Death Penalty死刑英文辩论

Death Penalty
Original Report
The Original Report From Negative Side
(Death Penalty Should not Exist)
G ood morning, honorable judge, my dear fellow debaters ,ladies and gentleman , we are now here debating whether death penalty should exist, and we think the negative answer should be chosen.
The reasons why we say so are determined by a lot of factors,which can be listed as follows:
First of all, Death Penalty sends the wrong message: why kill
people who kill people to show killing is wrong.
Yes, we want to make sure there is accountability for crime and an effective deterrent in place; however, the death penalty has a
message of "You killed one of us, so we'll kill you". The state is actually using a murder to punish someone who committed a murder.
Does that make sense?
Second, with the growth of knowledge, we can easily find that the death penalty can not be an effective deterrent for serious crimes.
Stephen Nathanson, the author of “An Eye for an Eye”
said, “Mountain climbers risk their lives for thrill and ad venture; cigarette smokers risk their lives for pleasure; spe eding drivers risk their lives in order to get to their de stinations a bit faster.”The same goes with criminals. If
a criminal tends to kill somebody, He just lost his reaso
n , Nothing can stop him ,even the death penalty.
Furthermore,financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is
2-5 times more than that of keeping someone in prison for life.
Judges, attorneys and court reporters all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers. Do we really have the resources to waste?
To conclude , today the abolition of the death penalty in our country, is the result of humanization, and a higher level of understanding of punishment. So, our country should abolish the
death penalty.
free debating
问题一 Today's data shows that life imprisonment could achieve the same effect as the death penalty and it’s more humanity .so,my dear fellow debaters ,i would be glad to hear your opinion .
that’s a good point.but i can’t entirely agree,
First, the use of life imprisonment will bring enormous pressure to our country’s financial costs. Countries have to use taxpayers’ money for basic necessities of prisoners.
furthermore, China is a resource- poor country.
second,in fact,life imprisonment is more cruel than death penalty. You say the death penalty is inhumane, but being imprisoned for life lets the criminals live without hope, isn't it a kind of inhuman?In the view of personal point,death penalty is inhuman than life imprisonment ,but,in the view of country life imprisonment is inhuman ,don’t you think the country benefit is more important than personal benefit? thank you
问题二 The abolition of the death penalty is the pursuit of human civilization. would u like to prevent the development?
Thank you for your question! but
we don't think the abolition of the death penalty is the development of human
civilization.Those who make mistakes must pay the
price, so that our society can be in
order .Why should a murderer deserve to breathe the air?
Why should we pay our money to keep them that way?
Do you agree that ? I ‘m sure you are agree me .
问题三Don’t you think death penalty will lead the criminal’s family in great trouble?
Well ,yes ,but
this fact can not be a reason for abolishing the death penalty, because the victims’ families bear greater pain.
And death penalty is the fair way to resolve their pain. And if a criminal isn’t sentenced to death, he still has a chance to kill while in prison, or even worse, escape and go on a crime spree. You see,the consequences of this is to bring more victims and more pain. The abolition of the death penalty on the criminals is a good choice.But it is a great hidden danger to society.
So this returns to the benefit between the collective and the individual, I think there is no need to repeat.
问题四:If you killed someone, do you want to have a second chance to repay community?
Of course, you said very reasonable, but
premise is the murderer wants to repay community .And it is impossible to guarantee the right of all the people, so we need death penalty to protect as many people as we can.The one who invade the rights of others to an extreme degree has no standpoint to ask for equal rights. After all,we can’t make experiment with the personal safety.
That’s all i want to say. thank you.
conclusion
Good morning, honorable judge, my dear fellow debaters ,ladies and gentleman , I'm honored to be here to make a small summary statement.
Before I go any further,please let me spell out once again what my position is.we insist that death penalty should not be applied .
First of all,
we should have a clear understanding on killing.We as a society have to move away from the “eye for an eye”revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.
Death penalty sends the wrong message :why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.The death penalty is a violation of our human rights.
The right to live is a basic right of every human being , and no man has the right to decide when a life should be over ,even if it is our country.
what is more,
the purpose of death penalty is to prevent people from breaking the laws; but in fact,the effects are not as good as we expect .
According to a investigation , in the nearly 20 years , the crime rate didn’
t decreased but even increased .
According to Stephen Nathanson, the author of “An Eye for an Eye”, the fear of de ath does not usually stop people from doing what they want to do. “Mountain climb ers risk their lives for thrill and adventure; cigarette smokers risk their lives for pleas
ure; speeding drivers risk their lives in order to get to their destinations a bit faster.” The same goes with criminals. If a criminal tends to kill somebody, He just lost his reason , Nothing can stop him ,even the death penalty.
Thirdly , The criminal is not the only one who has to face the punishment. The prisoner’s family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death at the same time.
However,it’s unjust for his/her family to get emotional punishment .
So ,from our analysis, we can say death penalty should not be applied.Thank you ! Original Report
The Original Report From Positive Side
（Death Penalty Should Exist）Good morning, honorable judge, my dear fellow debaters ,ladies and gentleman , we are now here debating whether death penalty should exist, and we think the positive answer should be chosen .
Firstly, death penalty can make justice better served. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, doesn't it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also be death?
furthermore, perhaps the biggest reason to keep the death penalty is to prevent the crime from happening again. The parole system nowadays is a joke. Even if a criminal is sentenced to life without
possibility of parole, he still has a chance to kill while in prison, or even worse, escape and go on a crime spree.
Last but not the least important,it contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system.
Each additional prisoner requires a portion of a cell, food, clothing and so on.
Prisons across the country face the problem of too many prisoners and not enough space & resources.When you eliminate the death penalty as an option, it means that prisoner must be housed for life. Thus, it only adds to the problem of an overcrowded prison system.
Taking all the factors above into account,we do believe and strongly support that Death Penalty Should Exist.Thank you!
free debating
1,We think death penalty ban the criminal from making mistakes again radically, what do u think about it?
that’s a good point.but i can’t entirely agree,
i think we should focus on education rather than punishment.For example，Chinese authorities still face threats from groups in Xinjiang ,although we have killed many people.So,it’s clear that we can ban the criminal ,for only we educate them rather than kill them,
2,If we don’t adopt death penalty,but life sentence，don’t u think it’s a waste to us to spend our taxes to raise criminals？
i’m afraid you are wrong there.
In fact,carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more than keeping that same criminal in prison. How can this be? It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out.
What’s more , We can let them do Labor Reformation in prison, to compensate for social.
so,as for which one wastes more ,i know now you are agree with me!
3,we think death penalty is a development of
our civilization,let’s have your opinion.
Thank you for your question! but We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance,because it will never solve anything.
Why do you think the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been going on for 60+ years? Why do you think gang violence in this country never seems to end?
Because the state is actually using a murder to punish someone who committed a murder. But you know whether that make sense.
4,We use the death penalty to deter crime.Don’t u think
the existence of death penalty
makes people too fear to do malicious things？
well ,yes , but in
fact,the effects are not as good as u expect .
first,According to a investigation , in the nearly
20 years , the crime rate didn’t decreased but even increa sed .
second,Stephen Nathanson, the famous author
said , the fear of death does not usually stop people from doing what they want to do. “Mountain climbers risk their lives for thrill and adventure.”The same goes with criminals. If a criminal tends to kill somebody, He just lo st his reason , Nothing can stop him ,even the death penal ty.That’s all i want to say. thank you.
conclusion
Death penalty should exist ( conclusion )
Good afternoon, honorable judge, my dear fellow debaters , ladies and gentleman ,for summary according all the factors ,we do believe that death penalty should exist.
As all the nations are trying to build a law-governed society, death penalty can work as a powerful legal method to guarantee the
stability of society and protect the right of the majority of people. People create law to regulate and better serve the society. Law gives the government right to end a people’s life legally with the
fundamental aim to reduce crime. It is true death penalty is a way to punish criminals,
death penalty exists because we want to prevent others from committing crime. All the things should have a limitation, including humanism. The statement that death penalty should be abolished is in fact a blind pursuit of humanism. It is impossible to guarantee the right of all the people, so we need death penalty to protect as many people as we can. To put an extreme criminal who does not feel sorry about what he or she has done is not against the idea of humanism, because the one who invade the rights of others to an extreme degree has no standpoint to ask for equal rights. To give up putting an extreme criminal to death so easily is against the equality of life and invades the victims’ dignity of life.
We strongly support the idea that death penalty should exist. That is all, thank you.
参考（有道ps...）
The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one. Some may never recover. One of the things that helps hasten this recovery is to achieve some kind of closure. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victim. A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members.
1。

