Should the death penalty be abolished?

Sorry for such a late delay I truly apologise, I was kept busy with all the catching up work to do.

That said let’s start the debate: 

You saw the arguments, you could have started out the gate trying to refute them.

So I'm just going to repost the points.

Due to the limitation of rounds, if you desire to run a part 2 to the topic, I'll set it up.

I'm going to start with this point as this is the bottom line where conflict comes into play and how I prove that there should be death penalties or obvious fatal executions.

Not even solely for crimes committed but for the safety of society. Now the truth is, the death penalty is not justice for the victims or the slain or fallen . The slain is gone. Nothing further can be justified for them.

But we can still orchestrate justice for those that it can protect and serve which are the living. This gives the basis for having prisons, right. The prisons are there to contain and restrain individuals from doing any further harm or damage to individuals undue it ok.

Now the question is, if the prison system fails and there is an escape, some type of an appeal or re-trial, whatever the factors are that enable the perpetrators to be free and the heinous crimes are committed again, what can you do if you have nothing to stop the perpetrator?

What do you do in perhaps a hostage situation when your choices are to allow the assailant to slaughter a victim or execute the assailant?

So if you're in favor of prison systems to stop individuals from committing crimes, cohesively and consistently to be without conflict you have to permit executions.

That's really the reality right there which is the truth which is the evidence.

I will say that the death penalty could be reevaluated, recalculated as to the parameters I've specified that could make a difference in expenses. However this would mean that the death penalty, fatal executions are still of reality. 

Now we ought to keep in mind of probabilities such as more and more repetitive successful prison breaks and any other factors legally or illegally, technicalities that prevent people from rightfully being imprisoned or being contained therein or people that are perhaps untouchable, legally immune that perpetuate crimes of harming, the serial undue slaying of others.

So basically if the recidivism problem can only be resolved by individual case with the execution of the individual, you have to allow for a capacity of the death penalty or death row in that measure for such individuals.

 A person that is not innocent and cannot be stopped unless the person is physically stopped, obviously fits the penalty, reaps the consequence of being ceased. Particularly, mortally stopped. The person has drew these ramifications upon him or her.

I don't consistently draw from films but I thought of this from the film "Lean on me". The main character's decision was to execute a ramification that is characterized as a permanent cutting off from education from the institution they've proven to be beyond redemption to receive.

So all in all, the opposing side has to reconsider that in order to push to still have prison systems in existence, it still requires a capacity for fatal execution.

I should have been more thoughtful for the opposing side. Giving this individual more days of time to consider points and making a response. Just 24 hours may enable more hasty poorly considered retorts. But again, I'm up for a part 2.

If the opposing side would like a live debate on discord, send me a message. I have recorded debates posted on this YouTube channel which you can view by going to website address:

Alright, let’s break this down. The idea that we must allow for fatal executions in order to protect society assumes that the death penalty is the only reliable fail-safe—and that’s simply not true. Maximum security prisons exist for this exact reason: to ensure that even the most dangerous individuals are permanently removed from society without resorting to state-sanctioned killing. In fact, escape from high-level prisons is extremely rare in modern systems. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the escape rate from federal prisons is less than 0.01%—and virtually all escapees are recaptured. So basing an entire system of execution on unlikely prison breaks is fear-based reasoning, not sound policy.

Also, using hypothetical situations like hostage crises to justify systemic execution laws is flawed. In an active, time-sensitive threat like that, law enforcement already has the authority to use lethal force if absolutely necessary. That’s a separate issue from enacting a legal death penalty, which is a slow, bureaucratic, and deeply flawed process. Death sentences take an average of 20+ years before execution, during which errors, appeals, and new evidence emerge—sometimes proving innocence. If the goal is to act fast in emergencies, the death penalty fails that standard completely.

Now, the idea that some people “must be mortally stopped” is dangerous rhetoric. It places the government in the role of deciding when a person is beyond redemption—which history has shown is deeply subjective and vulnerable to abuse. Think of Brandon Bernard, executed in 2020 despite outcry from prosecutors and the public after new evidence suggested his role in the crime was far less significant than believed. Or Troy Davis, whose execution sparked worldwide condemnation amid credible doubts about his guilt.

And let’s not ignore the clear racial and economic biases baked into the death penalty. According to the ACLU, Black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death, especially if the victim is white. You can’t claim to uphold justice while maintaining a system that operates on such disparities.

Lastly, if we’re going to talk about “reaping consequences,” let’s remember this: the true consequence of supporting the death penalty is the risk of executing innocent people. That’s not justice. That’s state violence dressed up as safety.

"The idea that we must allow for fatal executions in order to protect society assumes that the death penalty is the only reliable fail-safe—and that’s simply not true. "

It is the only fail safe. If it is not , prove that people resurrect from the dead, the grave. 

Here we go with this and this is what the other individual tried to argue. Now you have to prove it is outright absolutely impossible for someone such as a mastermind to overpower and outsmart a so called maximum security prison. When there is a possibility that the person cannot be stopped to offend again, what else can be done?

We're walking right into my point whether you can face it or not, just dead man walking.

Ok I will ask the question to you as the other individual. What do you do when a person can't be contained, has offended again and has brought in a hostage situation?

Do you allow the murderer to kill the hostage or stop the murderer by executing a death sentence by law enforcers?

So there you go . You just admitted you have to allow a capacity for killing. You cannot remove death penalties off the table. A hostage situation is just one scenario. You still have not proven it is impossible for a successful escapee/fugitive to exist to continue to offend.

