so we're talking about Morality.  Now I'm sure everyone here can agree that Morality and the Moral code are real things, they truly exist and they do govern us to varying degrees...but what is the physical composition of Moral codes?  What is the chemical composition of Morality?  Can you see it?  Can you measure it?  Is it observable?  Are moral codes of the physical realm?  I'm afraid the answer is no.  Moral laws are above the physical realm, cannot be observed and cannot be measured.  No lineage can be drawn from our Moral laws nor can we state with any degree of fact where they come from.  So they are supernatural.  While science may speculate, theorize and attempt to explain morality...it's beyond scientific understanding and therefor we are now in the realm of the supernatural.

    Now the question of what we ought to do in regards to the death penalty is not as simple as everyone would like it to be.  It's not just about what he/she did and who was affected.  We as Humans can be just accountable for our inactions as we are for our actions, there's also what's called "Second and third order effects" to be considered when making choices.

    The difference between a direct choice and a choice that takes into account the second and third order effects is as follows:

    "Should a murderer be killed for his actions"?
    VS
    "Should a murderer be killed to prevent them from doing it again"?

    Now an example of Humans taking responsibility for inactions AND second and third order effects

    "Should a murderer be killed for his actions"?
    VS
    "Should a murderer be killed to prevent them from doing it again"?
    VS
    "Am I responsible for killing a murderer for their actions"?
    VS
    "Am I responsible for subsequent deaths of innocent people if I don't stop a murderer by killing them when I have the chance"?

    There's also the moral dilemma of creating unnecessary burden upon innocent people by refusing to kill a murderer.

    "If a Woman is murdered by a Man, can I justify requiring that the Woman's Family financially contribute to providing all the necessary provisions for the Murderer for the rest of his life so that we may avoid killing him in return"?

    Do you pay taxes?  You do!?  Well then you are financially contributing to the provisions (Food, hot water, clean clothes, air-conditioned facilities, free medical care) of all the convicted and incarcerated criminals in this country.  How would you feel if your Father or Mother were murdered in cold-blood and instead of receiving the death penalty...you had to pay your fair share to put the Murderer up in a cushy U.S. Prison for the rest of his life.  I was a correctional officer in Texas for 3 years, they got fed and taken better care of than most U.S. Service Members did overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Does that even remotely sound fair?  Does it sound "Just"?

    It doesn't to me.  I agree with the death penalty.




    1Hacker0
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Erfisflat said:
    I see you've never heard of a false flag. You thing Osama bin Laden attacked America don't you. What about the Boston Bombers, you know they were innocent? Don't believe everything you see on t.v.. 
    well what evidence is there to suggest that Osama did not bomb the u.s
  • I certainly agree with Vaulk and their reference to the supernatural nature of morality.
    Though I would prefer to regard morality as conceptual.
    That is to say an intangible creation of the human mind, that has no realistic bearing on the function of the universe and therefore no realistic bearing on the function of human society.
    The same logic can also be applied to "right and wrong".

    Obviously, these conceptual rules are applied to give society a modicum of stability.
    But in times of conflict, look at how quickly we are prepared to allow these rules to be broken down.

    Nonetheless, perhaps it's best to maintain a modicum of stability.
    That means applying conceptual rules to society.
    The taking of another human life shall be considered as wrong.
    Therefore if society is to command the very highest moral ground, it should never allow itself to sink to the level of the murderer.
    Erfisflat

  • Nonetheless, perhaps it's best to maintain a modicum of stability.
    That means applying conceptual rules to society.
    The taking of another human life shall be considered as wrong.
    Therefore if society is to command the very highest moral ground, it should never allow itself to sink to the level of the murderer.

    Taking the life of another isn't always wrong.  Leaving aside abortion and euthanasia for the moment (although the case could be made that this is just a form of euthanasia), every country has a military and an armed police force.  Just as freedom of speech has limits, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, so too does the protection of life.  It does not extend to the enemy on the battlefield, the armed criminals endangering the lives of innocents, nor to the most violent convicted criminals.
    1Hacker0
  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 88 Pts
    edited August 18
    @Erfisflat Prisoners are treated better than people in poverty. If this was the normal punishment for murder and I was in poverty, I would go kill someone and go to prison. Then I'll just stay in prison with the taxpayers taking care of me.

    Also I'm assuming that you are agnostic theist.
  • "well what evidence is there to suggest that Osama did not bomb the u.s"

    That's another debate altogether. The point is, people get set up. There are no absolutes when it comes to this. Innocent people are sentenced to death row all the time. @1Hacker0 poverty is another issue entirely. This country has become judgemental and bloodthirsty. The media plays you against each other. I'm not falling for it anymore.

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat I know poverty is another issue. I wasn't talking about how to solve it. I'm saying that if I was in poverty, I could just murder someone to go to prison and be taken care of for the rest of my life. It doesn't have to be poverty.