死刑关闭了受害者的家庭遭受了这么多。

一些犯罪受害者的家属可能需要几年或几十年从震惊中恢复过来,并失去所爱的人。

有些人可能无法恢复的一件事,帮助加速经济复苏是实现某种关闭。

终身监禁只是意味着犯罪仍在困扰着受害者。

死刑带给一个可怕的结局章这些家庭成员的生活。

2. It creates another form of crime deterrent. Crime would run rampant as never before if there wasn't some way to deter people from committing the acts. Prison time is an effective deterrent, but with some people, more is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime.
它创造了另一种形式的犯罪的威慑。

犯罪会泛滥成灾，从未有过如果没有办法
阻止人们犯罪行为。

监狱的时间是一个有效的威慑力，但对有些人来说，更是
需要的。

检察官应该使用各种惩罚，为了减少犯罪的选项。

Justice is better served. The most fundamental principle of justice
is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, doesn't it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also be death?
正义是更好的服务。

正义的最基本原则是罪刑相适应。

当有人计划和残忍地杀
害了另外一个人，没有道理，对犯罪者的惩罚也会死吗？
Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It's time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather than the accused. Remember, a person who's on death row has almost always committed crimes before this. A long line of victims have been waiting for justice. We need justice for current and past victims.
我们的司法系统显示更多的同情而不是罪犯的受害者。

我们把我们的刑事司法
系统的重点在保护受害者而不是指责时间。

记住，一个人对死刑的人几乎都犯
了罪，在这之前。

一长排的受害者都是在等待正义。

我们需要为当前和过去的
受害者正义。

5. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. What about people already sentenced to life in prison.
What's to stop them from murdering people constantly while in prison? What are they going to do--extend their sentences? Sure, they can
take away some prison privileges, but is this enough of a deterrent
to stop the killing? What about a person sentenced to life who happens to escape? What's to stop him from killing anyone who might
try to bring him in or curb his crime spree?
它为囚犯提供了一种威慑已经服无期徒刑。

人已经被判处终身监禁。

是什么阻
止他们谋杀人不断在监狱里吗?他们要做——扩展的句子是什么?当然,监狱可以带走一些特权,但这是足够的威慑阻止杀戮吗?怎么一个人判处终身而逃脱?是什么阻止他杀死的人可能试图带他或抑制疯狂犯罪吗?
DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt
or innocence. One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty
is the possibility of error. Sure, we can never completely eliminate all uncertainty, but nowadays, it's about as close as you can get.
DNA testing is over 99 percent effective. And even if DNA testing and other such scientific methods didn't exist, the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person. Remember, a jury of 12 members must unanimously decide
there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number
of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set free. DNA测试和其他现代犯罪现场科学的方法可以有效地消除几乎所有的不确定性,
对一个人的有罪或无罪。

最大的一个反对死刑是错误的可能性。

当然,我们永远不可能完全消除所有的不确定性,但现在,它是关于尽可能密切。

DNA测试是99%有效的。

即使DNA测试等科学方法不存在,审判和上诉过程是如此彻底的是几乎不可能的罪犯一个无辜的人。

请记住,12陪审团成员必须一致决定也没有合理
怀疑的人有罪。

无辜的人的数量可能会以某种方式被定罪的数量没有超过无辜
受害者的凶手是谁释放。

Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. Perhaps the biggest reason to keep the death penalty is to prevent
the crime from happening again. The parole system nowadays is a joke. Does it make sense to anyone outside the legal system to have
multiple "life" sentences + 20 years or other liverish? Even if a criminal is sentenced to life without possibility of parole, he still has a chance to kill while in prison, or even worse, escape and go on a crime/murder spree.
罪犯假释或逃会给罪犯一次机会杀死。

保持死刑也许最大的原因是防止犯罪再
次发生。

如今假释制度是一个笑话。

它有意义的法律体系以外的任何人有多个“生命”的句子+ 20年或其他jiverish吗?即使犯罪判处终身没有假释,他仍
然有机会杀死在监狱里,或者更糟的是,逃了出来,疯狂犯罪/谋杀。

It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. Prisons across the country face the problem of too many prisoners and not enough space & resources. Each additional prisoner requires a portion of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time, and so on. When you eliminate the death penalty as an option, it means that prisoner must be housed for life. Thus, it only adds to the problem of an overcrowded prison system.
它导致人口过剩的问题在全国监狱系统。

监狱面临的问题太多的犯人和没有足
够的空间和资源。

每个额外的囚犯需要细胞的一部分,食物,衣服,额外的保护,
等等。

当你消除死刑作为一个选项,这意味着必须安置囚犯的生活。

因此,它只
增加了一个过度拥挤的监狱系统的问题。

It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. The number of criminal cases that are plea bargained (meaning the accused admits guilt in return for a lesser sentence or some other concession) can be as high as 80 or 90 percent of cases. With the time, cost, and personnel requirements of a criminal case, there really isn't much of a choice. The vast majority of people that are arraigned are in fact guilty of the crime they are accused. Even if you believe a defendant only deserves life in prison, without the threat of a death sentence, there may be no way to get him to plead guilty and accept the sentence. If a case goes to trial, in addition to the enormous cost, you run the chance that you may lose the case, meaning a violent criminal gets off scot free. The existence of the death penalty gives prosecutors much more flexibility and power to ensure just punishments.
它给检察官辩诉交易过程中的另一个讨价还价的筹码,这是至关重要的在拥挤的法院系统降低成本。

请求讨价还价的刑事案件数量(即被告承认有罪,以换取一个较小的句子或其他让步)可高达80或90%的病例。

时间,成本,和人员需求的
一个刑事案件,实在是没有太多的选择。

绝大多数人提审实际上是有罪的犯罪指控。

即使你认为被告只值得终身监禁,没有死刑的威胁,可能没有办法让他认罪并接受这句话。

如果一个案件进入审判,除了巨大的成本外,你跑的机会,你可能会失去,意味着暴力犯罪得到了苏格兰人自由。

死刑的存在给检察官更多的灵活性和强大功能,确保惩罚。

Yes .金融成本转嫁给纳税人的死刑是几次,把他关在监狱里的生活。

1. Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.
Most people don't realize that carrying out one death sentence costs 2-5 times more than keeping that same criminal in prison for the rest of his life. How can this be? It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers. Do we really have the resources to waste? 大多数人没有意识到实施一个死刑成本保持相同的2 - 5倍罪犯监禁他的余生,这怎么可能?这与无尽的上诉,额外所需的程序,和法律纠纷,将是不寻常的过程。

一个犯了死罪的囚犯是15 - 20
年。

法官、律师,法庭记者,职员,和法院的设施都需要大量纳税人的投资。

我们确实有资源浪费?
It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the
Bill of Rights.
这是野蛮的,违背了“残酷和不寻常”条款在《权利法案》。

Whether it's a firing squad, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, or hanging, it's barbaric to allow state-sanctioned murder before a crowd of people. We condemn people like Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi, and Kim Jong Il when they murder their own people while we continue to do the same (although our procedures for allowing it are obviously more thorough). The 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents the use of "cruel and unusual punishment". Many would interpret the death penalty as violating this restriction.
无论是行刑队,电椅,毒气室,注射,或挂,这是野蛮的,让一群人之前政府允许的谋杀。

我们谴责人喜欢内贾德,卡扎菲,金正日当他们谋杀自己的人当我们继续做同样的事情(虽然我们的程序允许它显然更彻底)。

美国宪法第八修正案的防止使用“残酷和不寻常手段惩罚”的规定。

许多人会解释死刑违反这一限制。

4. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.我们作为一个社会必须摆脱“以眼还眼”复仇的心态如果文明进步。

The "eye for an eye" mentality will never solve anything. A revenge philosophy inevitably leads to an endless cycle of violence. Why do you think the Israeli-Palestine conflict has been going on for 60+ years? Why do you think gang violence in this country never seems to end? It is important to send a message to society that striking back at your enemy purely for revenge will always make matters worse. “以眼还眼”的心态将不能解决任何问题。

复仇的哲学必然导致无休止的暴力循环。

你为什么认为以色列和巴勒斯坦冲突已持续60年以上？你为什么觉得这个国家的帮派暴力似乎永远不会结束？它是向社会发出一个信息：反击敌人的纯粹的复仇会使事情变得更糟的重要。

5. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.
传达了错误的信息:为什么杀死人杀人杀人是错的。

Yes, we want to make sure there is accountability for crime and an effective deterrent in place; however, the death penalty has a message of "You killed one of us, so we'll kill you". The state is
actually using a murder to punish someone who committed a murder. Does that make sense?
是的,我们要确保有追究犯罪和一个有效的威慑;然而,死刑的消息“你杀了我们,所以我们会杀了你”。

国家实际上是使用一个谋杀惩罚犯了谋杀罪的人。

这是否有意义吗?
It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.
它是无用的，它不把受害者复活。

Perhaps the biggest reason to ban the death penalty is that it
doesn't change the fact that the victim is gone and will never come back. Hate, revenge, and anger will never cure the emptiness of a
lost loved one. Forgiveness is the only way to start the healing process, and this won't happen in a revenge-focused individual.
禁止死刑也许最大的原因是,它并没有改变这一事实的受害者了,永远不会回来。

仇恨、报复,和愤怒不会治愈失去亲人的空虚。

宽恕是唯一的方式开始愈合过程,这不会发生在一个revenge-focused个体。

6. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent.
终身监禁是一个糟糕的惩罚和更有效的威慑。

For those of you who don't feel much sympathy for a murderer, keep in mind that death may be too good for them. With a death sentence, the suffering is over in an instant. With life in prison, the pain goes on for decades. Prisoners are confined to a cage and live in an internal environment of rape and violence where they're treated as animals. And consider terrorists. Do you think they'd rather suffer the humiliation of lifelong prison or be "martyred" by a death sentence? What would have been a better ending for Osama bin Laden, the bullet that killed him instantly, or a life of humiliation in an American prison (or if he was put through rendition to obtain more information).
对于你们中那些不太感觉同情凶手,记住,死亡可能是太好了。

死刑,瞬间痛苦结束。

终身监禁,痛苦几十年来。

囚犯被限制在一个笼子里,生活在一个内部环境的强奸和暴力,他们视为动物。

并考虑恐怖分子。

你认为他们宁愿遭受的耻辱终身监狱或被死刑“殉道”?什么是更好的结局对奥萨马·本·拉登,子弹,立即杀了他,或屈辱的生活在美国监狱(或者,如果他通过表演来获得更多信息)。

7. Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. It's no secret that anti-Americanism is rampant around the world. One of the reasons is America's continued use of
the death penalty. We're seen as a violent, vengeful nation for such
a policy. This is pretty much the same view that Europeans had of America when we continued the practice of slavery long after it had been banned in Europe. 8. Some jury members are reluctant to convict
if it means putting someone to death. Many states require any jury members to be polled during the pre-trial examination to be sure they have the stomach to sentence someone to death before they're allowed to serve. Even if they're against the death penalty, they still may
lie in order to get on the panel. The thought of agreeing to kill someone even influences some jury members to acquit rather than risk the death. Some prosecutors may go for a lesser charge rather than force juries into a death-or-acquit choice. Obviously, in all these situations, justice may not be served. 9. The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process. One
victim's innocent family is obviously forced to suffer from a capital murder, but by enforcing a death sentence, you force another family
to suffer. Why double the suffering when we don't have to? 10. The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death. There are several documented cases where DNA testing showed that innocent people were put to death by the government. We have an imperfect justice system where poor defendants are given minimal
legal attention by often lesser qualified individuals. Some would blame the court system, not that death penalty itself for the problems, but we can't risk mistakes
Mentally ill patients may be put to death. Many people are simply
born with defects to their brain that cause them to act a certain way. No amount of drugs, schooling, rehabilitation, or positive reinforcement will change them. Is it fair that someone should be murdered just because they were unlucky enough to be born with a
brain defect. Although it is technically unconstitutional to put a mentally ill patient to death, the rules can be vague, and you still need to be able to convince a judge and jury that the defendant is in fact, mentally ill. 12. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes. Criminals usually are looked down upon by society. People are disgusted by the vile, unconscionable acts they commit and feel tremendous sympathy for the victims of murder, rape, etc. However, the death penalty has a way of shifting sympathy away from the victims and to the criminals themselves. An excellent example is the execution a few years ago of former gang leader "Tookie" Williams. He was one of the original members of the notorious Crips gang, which has a long legacy of robbery, assault, and murder. This is a man who was convicted with overwhelming evidence of the murder of four people, some of whom he shot in the back and then laughed at the sounds they made as they died. This is a man who never even took responsibility for the crimes or apologized to the victims -- NOT ONCE! These victims had kids and spouses, but instead of sympathy for them, sympathy shifted to Tookie. Candlelight vigils were held for him. Websites like sprang up. Protests and a media circus ensued trying to prevent the execution, which eventually did take place -- 26 years after the crime itself! There are many cases like this, which make a mockery of the evil crimes these degenerates commit.
Using the death penalty to reduce or even eliminate crime Is a kind of superstition. Crime is
a social political, economic, culture and
education, morality, family relations, social factors
and individual interaction product of crime. Complex causes
of death could not eliminate crime, produced naturally can notfundamentally curb crime。