Ok so what I'm arguing is an improved version of all that but see here's what, we're still talking about being in favor of death committed by law and legal regulations on convicted prisoners. So the death penalty is still on the table and still has to be considered to be used in some capacity.

See you all have to stop thinking about these things in status quo boxes. What exactly constitutes a death penalty?

When there is penalization by death. Who executues penalization? The law. This can be done inside the penal institution, outside of it or even while the repeat offender is attempting to escape.

I don't know where the opposing side is getting this from. I never made such a point about being "beyond redemption". I'll just ask the question. If the person is about to offend or offend again, would you allow it or take the only way to stop the individual by executing death on the murderer?

If the murderer can't be taken alive, will you sacrifice the authorities for this or allow death by authorities on the murderer to be executed?

If you say no, then I say in your position, yes you have completely taken the death penalty off the table. But you'd also be in conflict by using prison systems to stop murderers and offenders from doing what they do.

I think I said this in the other debate. The topic should be , outside allowable exceptions, the death penalty should not stand. But you phrase the topic in manner of the same error making it absolute.

If the prison systems were successfully able to contain the offenders, the death penalty can be made inapplicable.

Only execute the guilty. Particularly the ones that are just about to offend.

 

Let’s cut through the rhetoric: yes, we acknowledge that lethal force may be necessary in extreme, real-time emergencies like hostage situations—but that’s not the same thing as supporting the institutionalized death penalty. Using police action in a live threat is immediate self-defense, not a justification for a slow, bureaucratic, and error-prone system that kills people years after the crime. These are two completely different concepts. You don’t get to say, “because we sometimes need force in emergencies, we should keep a flawed execution system in place.” That’s like saying, “because we use ambulances for heart attacks, let’s keep an entire failing hospital open.”

Now let’s talk about this idea that the death penalty is the “only fail-safe.” If the only way you can claim something is a fail-safe is by demanding we prove resurrection is real, you’ve already walked away from reason. That argument isn’t policy—it’s hyperbole. Here’s the real deal: maximum-security prisons work. Supermax facilities like ADX Florence in Colorado are so secure that zero escapes have occurred. Saying “a genius might break out” is speculative fiction, not a foundation for law. You can’t build a justice system on “what ifs” when the “what is” leads to innocent lives being taken by the state.

And your idea of an “improved” death penalty? It still doesn’t fix the two core problems: wrongful convictions and human bias. The National Academy of Sciences found that 1 in every 25 people sentenced to death in the U.S. is likely innocent. That’s a fatal flaw no amount of reform can guarantee to fix. Until human beings stop making mistakes, the death penalty will always carry the risk of irreversible injustice.

You said “only execute the guilty”—but you can’t guarantee that. No one can. And until that changes, the death penalty is too dangerous to be law.

The  "need force in emergencies" still constitutes as the death penalty. So nevermind the status quo. The death penalty still exists in capacities undeniably justified. So I'm still valid in arguing that the death penalty should not be completely abolished.

Again, I say over and over , the error is in the way the topic and description thereof is worded. Got to pay attention to all words and be careful of them. They're not to be thrown around for decorations but deliberately placed and used to serve a meaning of conveyance to the audience. I digress..

This is the same error the other individual made but the opposing side didn't catch it.

That's what I thought. A person coming back from the dead , grave dead that is, after some time, not resuscitation, has not been proven to occur and cannot be or else it would have been given instead of talking about what we're walking away from.

You say hyperbole. Well it was a hyperbolic way of demonstrating that ultimate death proves no failure in stopping something ultimately. You know that so you don't entertain that so concede on it.

Yes, they thought Alcatraz worked . Here's the more real deal. Prove it is impossible for somebody to calculate making a prison break. A prison that is so tight up in security was engineered by elaborate intricate thinking for a design, right. So that's the proof that kind of ingenuity in thinkers exist. Who's to say they don't exist on the inside?

Not only that, who's to say a collaboration can't be formed from outside help to accomplish subverting security in an ancillary fashion?

See, I'm just throwing possibilities after possibilities because we do not know what can possibly happen or not. So because of that mere fact alone , allllll I'm saying is to have a back up plan. Which leaves the death penalty on the table. The death penalty is not just people taken off death row, escorted into a chamber and executed unjustly, right.

People are executed unjustly on the street during a traffic stop or whatever altercation.

You have not proven speculative fiction. This is your opinion and your speculation and you're  speculating what can't be. You're speculating that something absolutely won't happen by calling it fiction. You failed to prove that ultimate death was not a fail safe. You failed to prove it is impossible for people to find a way to escape. I think you acknowledge that people are smart enough to think of a security system. You nor I have proof , these smart thinkers only exist on the right side of the law. .

You talk about speculation. You're doing a bunch of it.

It's not about building anything on "what ifs". It's about being prepared for "what ifs". 

Partner, all they have to do is outlaw all status quo executions. What are you talking about?

So you can't guarantee that somebody is about to murder somebody.

Can you not guarantee they are dead to rights guilty in the midst of the act , and the law justifiably committed the penalty of death on the active perpetrator?

Preferably before the assailant can complete the offense, the penalty is administered.

Again, you got to grasp better what I'm saying. 

I don't see those questions I asked answer as it would refute your position and you concede. Which you do indirectly by not answering.

Just concede that the death penalty should not be abolished outright or it should be abolished with exceptions.

It's really that straight.