Should the death penalty be legal?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should the death penalty be legal?". Your opponent's style: Charlie Kirk

The death penalty is brutal and it only serves to be a disservice to society and creates more brutalization as we give them the same crime they’ve committed

You're smuggling in two separate claims without proving either. Brutality isn't an argument against justice, it's an argument about method. And "brutalization effect" has been empirically demolished by criminologists. What evidence actually convinced you execution causes more murders?

I say that because when you look into the many death penalties that have taken place, there are many horror stories about people dying falsely because of accusations made on their name. And I feel like it’s just repaying evil with evil which is brutal. Also, execution definately entices almost an “easy way out” for criminals instead of actually rehabilitating them or coming up with proper punishment

You've collapsed two arguments that contradict each other. First, you cite wrongful convictions, which is a systemic flaw argument, not a death penalty argument—fix the courts, don't abolish proportional punishment. Second, you claim execution is an "easy way out," but life imprisonment without parole exists. Which is it: too harsh or too lenient? You can't have both. And rehabilitation for someone who tortured and murdered a child isn't society's moral obligation. Why should that person's redemption arc matter more than their victim's permanence?

Well to be honest I said that it’s an “easy way out” but to be more specific, not for the person going through the punishment, but for the people calling the shots to simply say to “get rid of them.” Which only adds to the brutalization within the method they use. So when it comes to things like the brutalization theory I believe that even though it might’ve been debunked as you said, death is still a serious thing for both parties and that scarring is going to be permanent or at least leave a big mark on your brain depending on how connected to we’re to that person, in hate or in love. So as it stands it definately could be seen as a way to rile people up to aggressiveness and get them more comfortably being more barbaric and choosing deeper measures of justice which overall just adds to the brutalization. And as for rehabilitation, I won’t say that it does matter more than the fatal state of their victim that they’ve been left in for the person to even get the death penalty to begin with, but honestly speaking I feel as though rehabilitation would work wonders as many people who end up there are just out of their mind to begin with so they’ve needed that help from the start and it finally took them doing something drastic for it to be noticed. Think of cases like Jeffrey dahmer with him in his last moments having a whole 180 coming to Christ moment. I feel like whether or not you believe in God, it shows that rehabilitation could be a viable method for a broken people in a broken generation Who just needed that alternative and by giving them death wouldn’t do them justice

You're romanticizing a jailhouse conversion that happened *after* Dahmer murdered 17 people. Rehabilitation doesn't undo his victims. And your "executing people is barbaric so society becomes barbaric" argument proves too much: by that logic, imprisoning someone for life also "scars" society and normalizes confinement. If witnessing punishment brutalize us, why does lifetime incarceration get a pass? You're not actually against harsh consequences, you're just squeamish about finality. Why does a life sentence feel civilized but execution doesn't?

Well it’s literally in the name. You either get life or death. And basically 9/10 everyone’s choosing life. I feel like though your fate might be basically the same with you rotting in a cell or rotting in a shock chair, one of them you have time to really rethink your actions and the other one you’re literally just fried. Also, with the scars that are left on people for life in prison, I could say it’s certainly less to know that you have less accessibility into your loved ones life vs them being gone forever due to laws, regardless of the crime committed I think there’s still some humanity in life in prison. Because falsely framed or not, would you rather spend the rest of your life behind bars or not have a rest of your life to live?

You just admitted the punishment is identical in outcome, so you're arguing about psychological comfort, not justice. If rotting in a cell for 60 years is humane because there's "time to rethink," you're saying the murderer's internal experience matters more than the victim's permanent absence. Why does the killer's chance at redemption outweigh the victim's zero chances? And your "falsely framed" concern proves wrongful convictions are the real problem, not execution itself. Fix DNA evidence and witness credibility. Don't abolish proportional punishment because the system is broken.

But the points you bring up are in an ideal world where everything works correctly. People are falsely framed everyday and to be honest some of the courthouses are rigged against who the judge/prosecutors are biased towards even on the lowest level. And you keep going on about how the killer should have no chance at redemption but what about if the killer seriously regrets his actions, would it not be better for him to live with that regret than to die? The brutalization theory is honestly strengthened whether they live or die but it has way less of a Severe effect on people who do live. And think about gang violence and how many people might want to “get back in blood” whether it be at their opps, the cops, or just the world in general. Things aren’t so black and white and the person on death row has a voice too

Your entire argument rests on fixing a broken system by removing its harshest tool, but that's backwards. If courts are rigged, execute no one until they're fixed, not never. But you're also claiming execution causes gang retaliation while ignoring that life sentences produce the same motivations. A gang member's brother rots in prison for life, he still wants blood. And regret doesn't resurrect victims. Stop hiding behind systemic failures to avoid the real question: if we execute only the provably guilty, is proportional punishment unjust?

But at least if a gang member wants blood it’s more of a “free him” and not “imma kill for his death.” And I don’t believe proportional punishment is unjust, but I believe that bad ruling is what makes it unjust. Why do some people get life in prison while others get 20 and others get a slap on the wrist? It’ll always be unjust. So my claim isn’t to remove it all, my claim is to have a LESS barbaric means of which they go about giving the death penalty with it being a life sentence. I feel like if you live a dangerous life like that anyways you’re already signing yourself up for the death penalty with civilian harm coming your way and death to the old life you knew

You've surrendered the actual debate. You're not arguing death penalty is unjust, you're arguing *execution methods* are barbaric—lethal injection exists, problem solved. Your real complaint is sentencing disparity, which has nothing to do with execution. And "gang members accept death by choosing crime" is just proportional punishment under another name. So what's actually your position: death penalty with perfect courts and humane methods, or abolition? Because right now you're arguing for reform while pretending that's abolition.