Debating- The death penalty

Watch
Lala143
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
This thread is aimed at people who enjoy debating. If you are the proposition please write 'proposition - whatever your opinion may be' if you're the opposition please write 'opposition-whatever your opinion may be'
This House supports the death penalty.
0
reply
OliverWhite
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
opposition - in principle, the death penalty sounds like a fair and reasonable punishment. It is not until you start questioning whether or not the government should kill its own citizens that you then realise that the death penalty is wrong. Think about how many people have been sentenced, wrongly, to the death penalty. Unless there is a 100% success rate, you're killing innocent people.
1
reply
rehman15
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Opposition - it is inevitable that innocent people will be convicted and it doesn't give a good message out; we can't teach killing is wrong by therefore killing someone else. in my opinion the death penalty is an easy way from what they have done, life imprisionment could potentially reform and they are forced to think of their actions and carry the guilt with them and it has been shown the death penalty in some states doesn't even defer people from committing crimes.
0
reply
laurawatt
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Moved to the society forum (the overall forum for debates is in the debate and current affairs) forum
0
reply
Mruczega
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Opposition - It is a decision that can not be taken back. We might be certain that someone is guilty just like we were certain in the past but it can turn out that we were wrong (just like in the past) and we caused the death of an innocent person. Furthermore, let's just say that we ended the life of a murderer who killed prostitutes as he believed that what they were doing was wrong. Wouldn't we be doing the same thing? The murderer had no right to do what he did, what gives us the right?
1
reply
Lala143
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by laurawatt)
Moved to the society forum (the overall forum for debates is in the debate and current affairs) forum
Thank you
0
reply
Pandii
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Two controversial alternatives:

-We should hold a massive televised hunger games between the worst criminals which would bring in loads of advertising revenue for the government and entertainment for the viewers?

-We should use the worst criminals as organ and blood donors (providing they are healthy) and just blood donations from medium-severity criminals. Low-medium severity criminals just also be forced to do community service full time.

I am not saying i fully support both of these, and i recognise the drawbacks, but both help the economy rather than the large funding of prisons.
0
reply
naadia_as
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
Kind of an opposition, kind of not. (I guess controversial warning?)
Unless you can 100% prove that that person definitely does it then I think it's an option. Doesn't mean to say that it's the only option or the right one even because the criminal has rights, and the death penalty doesn't really coincide with that. However serial killers and mass murderers have taken so many lives and rights away from people. Is it then fair to say that someone who has taken rights away from others still deserves the same rights that each one of us has? So then the death penalty is okay to use on just them. But then is it fair to treat say serial killers and rapists the same say? That then opens a whole other question into debate.
Just some questions that I've thought to myself whilst that death row tv programme was on. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it is a very good documentary about this topic.
0
reply
Mruczega
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Pandii)
Two controversial alternatives:

-We should hold a massive televised hunger games between the worst criminals which would bring in loads of advertising revenue for the government and entertainment for the viewers?

-We should use the worst criminals as organ and blood donors (providing they are healthy) and just blood donations from medium-severity criminals. Low-medium severity criminals just also be forced to do community service full time.

I am not saying i fully support both of these, and i recognise the drawbacks, but both help the economy rather than the large funding of prisons.
No to the first one cuz it's inhumane.

I say yes to the bottom one but it wouldn't work well in practice cuz between getting tested and between donating they could do drugs or get ill or something.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (420)
56.6%
I don't have everything I need (322)
43.4%

Watched Threads

View All