    This alternative punishment is not good. It is injustice that a murderer should be taken care of for the rest of his life with tax money. If there is no absolutes when it comes to crime, then we can't punish anyone. People are sentenced to life in prison innocently just like people are sentenced to the death row innocently. The difference is that prison is more of a reward to murderers than a punishment.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 753 Pts
    edited August 18
    @1Hacker0
    I don't consider being locked away as any kind of reward. People in poverty are being taken care of by tax dollars all the time, it's called welfare. If an innocent person is sentenced to life in prison, the window of chance to clear his or her name is... the rest of his life, killing an innocent person is probably unforgivable if there is a God, which I believe there is.
    1Hacker0
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 88 Pts
    edited August 18
    @Erfisflat Yes you are locked away, but you are taken care of. I don't want my tax money going to prisons to take care of prisoners. Even prisoners who refuse to work are given sufficient meals, although they are restricted to staying in one room. Normal people have to work for money and food. Murderers are treated better than people in poverty. People in poverty barely get enough from welfare to earn three meals a day, and are nowhere close to getting shelter. 

    Also innocent people die from war all the time. It is a necessity, otherwise more people will die. Same thing with the death sentence. The difference is that there is a higher percentage of criminals dying when compared to innocent people, in the death row, than in war. Militaries don't recruit murderers so there are more innocent people dying in war.

    There is always a danger that murderers can escape and kill more innocent people:
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/08/nyregion/prison-escape.html

    The two murderers in the link escaped a maximum security prison.

    I'm pretty sure God would have preferred that we had killed those two. There is a risk in killing an innocent person, but it is worth the risk due to the other lives saved, and the justice served.

    The death sentence is a punishment without a warning, and it is the last punishment the murderer gets. This would incline others to not murder as well.

    The death sentence also requires absolute evidence. Court cases on the death row can go on for many years. Over 130 people on the death row have been released last year, due to uncertainty. Many of them are still believed to be guilty. Ted Bundy's case went on for many years. They had to even prove that porn hadn't altered his mind to viewing women as objects. 
  • "I don't want my tax money going to prisons to take care of prisoners."

    That's always going to happen, nothing we can do about that. People are sentenced to years, even life in prison for carrying or selling a plant. There's not much said about it, and they haven't harmed a soul. 

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/missouri-man-sentenced-life-no-parole-marijuana-related-charge-walks-n419376

    As for the cost, deathpenaltyinfo.org makes a good point with:

    " The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative--life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials--one on guilt and one on sentencing--make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial."

    https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/millions-misspent
    THEDENIER
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat I'd rather have more of my money spent to kill a murderer than to have less of my money spent to support his life. Justice for the victim and the victim's family should be given no matter the cost.

    Also the second trial for death sentence would be obsolete if it is required for all murderers to be executed like I was arguing for. Once there is guilt of murder there is instant death.

    I agree you might have refuted one of my arguments: "Also if we kill them all, then prison costs will be much lower," but once again, it doesn't really matter since justice should be given no matter the cost. I say you "might" have refuted because I do not know the cost for the second trial which is obsolete.

    By prisoners I meant murderers who are prisoners. Sorry I didn't specify, but from now on that is implied. I agree that weed users and sellers shouldn't be imprisoned.
  • "I'd rather have more of my money spent to kill a murderer than to have less of my money spent to support his life."

    So now that you know that the cost of killing someone is a lot more than just locking them away, cost, even millions, is tolerable. This money should be spent on actual rehabilitation. The current prison system is just a for profit business. 


    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvpzkp/whos-getting-rich-off-the-prison-industrial-complex

    This doesn't even address the issue of wrongful conviction. I saw the Boston bombings on my daughters day of birth and I, while at first I wished death on those poor boys, saw through the media induced propaganda, and figured out they were innocent. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat So you think we shouldn't have a death sentence because we should use the money on rehab instead.

    Am I right?
  • 1Hacker0 said:
    @Erfisflat So you think we shouldn't have a death sentence because we should use the money on rehab instead.

    Am I right?
    I mean you're oversimplifying a very complicated system. The death penalty isn't saving any money, and it isn't preventing crime in any way. Killing a person shouldn't be legal. It's the first and most important commandment. You can't get any more obvious.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat The death penalty isn't about saving money or preventing crime. It is about justice.

    Is it moral to kill a person who committed genocide?
  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    @Fredsnephew,

    Man that got me right in the feelers!  A VERY well posed argument my friend.  I would offer though, that there is a distinction between killing and murder.  If killing a Murderer was to be considered Murder itself... then killing in self-defense would be considered Murder.

    In the end my simple opinion is that...if you Murder someone...I won't waste an ounce of effort more than I absolutely have to to make sure you don't do it again...if that means killing you instead of creating a national institution of free living for criminals...then so be it. 
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch