- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
But, if all these tourists come to Rio, and the city does not able and does not have proper infrastructure to receive them, it could be a terrible flop, in a international event like Summer Olympics it could give to the world a worse image from Rio and from Brazil at all.
(Aline Lima e Karina Ono)
Although most part of the relevant States of the world are prohibiting the use of capital punishment, this should be rethought, because if the State has strict types of punishment, such as the death penalty, for serious crimes, as, for example, intended murder, it could stop other people from committing them. It is the best way to show to society that extreme crimes deserve extremes consequences.
Some people oppose death penalty defending the argument that it goes against Human Rights, but a person who takes off the life of someone else does not have any rights to live, this person cannot even be considered human anymore.
We cannot rescue a life that has been taken the same way that a thief can pay back the stolen money. A life is unique and, if it was interrupted purposely, the authorities must punish with the same courtesy.
When you kill a killer, you make them pay for their crimes the same way they committed said crimes. The punishment is equivalent of what they did wrong. Besides this, we can say that death penalty is not even the cruelest way to deal with the criminal: his suffering will end really fast and without pain.
If we lock up a murderer, put them in educational activities and try to give them another chance (if this person shows that they can change and live in society again), nobody can predict if this person is really cured and ready to live again as a “clean” citizen.
Life imprisonment is just a waste of time and money, the State just feeds and gives a place to a murderer live his whole life. A Brazilian example of how imprisonment is better for the murderer than for the State is the case of Lindemberg Alves who murdered Eloá Pimentel, 15, and was sentenced to 98 years in prison. The time he spent in prison just made him fatter and stronger, we can prove that comparing his images from the day he committed the murder and the day he was sentenced; he is having a "good" life in prison after taking off a girl’s entire life.
If the person who is sentenced to life imprisonment is sentenced to death penalty instead, the State does not have to spend a lot of money to maintain them as a prisoner and can use this money to invest in other things like education, and eventually prevent a sick mind to wander about.
There are other crimes that are so incredibly horrible (raping children, for example) that there is no other punishment that is enough to make the criminal realize how serious the crime really is.
When the police have all the necessary proof of the crime, it just cannot be wrong that this person deserves the extreme punishment.
But, of course, death penalty can only work in a State with a good and reliable jurisdiction.
It's a very delicate subject.
A mother carries her baby for 9 months to gives one more life to the world, and to spends her life with this new life, but if the baby dies after comes to the world what's the sense of its birth? This fact would only cause physical and psychological suffering for this woman.