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

should death penitently stay

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2018 Category: News
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,348 times Debate No: 106353
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




The death penalty should be allowed because those who kill innocent people should pay for it with their own lives. The death penalty should be allowed as an acceptable punishment for those who kill innocent people. Taxpayers should not have to pay for a killer to spend the rest of their lives not working, watching cable tv, and working out. The killer took an innocent life and should not be given any of the privileges and luxuries that they took away from the victim.


I've heard this argument many times before and I understand the sentiment that it is unfair if someone takes a life, they will live. I understand completely. As you put it, "those who kill innocent people should pay for it with their own lives."

Now before I present my argument, let me be clear that I am not in any way excusing or condoning murder. I believe in justice, order, law, and fairness. Murderers should serve their time.

Also, you said in your answer that "Taxpayers should not have to pay for a killer to spend the rest of their lives not working, watching cable TV, and working out." Just as a side note: while we are talking about your answer, I think you should learn how to spell "death penalty" in the question

Are you saying that prisoners "watch cable TV and work out"? If so, who told you that?? That's not what happens at all! Prisoners, especially murderers, must and will serve the punishment that is right for them.

If you're not convinced yet, don't take it from me. Take it from the rest of America! According to a 2010 poll from Lake Research Partners, 61% of American voters are against the death penalty.

However, it is immoral to decide that someone needs to die. Yes, I understand that the murderer decided that someone needs to die, but hear me out. Those people who die on death row are fellow human beings. Let that sink in for a second. They're people, just like you and me. They're not monsters. They're not Freddy Krueger, and they're not Michael Myers. They're not Pennywise. THEY ARE PEOPLE. No one, and I mean NO ONE (whether or not they're in the government) has the right to take a life. The murderer never had that right originally, but just because he abused that right doesn't mean that someone should abuse that right towards him.

Have you ever heard of the saying "two rights don't make a wrong"? Well, that fits perfectly for this situation!

According to, a black person is three times as likely to be put to execution as a white person for a similar case. (Prof. K. Beckett, Univ. of Washington, 2014)

A study in California found that murder cases involving white victims are 3 times as likely to result in execution when compared to murders involving black victims. That same study found that murder cases involving white victims are four times as likely to result in execution when compared to cases involving Latino victims. So basically, the philosophy here seems to be that killers have to pay for their crimes with their lives.... unless of course the victim was a minority! also said that "In 96% of states where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both. (Prof. Baldus report to the ABA, 1998)"

The death penalty system is racist. That's all there is to it.

Since 1973, more than 155 people have been released from death row because evidence was discovered that exonerated them (Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights, 1993, with updates by DPIC). From 1973-1999, there was an average of 3 exonerated prisoners per year. From 2000-2011, there was an average of 5 exonerated prisoners per year.

A lot of death row prisoners are exonerated. A LOT. So clearly, it was mistake putting those 155 people on death row. So what happens when an innocent is put on death row and then evidence isn't found to clear before the execution??? Then they're dead. And that's it. They're dead. Great.

Now think about the logic of the death penalty. If someone kills someone else, I'm going to make it better by killing that person. How does that make sense? It is legitimizing the very thing it's supposed to prevent! What kind of message does that send? I'll tell you what kind of message it sends. A barbaric, dictatorial message. It sends the message that if you mess up, you're going to die, especially if you're a minority.

If someone had a repeat history of armed robbery with a deadly weapon, would you want to cut off their hands?

If your spouse or significant other cheated on you, would you want them to be stoned?

No, of course not! That would be insane. So then why is it okay to kill someone just because they killed?

As the wise Nelson Mandela once said, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
Debate Round No. 1


yes i understand where you are coming from but before I start yes I did spell it wrong but I was tired when I started so now lets begin one I'm wondering where you are coming from on the whole race thing one, yes people still hate certain races and favor others but in the court of law it does not matter what race you are they hire judges that choose your punishment based on what you did and your record now I'm going into depth with this I belive it should still stay because one The Constitution Allows For The Application Of The Death Penalty. The Constitution of the United States, more specifically through the application of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit the use of the death penalty in appropriate cases. And another thing you are doing your research on things that are almost a decade old things like that change and you can be put on the death sentence for more than murder say a child rapist you think they should just stay in prison?but think of this also there are many victims of a single murder. The criminal gets caught, tried, and convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe. But the person he has killed no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived his family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the murder. It may not end with the murderer"s execution, but the execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal a feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives's another reason I think it should be allowed I THINK that if we get tough on crime to say like murder people will think twice like hey if I kill this innocent person I might get put on death so they think twice and don't do it but that's just me and it might not happen

but okay here's something what if a criminal goes on a rampage and kills dozens of civilians and eight cops and gets arrested what do you think the punishment would be life? Possible but just cause he/she is a human does not save from death


Although the judicial system is designed with several strategies to promote fairness (such as a panel of jurors who are interviewed beforehand and cut off from the rest of the world to ensure impartiality), it is not perfect. If you look at the statistics I presented, you will see that the death penalty is racist.

Not every murderer is given the death penalty, right? Some are just given jail sentences. Black murderers are three times as likely to be given the death penalty when compared to white murderers for similar cases according

Let's say a black person and a white person both commit separate murders. The murders are similar, which means that they happened under similar conditions with similar outcomes. The black person is three times as likely to be executed compared to the white person.

Let me explain my second statistic a little better as well. Let's say a someone named Dylan kills a white person, someone named Jordan kills a black guy, and someone named Drew kills a Latino person. (I intentionally made all the example names gender-neutral by the way)

In this scenario Dylan is three times as likely to go to jail as Jordan, JUST because Dylan killed a white guy and Jordan killed a black.

Dylan is FOUR times as likely to go to jail as Drew, JUST because Dylan killed a Latino.

As I said before, the judicial system tries to be impartial as possible, but it can't always do that. The job of choosing whether someone lives or dies is given to a judge, and judges are human beings. Even though judges and jurors try to be fair to all races and nationalities, they will always have an involuntary bias, no matter how hard they try to be fair.

You stated that the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution provide for the death penalty. This is actually not true at all.

The Fifth Amendment says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Fifth Amendment is basically saying that: (a) you cannot be jailed for a crime unless the police actually charge you and (b) the judicial system cannot convict you of a crime unless they follow the process outlined in the Constitution and (c) a person cannot be charged for the same crime twice. For instance, you can be tried for a murder of one person, and then later tried for the murder of a different person, but you cannot be tried for the murder of one person and then later tried for the murder of that same person. The rest of the Fifth Amendment says that the government cannot take your stuff without paying you what that item is worth.

The Eighth Amendment says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

This means that if someone is convicted of a crime, three things MUST NOT happen:
-An excessive bail (or price to get someone out of jail) cannot be required
-An excessive fine cannot be imposed
-The criminal cannot be given a cruel or unusual punishment

Now you might point at that third part and say "Now hold on. The death is not cruel because the person put to execution is a really bad person and they deserve to die" but first of all it is cruel to decide that someone needs to die. Secondly, that amendment does not specifically allow the death penalty.

The Fourteenth Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This Amendment says that everyone who is born in the US or goes through the immigration process is a citizen of the US. The Amendment says that if someone is a citizen of the US, they have to follow the laws of the US and follow the orders of the government. Then it says that the states cannot make laws that violate the rights of American citizens unless the right process is followed. The last thing this Amendment says is that every person has to be given the same treatment under the law (which, as I said earlier, is what the government tries to do, but they don't do it very well at all.)

The three Amendments that you mentioned do not say anything about the death penalty. In fact, no part of the Constitution talks about the death penalty. And by the way, yes I do believe that child rapists and criminals of all kinds should only be given a jail sentence, unless they are extremely dangerous terrorists.

