answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Arguments in favour of the motion:

a) Criminals deserve punishment as they are wicked. If they are not punished they will continue committing crime which will destabilize the society. Appropriate punishment will act as deterrent for the criminals to take to the path of crime.

b) If criminals are not punished for their crimes it will be an injustice to the victims.

c) Criminals deserve punishment as they cannot be reformed without being punished.

d) Since the doer of good work is rewarded with appreciation then it follows that evil doer like criminals is awarded with punishment.

e) If criminals are not punished people will not differentiate between criminal and non-criminal activities.

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago

All criminals are not necessarily wicked. Sometimes social conditions lead to crime. The government should take appropriate steps to change such conditions.

Criminals should be given a chance to repent .Those who get imprisoned should have their sentences reduced if they behave well in the prison. People do change and we should treat them accordingly of how they live today.

Punishment serves as a deterrent to crime and a shield for the innocent. Punishment works to reinforce the norms and the lack of punishment would lead to the break up of existing norms.

How people are punished should depend on the crime and if it really hurt anyone or had the potential to. Excessive punishment for a small crime will definitely fill the convict with despair and hopelessness.

People should show understanding and wisdom in judging individuals. Hate the crime and not the criminal.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago

criminals deserve to be punished. most of the people would not hesitate to claim that those who break the law should be punished and put into prison as long as possible in case they continue to endanger our lives and property . also,if criminals are not given any punishment they may commit crimes again and again. so , according to me the criminals should be punished so that they can improve themselves..

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago

A debate motion is the topic for the debate.

Arguments in favour of the motion:

a) Criminals deserve punishment as they are wicked. If they are not punished they will continue committing crime which will destabilize the society. Appropriate punishment will act as deterrent for the criminals to take to the path of crime.

b) If criminals are not punished for their crimes it will be an injustice to the victims.

c) Criminals deserve punishment as they cannot be reformed without being punished.

d) Since the doer of good work is rewarded with appreciation then it follows that evil doer like criminals is awarded with punishment.

e) If criminals are not punished people will not differentiate between criminal and non-criminal activities.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What can you offer to explore the debate motion that criminals are wicked and deserve punishment?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

Criminals are wicked and deserve punishment - a debate on this topic?

Many debates are had over criminals and their need for punishment. Some say criminals cannot be reformed while other say punishment will set them straight.


Debate against motion criminals are wicked and deserve punishment?

This question cannot be answered with a factual answer. Therefore this is not the venue in which the questioner needs to be. Suggest that this question be posted in a chatroom or blog in order to draw the response that the questioner obviously needs and wants.


How punishment had changed overtime in Australia?

Over time the nature of punishment in Australia has changes. Back at the time of Australia's inception as a penal colony, the severity of punishment was totally out of proportion to the crime. In modern Australia there is growing debate about the appropriateness of the sentences given out to criminals.


What is The history on capital punishment?

Capital punishment's history in the United States is basically a debate between two ways of viewing the world: that state-sanctioned death is necessary for society, and that a civilized society should not see death as the only fair way to punish any crime or criminal. Throughout the history of capital punishment in the United States, reformists have spoken out against capital punishment, changing the methods used to execute convicted criminals, reducing the types of crimes that deserve a death sentenced, in many cases, eliminating them and analyzing the forces that produce criminals to try to stop criminals from being created. As society continually struggles to balance the human desires for retribution and compassion, many different forces and opinions shape the continually evolving philosophy and practice of capital punishment.Short Answer: Historically - Capital Punishment (the death penalty) has been with the human race since the dawn of mankind and has existed in all cultures, in all nations, and among all peoples since that time.


How do you get your girlfriend ungrounded?

Text her mom and debate about her punishment and see what you can do. -experienced Teen.


Q debate on criminals are wicked and deserve punishment favor in motion?

Criminals should be cured and not punished...Criminals are also humans, so why to treat them as wild beats and monsters.If they murder, kidnap, rob or do any sexual abuse, they may either be mentally sick or do think in spite of their circumstance or problems like lac of money etc. Perhaps they guardians or parents do not have given them proper education or they are from this type or kind of background. They might be in need of something or the other. but without any sort of information the criminals are given very bad punishment which do not fit them.They are kept in hell and watched around the clock that turn the criminals in wild beasts and when done a small mistake and they escape, they cause damage to the public.So what I actually want to say is that they need to be cured and not punished.Let me put an example to make the discussion more easy to understand, suppose a man has murdered 7 people out of which he raped 3 girls. Cops caught him and he hes going to be sentenced to death tomorrow. My question is that if we kill him will the people he murdered, will they be back? No, right? might be he is mentally sick and needs a cure. So why not cure him in place of killing him. He might be some one's son or father, right? So why not cure him in place of granting him a punishment which can destroy his whole family?So I would like to conclude saying that, if he can cure then why can't we give him a chance, and if he repeats we can punish him.


Capital punishment has no place in a society claiming to be civilised?

That's a debatable point; there has to be some way for a civilized society to protect itself from people who refuse to be civil. Murder and rape are the ultimate acts of incivility, and deserve the ultimate punishment. Other societies in earlier ages have used banishment as the "ultimate penalty", but the world today is too crowded for us to throw our wrongdoers into someone elses' society, for them to clean up our messes. In America, the debate is between those who favor capital punishment and those who favor "life without parole" sentences for violent and dangerous criminals. The ultimate flaw with the concept of "life without parole" is that criminals escape, or are accidentally released, and that violent and dangerous people will be freed to once again commit unspeakable crimes. And finally, many lawyers who oppose executing violent criminals are perfectly willing to admit that "life without parole" sentences are simply the first step in the chain toward eliminating "life" prison terms entirely.


If you are with capital punishment what are some good questions you could ask your opponent in a debate?

yes


Debate about death penalty here in Philippines?

Death penalty should be a law bcoz criminals are no pity . Its very unfair to the victims.


Why is my debate partner mean to me?

We don't know your debate partner, maybe he or she is just a mean person.We also don't know you, maybe you kind of deserve it.You could probably get better answers by asking someone who knows both of you rather than a website.


What punishment is highly debated in regards to unusual and cruel punishment?

These days, there is a lot of debate about several punishments. One has been used on terrorism suspects to force them to give information. This tactic is called "waterboarding" by its critics, and "enhanced interrogation" by its proponents. Those who oppose it believe it is torture and does not result in good information, since the detainee will say anything to make the pain stop. Those who support it believe it is not torture and makes the detainee give information he might not have given otherwise. The other punishment that is highly debated is supermax solitary confinement, where an inmate is kept away from all other humans and locked in a cell 23 hours a day (one hour for exercise, also alone). There is some evidence that such constant isolation can cause severe psychological problems later on. But those who believe in it say the people confined to supermax are brutal criminals who should never get out again and deserve this kind of total isolation.


Should there be stricter laws on owning a gun?

No. Stricter laws for owing a gun does nothing to stop crime or to keep criminals from buying guns since by definition, criminals don't buy guns legally. Maybe the debate should be extended to crazed psychopaths with guns? Obviously the laws need changing.