Debate The death sentence

My response in green.

 

You can have my babies Pepsi.
You can have my babies.

100 Post Mark FTW. Next Milestone: 1k

 

and thats a reason an earlier post by me, can't remember if it was in this thread or another debate like this, said that a bullet to the head while they sleep would work. They wouldn't see it coming and I don't think it would have time to hurt. Thats just me though and I know that would never pass.

 

But keeping them in prison for life does cost a good amount as well as killing them with the IDK I guess I would call it medication? that costs something as well.

I know that the court cases cost a lot but i'm ignoring that part. That reallyl can't be helped. If a person has been sentenced to death, they should be using their money to live in prison not others. Not sure if I was clear in that. (tell me if I'm not being clear and I'll start over. i'm out of it right now)

 

btw, why do people put their responses in the weird colored quote instead of ending the quote then replying? It seems a lot harder for the other person to reply.

Assassination fits the legal definition of murder.

And the children thing, that is just completely wrong. Children are blank slates, they do not know right from wrong. You can teach a child in one part of the world killing animals is fine, and he/she will believe it while at the same time in another part of the world you can teach a child that killing a human is fine and they will believe this too. It is what society imparts on that child that defines who they are. Morals change constantly, 100 years ago we wouldn't let women vote, 200 years ago blacks were still slaves, 300 years ago we prosecuted people for their religious beliefs. Children back then were fine believing these things, but based on your logic everyone should have felt that the majority of society's morals were wrong. Do you think that the majority of society's morals today are wrong?

But that brings me to the money problem again. You can say that we need to reform the system (you really can't, our government wants to be as sure as possible about these cases and that's why it takes so much money) but as of right now if all we did was sentence all the lifers to death that would waste huge sums of money that our government (U.S.) needs right now (they always need money). It doesn't matter how much evidence the prosecution has on you, that shouldn't determine how fast you die. Everyone has rights in court, and they shouldn't be taken because that person is "obviously" guilty. That is completely unfair.

My question is: If life in prison is the fiscally correct option and it gives the criminals time to think about what they did (mind you, they may never get out) and seek help, why not give them the second chance to atone for their wrong doings (I don't mean parole, they will be in there forever)? Life in prison is much worse than the death penalty (experience wise), so it will make them suffer at a much higher level (isn't that what you want?). It seems like when you advocate the death penalty, you are doing what they want, giving them the easy way out.

 

Assasinations is killing a given leader for a cuase whether the cause is good or not is up in the air for argument. Murder can be motivated by causes but they also are mainly focused on bad things [greed,jealousy,revenge,ect...] A assasination is usualy not carried out by a single individual but more of a population or group. To say if the group is right is also anouther argument an I'd just say majoritiy groups[countries] outweigh minority groups[extremists].

Children are blank slates that will do as they are told but if not brought up at all they will follow primal instincts to survive and some of those would probably be considered crimes today. If given the opprotunity anyone will do something bad if they know they can get away with it. Its a natural thing that every one has and people only do good things to hopefully benifit themselves everyone is selfish whether you know it or not. People do whats good for them and thats it , the only time someone helps anouther is if theres a mutual benifit for being good. No one is naturaly good its tought to us along with "morals".

Todays morals fit the time and how we think theres still plenty of things that need working on because the worlds still a nasty place. Its taken many years of reform to achieve where we are today and theres plenty of work to do.

Money is not a reason to let people escape justice. Theres plenty of better ways of determining whether someone is guilty than many years of apeals and wasted money and time. If theres overwhelming evidence then theres no need to go through the whole process and waste money.Its unfair to let people get a softer sentence because of money.

I say don't give then anouther chance because you just are giving them anouther chance to mess up. "sorry we let this guy stay in prison after he killed 3 other inmates, we just wanted him to have anouther chance". Lets also look at prison you get 3 square meals a day, clean cloths , place to sleep a yard to exercise, even workshops , tv,and visiting times. Is prison really that freakin bad of a place when you live for free and dont have to worry about a thing for the rest of your life? Life in prison is a walk in the park now a days compared to death. Its all opinion saying prison is worse than death sure your in one place for a long time but its easy living now you tell a man that hes about to die well hes gonna **** bricks and realise he made a mistake instead of being rewarded by getting prison time. What would you choose? Death or living id choose prison any day of the week over straight up death.

I say we give them an option to live or die and when we choose we give them the opposite of their choice :]. Theres no such thing as an easy way out if your still alive.

 

If there was an objective meaning for the human race on what "naturally good" was I would say it is anything that does not impede the survival of the race.

Selfishness does not encompass our whole lives and it is not the motive behind all our actions. Case and point: Charity. Selfishness is not the driving force to giving charity. You can say that it makes you feel good inside but by saying that, you are proving that humans are not selfish by valuing people over money (which directly affects your life). Another point, the green revolution. People know that the consequences of global warming won't affect themselves, but their family down the genetic road. Why do we invest in green technology then? Or why do firefighters, cops, and soldiers give their lives everyday? If they were selfish, they wouldn't do it in the first place.

These two points are examples that both selfishness and selflessness drive our motives, not one or the other. I thought you were advocating a balance between good and bad, so why can't you apply it here as well?

"Well he's obviously guilty, so we'll strip his rights right now before any appeals courts and get done with it." Ya, that's the real american way.

You make it out like life sentence is easy and that it is a way for criminals to "escape justice". It is extremely hard to survive in prison, and it is a legitimate way to deliver justice to a criminal. Personally, I'd choose death if all I had to look forward to the rest of my life was jail.

 

Community members like firefighters,cops,soldiers do their work because someone has to do it and they have the pride and courage to do so. Theirs corrupt cops[bad cops] their are firefighters who claim false injuries to their insurance companies and their are soldier that become insoboardinate. Their are people who do nice things in the world but theres plenty of others doing stuff for bad cause. Its natural to think of yourself before others its just one instinct that we all have. Oh and we need things like greentechnology because we will all be screwed if we keep trashing our planet for the future, don't think that there is no one making a profit off of these new technologies the money founding these causes go somewhere and theres no way it all goes to the right place. Theres no such thing as a charity imo the closest to it I would say is the salvation army they do good work but even recently pink products for breast cancer research was found not to be going to the research and going to someones pocket. Wheres the money that people give at church go thats supposed to be helping people? I think it went to the priests new house on the lake and his hummer. The world is corrupt and people are selfish whether it seems like it or not. Everything happens for a reason and you can bet your life on it that the benifits go somewhere and its not always where they tell you it goes. Why give a criminal rights when he disregarded the rights of people who he/she harmed? Why go soft on someone who desserves no pitty no fair treatment. Prison is nice and actualy better than many places in the USA . Like I said free food,free housing,free recreation,free entertainment,ect.... but oh wait we are paying for their luxury's that they do not deserve. Prison and life is what most people would choose over death. If you were in the situation you would choose life even if you say otherwise now. No one wants to die but some should after their crimes and lack of remorse.

 

I was just watching a news channel, and the topic came up about "Why give the man who killed soldiers at Fort Hood a trial? I mean, everybody saw him."

He deserves a trial because that is what those soldiers fought for: due process, equality, ring a bell? It doesn't matter if that person is obviously guilty, they deserve a trial as much as anyone else.

Arguing about money and luxuries is irrelevant. The choices you have for these criminals is life or death. As proved before, death is more expensive than life, and saying otherwise means you want to sink more money into that criminal, which would be contradictory.

Other points I would like to bring into this debate about the death penalty:

1. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights.
2. The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system.
3. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.
4. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.
5. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent.
6. Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America.
7. Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.
8. The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death.
9. Mentally ill patients may be put to death.
10. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes.
11. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.

Source

 

But what if the murder is caught on tape and shows the persons face that is the murderer. Is there really a defense against that?