You said that putting a murderer in prison does not provide the family involved with the relief they need. If someone killed one of my family members, I would not feel better if the killer was executed. In fact, if I am murdered, I legitimately prefer for the murderer to be given a life sentence. But I haven't had a family member killed, so I don't know what it feels like. So I found some real life stories about families and how they felt about the death penalty being given to the person who murdered a loved of theirs. Read one of these stories below. All of these stories come from, and all the stories have links to articles about the family from news outlets.

In 2014, a man named Jeff Ferguson was executed for the murder of Kelli Hall. Kelli's father, Jim, originally believed that Jeff Ferguson was executed, it would bring closure to the family. In fact, he told reporters "Thank God, it's over." But a few months later, the family saw a documentary about how Ferguson interacted with those at his prison. They "were able to forgive him then and there." The father of the family told The Chicago Tribune that "I'm convinced significant healing would have occurred for us all if our family had engaged in a frank conversation with him at the prison. I wish I had had the chance -- consistent with my Christian beliefs -- to have told him in person that I forgave him for what he did to our innocent and precious daughter." I just realized that I'm about to run over my character limit, so I encourage everyone reading this right now to follow that link and read about it.

You said that the death penalty deters crime because people don't want to die. That is a very logical argument, and I used to believe the very same thing until I read an article ( In the article, Dr. Johnathan Groner, an associate professor, said "The psychological mind-set of a criminal is such that they are not able to consider consequences at the time of the crime. Most crimes are crimes of passion that are done in situations involving intense excitement or concern. People who commit these crimes are not in a normal state of mind -- they do not consider the consequences in a logical way ... The murder rate is most closely associated with the socioeconomic health of the country. The murder rate in the U.S. was highest during the Depression. Also, the majority of people on death row are from the most blighted parts of the U.S. They are very poor and very impoverished. A very high percentage have mental health problems. Access to health care and improving the socioeconomic health of our country's cities would reduce the murder rate more effectively than executions."
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ninjad912 4 years ago
what about an eye for an eye said the bible
Posted by theashur555 4 years ago
good debate

Posted by John_C_1812 4 years ago
What is said without admitting is only the criminal can publicly impose Capital punishment. This is not true by principle.

The State of the Union made on Capital Punishment is on separation between the shared public forecasting made by result of the word Capital, this word is saying only the highest point of punishment by crime has been placed before the public. The United States Constitutional separation should not be tricked it squabbles of prediction made by crime itself as legal argument of council.

The Constitutional separation takes place between accused and public first. The sharing of self-incrimination by council and its state of the Union should not be made public. As an accused persons innocents is never asked to be proven it is only the States burden to show guilt. Which is a one-sided argument. The impartial understanding is a state and its jury may fail at this attempt. The jury an assembly created by council.
Posted by John_C_1812 4 years ago
Not to dictate a choice of Death prenatally as topic for debated. The better argument is made at a Constitutional level where the basic principle of outcome is in common defense to general welfare. A person who conducts murder, killing, and the intentional stopping of human life, the action that creates the state of death. A condition of state that can be then be shared, by its principle to all people in the public in contradiction to law. Simply said taking part in murder, or killing can be just as wrong by knowing of it happening as actually killing itself.

Capital Punishment is the detail of such punishment in impartial way of placing distance between unintentional self-incrimination, unlike the way any accused was said to inflict a punishment upon a person resulting in their death. Death penalty describes a goal to be reached. This is a state of fact made by Presidential declaration of the Constitutional Union. This means one male person is looking at the United States Constitution connection to law only. Not any one person held in separation.

The understood legal Precedent with Capital Punishment is to remind people that two crimes are committed not just one crime of ending human life. Known, then described by law as murder. The second crime never stated is committed upon by accused on themselves and the general public. Not any one Victim. It happens when accused failed to use a United States Constitutional separation to insuring common defense to general welfare. This is well documented law that qualifies for enforcement equal to all other law.
Posted by kyrmanly 4 years ago
Nice straw man
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.