Debate The death sentence

Response in blue I think about it this way how would I feel if one or all of my family was just brutaly murdered by some person for a stupid reason ,lets say for some money for drugs.[Its a popular one so Im using it] Now I think to myself would I rather him stay in the prison where he has free living for the rest of his life or to die and be no more. I'll watch him die by needle over a prison sentence .

 

The context of that quote was in reference to your "If it ain't broke, why fix it," ideology. That simply won't fly in today's society. We are constantly finding that solutions we used to have in the past seem very outdated today. Is the death penalty not up to questioning?

Those aren't nearly as bad as jail, and you know it. You make jail out to be this magical wonderland when in reality you are living with convicted criminals, anyone of whom could kill you. This is how I prove jail is worse: where would you rather raise your kids if given the choice of the two?

Deciding whether a man dies or not is a game? The system isn't suited to keep fair trials with all these "loopholes." Don't you think the system should be as loophole-free as possible when dealing with matters like these? How can you advocate the death penalty in such a broken system?

If you can't prove you're innocent you deserve to die? Innocent before guilty? Alibis are hard to make, an innocent man with no alibi is simply a product of wrong place, wrong time.

Do you know what mentally retarded means?
"The symptoms of mental retardation usually appear early in life. Children with the disorder tend to develop more slowly than normal. They may learn to sit up, to walk, to talk, and to perform other simple tasks later than average. Mental retardation is often accompanied by other symptoms as well. These symptoms include aggression, a tendency toward self-injury, and personality changes. As a child grows older, the best indication of mental retardation is the standard intelligence tests."
Obviously these people haven't "knowingly" killed people. They didn't consciously make the decision to hurt people, they can't help it. It's like punishing a baby for throwing up. Don't you think these people should get help instead of just killing them?

Yea, we execute these people.

This is why you need to leave your emotions aside when dealing with topics like these because they can cloud your judgment. It seems to me like the death penalty is nothing but a purely emotional reaction to a heinous crime, and you helped prove that point.

Why don't we bring some factual information to this debate, instead of throwing baseless opinions back at each other?

 

Response in blue.
Pointless killing that comes from murderers just doesn't float my boat. I don't mind if its a soldier killing an enemy in combat ,or someone killing in self deffense,or someone having to kill a person to help the greater good but if you just take a life for selfish reasons[greed,lust,jealousy,ect...] you should be given capital punishment no questions.

 

to Oh Knarly:

9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to NYC - wcbstv.com

these guys obviously were not in their right mind. So they shouldn't get the death sentence?

 

I say death sentence isn't enough... If these men do such horrible things such as murders, rapes, etc... why let them take the easy way out of it? Sure, they go to rot in hell, but they go with their dignity(sort of, in their F*cked up minds). I believe we should make their sentences pure pain, every day is pure torture and pain. I know you will say "AW but that's inhumane!!!" SO IS RAPING CHILDREN AND MURDERING PEOPLE! We should show them how it feels to be victimized, we should make them see the other side... I don't mean crimes against them(rape, murder, etc), but suffering... Maybe chop off a hand or two then force them to eat the same limited meal(with barely any nutrition) every day, wishing they were dead, and waiting to die until the last breath do them part.... And If they absolutely must die then make it painful....

That's my two cents

 

This does not mean I am not humane... I believe life is the greatest gift ever, and shouldn't be ended or harmed for no reason... But I for one believe that if you kill someone, let me say that again kill someone... You should be killed, but not in the merciful way we do now. We use "the shot" on things like animals to put them out of misery, I believe this isn't what should be the case for murderers. Do you believe that someone who kills another being shouldn't get the same misery they caused on the many people who were connected to the person? The families who possibly can't pay the bills since a main source of income is gone, the friends, relatives, etc; all go through(majority anyways, unless they dislike the now-dead one) a state of depression and sorrow. I believe no one has the right to take a life(unless it's self defense, thats different), if you dare to kill another person then you should be outright punished until you want someone to kill you. Criminals love that we kill them so quickly and easily. So why give them what they want? I'm not saying absolutely do the worst things, but make their last days or months hard, isolated, and painful... No other punishments are easy(jail time for small crimes, detention at school, running at football practice for whatever you did) so why should someone that does something this morally wrong get the easiest way out?

 

Honestly? It was supposed to be a straight forward question. There is no doubt that jail is worse than the slums. Don't try to argue just for the sake of it, it deadlocks the debate.

The only problem I have is when the prosecution intentionally tips the jury/trial in its favor. Especially when some defendents can't afford a good lawyer and are appointed one who doesn't care about the case, thus increasing their penalty under the law. Should the justice system be built where the rich get decreased sentences than a poor man?

Good point, but here's a question: would you rather send an innocent man to jail or let 10 guilty men free?

I don't think there is any clearer way to say this, the mentally retarded are not responsible for their actions. Their low IQ and tendency for self-infliction of pain only serves to prove that they don't have some of the natural common sense that we do (i.e. morals). Like I said before, the baby analogy. It's like punching a baby for throwing up, and in defense you say, "well someone should have seen they were about to throw up."

Following this ideology, do you also believe that arsonists should get burned, or Rapists get raped, or sadists get tortured?

A great point I found:
A law based on revenge serves no purpose; the purpose of punishment should be to reform the reformable and quarantine the unreformable. For those who say revenge serves the purpose of satisfying the emotions of the victim's families, there are several responses: 1) Life in prison is a severe punishment in its own right, and should fulfill this need; 2) Revenge does not bring the loved one back; 3) Revenge may make things worse for innocent people -- not just the mistakenly convicted, but the future innocents who fall victim to the higher murder rates that follow executions -- which is surely not the family's intent; 4) Our laws should be based on logic, not emotion, as overwhelming as the emotion might be. Laws based on emotion lead to barbarism. Victim's families are superior to the criminal precisely because they are not barbarians.

 

Honestly? It was supposed to be a straight forward question. There is no doubt that jail is worse than the slums. Don't try to argue just for the sake of it, it deadlocks the debate.
3 hots and a cot. sounds good compared to 1 cold and a bridge.

The only problem I have is when the prosecution intentionally tips the jury/trial in its favor. Especially when some defendents can't afford a good lawyer and are appointed one who doesn't care about the case, thus increasing their penalty under the law. Should the justice system be built where the rich get decreased sentences than a poor man?
Ahhh, playing the OJ card. Howabout the government pays the defendants lawyers (with a system that depends on the result of the trial) instead of relying on pro bono?

Good point, but here's a question: would you rather send an innocent man to jail or let 10 guilty men free?
counter: Would you rather make one family lose a member or let ten victim families suffer without remorse

I don't think there is any clearer way to say this, the mentally retarded are not responsible for their actions. Their low IQ and tendency for self-infliction of pain only serves to prove that they don't have some of the natural common sense that we do (i.e. morals). Like I said before, the baby analogy. It's like punching a baby for throwing up, and in defense you say, "well someone should have seen they were about to throw up."
Why didn't you give the baby a bib?

Following this ideology, do you also believe that arsonists should get burned, or Rapists get raped, or sadists get tortured?
Not the exact line I believe... Arsonists, rapists and sadists should be stripped of freedoms after other punishments (arsonists should spend time doing massive amounts of community service during a jail time, etc...)

A great point I found:
A law based on revenge serves no purpose; the purpose of punishment should be to allow us to reform the reformable no matter what it takes and quarantine the unreformable except that is [voice=mocking]"cruel and unusual"[/voice]. For those who say revenge serves the purpose of satisfying the emotions of the victim's families, there are several responses:
1) Life in prison is a severe punishment in its own right, and should fulfill this need;
Your right. Now lets make OUR jails fit this
2) Revenge does not bring the loved one back;
Nothing does, lets work toward preventing the loss
3) Revenge may make things worse for innocent people -- not just the mistakenly convicted, but the future innocents who fall victim to the higher murder rates that follow executions -- which is surely not the family's intent;
Or find the psychological root of these stats and fix the problem.
4) Our laws should be based on logic, not emotion, as overwhelming as the emotion might be. Laws based on emotion lead to barbarism. Victim's families are superior to the criminal precisely because they are not barbarians
My apparent interpretation of the logic of those against: Letting criminals who deserve a high punishment live freely in a restricted apartment complex with continental meals and recreation areas for a long amount of time fixes society.

 

You're going to have to restate that. Is 3 hots and a cot 3 meals and a bed? And is 1 cold and a bridge 1 meal under a bridge? I don't think I follow. Please and thank you!

Sounds reasonable, though that carries its own set of problems.

touché.

So a double standard?

First you say jail isn't harsh, now you say it is cruel and unusual punishment. Which one is it?

I hear ya! Back to the medieval ages with all those torture devices! We'll show 'em how horrible jail can really be!

Was that an argument against the death penalty?

Correction: Repentence reforms criminals, not medieval jails.

 

We murder murderers to show them that murdering is wrong... ...quite an illogical policy, is it not?

 

3 hots and a cot = 3 hot meals and a safe bed to sleep on
1 cold and a bridge = not as catchy, but I was alluding to the life of some

Well yeah, taxes would spike (unless we take away from pointless programs...thats another debate) and people would cheat the system, but thats somewhat irrelevant to this specific debate

I don't quite follow what you are calling a double standard...

I guess I wasn't clear. I was saying that certain types of imprisonment are considered cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm not suggesting medievalism, simply noting the comfort level of our current jails. When did I suggest medievalism?

No, it is simply one of the bases (plural basis?) of the debate; does the death penalty have an effect on future crime

How do you suggest going about obtaining repentence?

 

K. I would say that not living with hundreds of convicted criminals would be better, though.

you would think a system that tries to reform arsonists and sadists (not burning/torturing them) while killing murderers (basically givig up on them) is a little messed up, right?

You mean like life imprisonment? If so, then I would say that I disagree. The point of LI (life imprisonment) is to reform convicted criminals, and get them the help they need.

You were describing how good criminals have it in jail. Do you want jail to be a horrible place (worse than it already is)? How exactly would you change jail? I simply took the extreme of that argument.

It does, it increases the crime rate in states that employ this punishment. I could give you a source, but I think this has already been proven a few pages back.

Why, life sentences of course! More specifically, for the criminals that murdered out of spur of the moment (or they regret their decision), time to think over what you did in jail should be enough while the more far gone (serial) should get professional help.

 

A few times, I have found myself in this thread, but I never really felt the need to debate my points. I have done research for a persuasive speech before this, and I think I have enough knowledge to resolve this matter. Note that it is all basically my opinion. This debate will have little to no research cited.



Capital Punishment, as the name implies, is an extreme form of punishment that should be used in extreme circumstances. "The Death Penalty" has been around since the dawn of man. Death is assumed to be the loss of one's most important possession, life. Throughout belief systems such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, and most other groups, life is seen as a precious thing. Some would call it a gift. This implies that some may not deserve this. It is true that everything living deserves to be alive, but some cross the line that separates right from wrong. In fact, some endeavor much further than what is socially and morally acceptable.

Speaking of morals, Capital Punishment is often confused with being hypocritical and morally wrong. Capital punishment is not wrong for several reasons. First off, murder and execution are two totally different concepts. Murder is the unlawful act of killing of a human being by a human being. Murder is considered to be wrong and rightfully so. Execution would be the lawful act of removing a criminal found guilty of extreme crimes from society by a government. Putting a horrible criminal to death only helps society. Much like removing a offender such as a thief from the community, the government should remove criminal found guilt of extremely serious crimes from society all together. Though execution may seem immoral, it is actually positive. The "killing is wrong" argument is full of holes. To prove a point, here is an example: if a person holds a person captive, they are considered to be wrong, immoral people. If the government imprisons convicted criminals, it is considered to morally correct and positive. Why should execution be any different? If some people deserve to be imprisoned, some deserve to be executed. Murder often is against innocent people. Killed people did not deserve to die. Some may say none deserve to die, but that is not exactly true according to other things.

In some extreme cases, the killing of another human being was necessary and justified. A group of terrorists attack a group of innocent people; what do nearby police do? Obviously, they would attempt to help the people. One needed method may be force. If a police officer shot and killed a terrorist, would he be deemed immoral? Definitely not. The officer would be considered a hero. This because the terrorists crossed the line of morality which causes normal morals to be altered. If it was a normal circumstance, normal morals would go in to effect. This is not a normal situation, and neither are serious crimes. Some instance call for killing of others. Though you may be against war, war can be necessary. Would George Washington be considered immoral? How about soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy? In my opinion, it is quite clear that ending lives are sometimes necessary for the betterment of the world.

The removal of extreme criminals promotes the betterment of society. Should we do what is better for a convicted killer, or for society as a whole. Rehabilitation rarely works, and serious crime constitute life in prison. Thus, rehabilitation is out of the picture. Life in prison would be the sentence for some, but other deserve worse. The criminals are simply useless to society, become a burden, and have committed horrible atrocities. Why would one want these people to remain?

 

It all depends on morals and motives...

When you say Life imprisonment, are you referring to Until death or 40 years?

Roughly.
Less freedoms.

There may be stats of crime rates compared to presence of death penalty, but have they proven a connection or are they assuming coincidence is fact?

Once again, morals and motives play a role in sentencing...

 

I do like your argument in the paragraphs I did not quote (not saying that is my view), so I'll just address the last paragraph:

How does the removal of criminals promote the betterment of society? Sure taking a thief off the streets is good, but rehablilitating him to become a contributor to society is more effective (or at least, a less burdensome person). I realize with life there is no hope for escape, but that is the less burdensome option, as capital punishment is more expensive.

Source please.

I don't think that is the question you are asking. Becoming useless to society means nothing. If keepiing a criminal in jail for life is cheaper than executing him, why not give life? It may seem ironic, but removing a criminal from society is more burdensome on that society than quarantining him.

edit: I'll reply to you later, Stouf761

 

Capital punishment is actually cheaper.
Lethal Injection Consists Of:

• Sodium Thiopental (lethal dose - sedates person)
• Pancuronium Bromide (muscle relaxant-collapses diaphragm and lungs)
• Potassium Chloride (stops heart beat)
• The offender is usually pronounced dead approximately 7 minutes after the lethal injection begins.

Cost per execution for drugs used : $86.08


From: Death Row Facts


It costs $55.09 on average per day or $20,108 per year to keep an inmate in prison


Statistics in Brief - Inmate Cost Per Day

And there re much cheaper ways, but they may be less ethical.

'56% of violent felons are repeat offenders and 61% of all felons are repeat offenders'

Why are so many Felons Repeat Offenders?

 

No, murder is the spilling on innocent blood. So giving the death sentence to someone who DID spill innocent blood is NOT murder.

 

You didn't factor in court cases now, Scope. You'd be surprised how expensive capital court cases actually are.
Here
So I guess it is more expensive when you account for everything, right (not just the execution)?

Until Death.

This could help,

And this.

------------------------------------
Some new info for the debate.

Just Amazing. <-- What happens when we base our laws on emotion, not logic.

There's a lot more info on the tabs on the sides of the websites, I just didn't want to post it all.

 

- & - = +

- Killer "Killed By - Gov" = Peoples Safety +