First of all. How is keeping someone in prison all their life any better then killing them? I'm not supporting the death penalty, I'm merely showing flaws in your argument.
My opinion is that there are some sick sick people out there. They have done awful things like murder innocent people. Some plan their crime while others do not think it out and just do it. That at least earns life in prison. Now, some of those people smile at the thought at what they did. They laugh to themselves about the murder they committed. Those are the ones that need the death penalty.
The only objective reason is life imprisonment is fiscally cheaper. You believe that life imprisonment kills the person inside, whereas the beliefs of advocates of the death penalty say prison is a cushiony-hotel (not saying you are for it). You can't have it both ways (not you, lol). I believe that a criminal should be able to atone for their mistakes in prison, a sort of think about what you did punishment. There was a short story about a man who made a bet that life imprisonment was harsher than death. The man bet him $1 million pounds he couldn't be in jail for 10 years. Can't remember the name of it though. If life imprisonment is so harsh, shouldn't Texas be the first to advocate a system that legally hurts criminals more? I just can't see any valid points with the death penalty over life otherthan the "revenge" ideology (still not valid). Or mental help.
I laugh at the irony. A guy who has murdered someone is sentenced to death. And how do you go about this task? You have someone kill him via electric chair, deadly injection, or otherwise. The government is persecuting the man by doing the exact same thing to him that he was sentenced to death for doing. Sentencing everyone to jail time means crowded prisons, more chaos, and more money being wasted. That means that there is no right option. Can't kill and can't sentence to death. /thread
Even though I agree with the first part of your post, that isn't a valid conclusion to this debate. Life without parole is the best alternative and sentence for convicted murderers IMO, it doesn't involve state condoned killing and allows the offender to truly become rehabilitated and feel remorse. I'd prefer my tax to go towards keeping someone alive rather than killing them, no matter what horrendous crime they have committed.
To add to your bottom part, overcrowded prisons mean that many criminals get released early to keep costs down and to save room, which is happening now, so people aren't always serving their sentence.
I have kind of stayed away from here, but I finally want to address this. It really isn't fair to add in the court cases. Why? The amount spent should remain constant for each similar case (i.e. murder cases), because the sentence isn't given. If the case, goes to the court of appeals or further, the price may increase due to the sentencing, but I really don't see why it would greatly affect it. What exactly is the money spent on? I forgot what the article said. Ok, so you put some pros and cons of both. The obvious major con for the death sentence is that is (arguably ) morally wrong. In my opinion, it isn't. I have already explained my position so... The opposite argument has many physical cons. -Crowed Prisons -Chance of releasing/escaping criminal -Life in prison causes criminals to have nothing to lose (i.e. killing other inmates) I'm not so sure that parole is the best thing. How effective is it really? Good point.
Heh, well you can't just remove costs of the opposing argument simply because they do not fit your hypothesis. You can suggest as much reform as you want, but we are debating the practicalities of each option in the current system. Reforming the whole justice system to suit your morals seems flawed (and a little on the circular logic side). I do have another argument to bring to the metaphorical table, though. Source I don't think I have introduced this before, but I'm not sure. Btw Scope, you said the costs for death penalty trials are too high, but California for example has estimated costs for a fair trial to be more than the current costs.
I don't think our justice system's faults merit a declination of the death penalty. The defendants pay their own fees, correct? Why would that be a factor? I still don't see why it is so expensive. Prison systems could be reformed. The wait on death row could be shortened, and after a general acceptance of the penalty, court cases' costs would lessen.
I said life without chance of parole, meaning the convict will never be released. The offender will hopefully come to feel remorse in prison and attempt to lead a fulfilling life in prison as much as that is possible. If they're not rehabilitated then they spend the rest of their lives in prison, suffering for the crime they have committed and removed from society. I think that is a much better alternative.
Wrong. Not the end of the thread. I don't agree with your points anyway. If someone murders someone then they should get what they deserve. I am for life in prison or the death sentence. We did not make that person make a bad decison. It's not our fault that the person made his or her decision. They have to deal with the conquences. The law is the law. The death sentence is probably a better option. Save room in the prison system for less offenders. Morality goes out the window with murder to begin with. Acting moral will not serve justice and will certinly not bring back any innocent victims.
I'm against imprisonment AND the death penalty. If someone commits a crime their bodies should be forfeited to the pursuit of scientific advancement. It is obvious.
Wow, did you even read what I said? Parole sounds like a good idea but even on parole it is easy for the criminal to commit more crimes. Maybe we could give everyone another chance and make them sign a contact that says if we catch them again, they will get the chair. That way they actually have a chance.
Yeah, I read what you said and it was not really that great of an argument. For me I am not against the death penalty. Eye for an eye. Add more to what you say and not just there is no solution, so /thread or your the one who fails.
Killing someone back will not serve justice, and will not bring back any victims, just add one to the death count. If you kill a killer, you're a killer. Also, what about mental people? They did make the decision to kill. They just didn't understand the options. And my last point: You can't use the "decision" argument until you prove souls exist. "Why?" you may ask. Without proving the existence of souls, you're disproving free will. You're proving that the brain makes decisions based on the environment, and with enough detail, you could program a computer to do that. The brain is like a well-engineered software AI, It's all about "If this, Do that".
Well, that's why we have the justice system. The system decides with the help of a judge and jury whether a person is guilty or not. I am not sure if you are fimiliar with the justice system. As far as "mental people", as you put it. They are subject to the same system as you and I. I would hope a judge and jury would pursue justice. You might want to take criminal justice class so you can have a better argument next time. Edit: Oh and I don't believe in a soul. Free will all the way baby.
I personally think that death punishments should only be served to people that kill thousands of people, and cause a lot of people pain like terrorists, and people of that sort.
The death penalty is not necessary to remove killers and public offenders from society. I here this from people all the time is the classic you need the death penalty to prevent crooks who spend their life in prison from killing other inmates. This is a bad assumption you don't need the death penalty to defend prisoners from prisoners you just need a better prison system. I think the worst of the offenders should spend life in solitary confinement where they know that they will never see the outside again.