Japanese-American citizens 1940's. Women's Voting Rights. Enslavement of the black race. Interracial marriage. Homosexual marriage. Among the inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Barring a loving couple from marrying due to one persons religious ideology ->> Prevention of happiness. Enslavement of a person or the ineligibility to vote due to race or gender. ->>Prevention of liberty.
Lifeimprisonment is really costly on the goverment. Mass murderers and rapists enjoy chrismas dinner, a spacy cell and a soft bed. As harsh as this sounds death sentence is alot cheaper and by all means a prisoner would prefer this option. I would.
death keeping em alive cost to much it crowds prisons then people who deserve serious time dont because its filled with rapists and murderers i think they should kill them alot quicker to usually they wait a few years in prison before they get there death penalty if they even got it also the law should be eye for eye
I get what you are saying, but here's my problem with this train of thought. All these references tell nothing of the natural rights in everyone. During WW2, the United States became paranoid about japanese spies and locked up many Japanese-American citizens. This did not however, interrupt with any of these citizens natural rights because you can still live life in prison and exercise your liberties (natural liberties are different from those recognized by the Constitution). It was very wrong how the U.S. locked up many people with no evidence. As for Women's rights, the 19th amendment officially granted women the right to vote, but voting isn't the only thing you can do to voice your opinion in politics. Voting isn't a natural thing we do. It was created by governments to decide who will be in power. If you want to protest, go ahead. Even if the government made protesting illegal, it still could not stop anyone from protesting, it just scares them into not doing so. As for interracial and homosexual marriages, since when did not getting married prevent two people from being happy? People can be happy and not be married. For the enslavement issue, blacks were not denied their right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness (as defined by the declaration of independence). They were not denied their rights because nobody stopped them from living, nobody could totally convince the slaves to not run away, they could run away anytime they want. And happiness is just a state of mind that everybody has (I'm not trying to justify slavery in any shape or form, I'm just explaining how a person's natural rights can't be taken away).
Such a childish interpretation of the English language. Tell me if you agree with any of these statements: Enslaved blacks were as free and able to do anything a white person could. Women could vote anyway, if they were lucky no one would notice! The Jews in **** Germany had the same rights and freedoms as Hitler, they just didn't exercise them. -- You really didn't explain what a natural right was so I'll infer. A natural right would be your right to live, eat, feel emotions, etc. Does killing someone remove that right to live? You might say yes but what gives us the right to live? What gives us the right to die? Who says its our right to live? You? If I contradict you who is correct? You exist, you are alive, you will die. Birth is the leading cause of death. If being born enables you to the right of life, why do we die? These rights are unalienable (as you stated). Unalienable - Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable. If you have the capability to die, naturally, then these rights obviously aren't inalienable. If our "right" to life can be taken away what makes it a right?
That is not true. It is currently more expensive to maintain the death penalty in many states than to incarcerate a person for life. Why? The court costs associated with death penalty trials are astronomical. In California, the current cost of maintaining its court system is approximately $137 million per year. Estimates place a system without the death penalty at about only $11.5 million per year. In 2003, a Kansas legislature audit determined that the cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than a comparable non-death penalty case. Amnesty International
well i suggested they change it i think they should make some changes so they can kill em quicker and cheaper none of this if your good well let out bs or youll wait 5 years before your killed if you kill or rape somoene you die i dont care if it was accidentall if you were in the situation where you could accidentally kill someone yo should havee been more responsible and aware
That pretty much silences the cost argument that I had been pushing, since you actually cited your information unlike earlier posters. Now, you haven't changed my opinion that the death penalty should be the most economically sensible punishment. The court system really should not be spending this much effort reevaluating its own previous rulings. How much of the extra cost is spent on appeal after appeal? And how many cases are overturned on any appeal after the first one? Some google searching has turned up no statistics on death penalty cases overturned on appeals past the first one, which is what I'm interested in. I support completely the right of a defendant to appeal the trial, I just don't think death penalty cases should be appealed any more than a life imprisonment case would. I did find that the average time between conviction and execution is ten years, which I believe is probably where all the legal costs are coming from. If those ten years are spent entirely arguing the case and trying to get a lesser penalty, then the costs are obviously high. The system is not working efficiently, and is costing a massive amount of excess cash where it should not. Death penalty cases should not be appealed more than a life sentence case would be, and if the two court costs were appropriately equal, then the death penalty would be cheaper than life imprisonment.
The problem with death penalty cases is that they are very rigorous processes. It's one thing to sentence someone to 10, 15, or 50 years in prison. It's something entirely different to take their life away. Our Bill of Rights ensures us a right to a speedy trial. But more importantly, it ensures us to a fair trial. A death penalty case is a long, drawn out process that looks over every single piece of information so that an inaccurate verdict can be avoided. That is why they cost so much. But if a more careful justice system can avoid accidents that ruin innocent people's lives, then I think the cost is worthwhile. There is no reason to jump to conclusions just for the sake of money, especially when a person's life is at stake. Remember, we are innocent until proven guilty.
This logic can go both ways. Dying doesn't necessarily mean your right to life isn't taken away. I could say forces like afterlifes and reincarnation are real, who is correct? We don't know anything about the life after death, maybe our current lives prepare us for other lives. If you say these forces don't exist, then since these forces are from major religions (Buddhism) and minor religions (ones associated with polytheism), you would have to bring all major and minor religions into question. You just stalemated me and yourself because you have broadened this debate to encompass all life experiences. None of us know the answers to these deep questions (please, if you know tell me), so none of us can accurately form good arguments without going too deep into life questions. I think this debate is over from a fiscal perspective because of the recent sourcing. I still hold true to my pro-life sentence even stronger now.
maybe if they give them the death pena;ty when they admit to it and gather evidence when they claim to be guilty throw em in prison till enough eveidence is gathered then make a decision
But you're innocent until proven guilty =| Tough debate. On one hand, you have this rotten scumbag that killed a family camping out in the woods, serving life in prison. He's getting medicare, education, food, etc. What makes it worse is that WE are paying for his health through taxes. On the other hand, the death penalty may be suitable for this rotten scumbag, but what would happen if this wasn't the rotten scumbag that killed the family? The court would send this innocent man to death for a crime he had absolutely no involvement in.
Well I agree in sort of ways, but really I think the government would have found out, and got all the evidence, and possibly everything before they kill him, because normally it still takes a few weeks or years before they actually kill them, so they have time to make sure he is the one.
I agree with Dthen, also is the death penalty in some ways, less of a punishment? Just think about it, if you put someone to death for a crime they don't need to worry, they can just think 'Oh well, I'm gonna die anyway' but with a jail sentence you have to live with the guilt for the rest of your life.
life sentance, who are we to decide who lives and dies. throw them in a cell for life so they can be condemed to their own guilt. also following up on the points made by dave the rave and Dthen
actually there would be reason for wanting and not wanting both if you chose life sentence youd have to stay in an overcrowded jail for the rest of your life but if you chose to die who wants to die not many like the idea of him having to decide his punihment instead of having someone choose for him he has to think about what he did also it would eliminate the people that say its wrong to kill because it would be them decidinng i can see how many would choose death also no one would be choosing who lives and dies except for there own life intresting