 

We call these opinions none of which can be backed by statistics. You say barbaric I say an effecient part of a system that a society needs to keep balance.
solutions:
1. Get rid or limit appeals.
2. Why we have been moving fine so far with how we are right now.
3.You execute people to show that there are punishments for killing and thats the loss of their life as well.
4. Our prisions are filled with free loaders living off tax dollars and your explaination is opinion that its not a deterrant.
5. No they wouldn't they freakin invented all types of executions thats why we have them today thank you dark ages.Thank you Europe for giving an example. I don't see why we still don't use some of them they really were suitable to the crimes :].
6.Yeah this is pitty or sympathy that should not be given to these criminals.{lessons are learned once they die]
7. Not with modern technologies fixing all the problems and making deffinate convictions with DNA and other identification processes.
8. They end up in mental health hospitals if they are mentaly screwed up.[They check mental state of criminals before sending them on their way.]
9. Yeah and thats why we kill them anyhow so the "sympathy" turns into a lesson to show that murder will not only end with the victums but with the murderer in the ground as well.
10. its meant for closure to the family and as a tool for society . The whole point of the execution is to make sure they can not do it again and that they suffur the same fait as their victums. Also the families get closure to see the monster that stole someone close from them die.

 

1.Life's not just and its almost impossible to get the wrong guy with the methods now a days sorry DNA and finger prints don't lie period.Sure one appeal then off to the gallohs for you :]
2. Its not an opinion its how we are right now sorry to burst any bubble but we execute for a reason and we have been moving with it in our society fine.
3.Horrendous when it happens to an innocent person justice when it happens to a criminal theres a difference. One didn't have a choice in the matter and the other knows its coming and still did something to desserve it.
4. Suffering only if your living conditions are now worse than before you entered prison. The United states prision is much nicer than any other country's we baby inmates compared to others.
5.no comment since we have an agreement.
6.Well thats why theres jury selections hopefully the jury is ballanced enough so sympathy does not overrule justice . Not just anyone gets jury duty and how the court picks them are at random.
7. Thats the juries and lawyers jobs tey have to argue moral issues and the evidence just helps supports the findings.
8.That sucks but I don't really care it doesn't take a genius to figure out right from wrong.
9. I don't feel bad for a killer the family doesn't feel bad for the killer and if the jury/public don't feel bad then guess what , the killers going to die. The jury is a representative or sample of the public and after they get all the info on the case they make a choice. If you are not on the jury your opinion doesn't matter because you don't know the whole story.
10. Lifers kill other prisoners who may have been getting out so yeah they have plenty of chances to mess up again and hey look anouther "innocent " life gone because some piece of scum is still alive.

You want to know why the death penalty hasn't been a very effective detterent well its because it takes to long for it to happen. Detterents are supposed to be fast and decisive. source: http://www.deathreference.com/Bl-Ce/Capital-Punishment.html

If we decrease the time fro appeals and death row time such as Texas has done then it will be more effective.
China execute the most people in the world we don't even scratch their numbers . We baby our criminals way to much no wounder crime is an issue in the US when all they have to do to have a free living is kill someone and they are set for the rest of their lives.

 

Wrong place, wrong time.

Sorry but that logic fails, unless you use it for all of your beliefs. Why give gays rights? Why give blacks rights? Or women? We've been goin' good for all this time, why change it?

It's actually not. Name one place in the country where you are living in cramped conditions next to hundreds of convicted felons with little food and the constant threat of getting killed.

meh, must've forgot to delete that.

Yes, but once they are picked and interviewed for bias, the lawyers can dismiss a certain number of jurers for no reason at all. A way this system can be tipped in the favor for conviction of death penalty is if its a young person being tried, the prosecution wants a jury that is older as older people tend to be more harsh on the youth than someone around the defendent's age. Is this fair?

And some slip through. Our system is not perfect, far from it. This source shows that on average, 68% of death penalty cases have been overturned on appeal. With what you are proposing (to limit or eliminate the tedious appeal system), more innocent people will die. Is that fair?

My desk just broke from me repeatedly slamming my head into it because of this quote.

So we should kill them because of what they might do.

Do you want to be executing 1,000 people a year?

That source is actually an argument for the death penalty. Thanks for the ammo. Some interesting things I found from this source:
"the death penalty is used with regularity in the Islamic nations, in most of Asia, many parts of Africa, and the United States."
Great, the rest of the civilized world has abolished the death penalty and we're stuck here with the same morals as much less developed countries than us.

"The United States, Kyrgyzstan (the former Soviet republic), and Japan are believed to be the only other countries where the mentally retarded are put to death."
Wow.

 

if u kill them, it sets an example to all ppl

in these days, u got people who repeatedly go to jail for killing someone, and get out and do the same thing