The age old eye for an eye saying is very questionable. I dont really believe in the death penalty but in extreme circumstances(eg: Genocide), I wouldnt be aposed to it.
Thanks Waylander for telling us which side you're on, but would you like to contribute to the debate?
Ok, kill the killers, or have your tax money go to feeding them, clothing them, basically paying for them to survive for the rest of their lives. Simple answer.
OK Here's my 2 cents. I actually wrote an essay last semester in my Ethics class on this topic. I was told by my professor that it was one of the best undergraduate essays he had ever graded. In my opinion, it comes down to punishment vs revenge. Punishment is a methodical, rational approach to correcting undesirable behavior in a population. The purpose is to bring about the best possible outcome for everyone. For the criminal, this means rehabilitation. Revenge is an emotional response. It demands in-kind payment (eye for an eye) for wrongs committed. Revenge is not the state's business. The state's business is to allow for decisions to be made rationally instead of emotionally. Life imprisonment is rational punishment that brings about the best outcome for all. Punishment has no requirement for in-kind payment. We have what are accepted as reasonable punishment for any type of crime. Those include fines and imprisonment, among others. The degree to which we inflict these depends on the degree of the crime. We do not base our system of punishment on the depraved depths stooped to by criminals. We do not rape rapists or torture torturers. What about the victim's family? Well, they are understandably motivated by a need for revenge. That doesn't mean it's the best solution. The state has to make sure that rational decisions are made instead of emotional ones. Also, what about the guilty's family? Are they not punished more in having their family member executed than the person the punishment was intended for? Yeah, I know the holes in my argument. Maybe you accept and believe that it is the business of the state to carry out retributive, vengeful, in-kind punishment. But I don't. Oh yeah, and the taxpayer dollar argument? It doesn't hold up. We spend trillions of dollars in Iraq.
Interesting argument, but I think we should be OUT of Iraq right now, so I think those trillions are more important then the millions (or even billions) that it costs to fund life sentenced convicts. Pull out of Iraq and continue the death penalty. Really, the death penalty is here to stay, because didn't the Supreme Court just rule that lethal injection was NOT a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). Its here to stay (especially in Texas). The only change that needs to be made is the number of appeals made for death row inmates. Many just keep appealing and appealing again. I don't really have a response to the argument on whether or not it is the state's decision for revenge on murderers-or capital punishment. + rep to you.
OK I'll give you another problem with talking dollars in this argument. It's kind of obscene, really. To talk about dollars and other practical matters when life and death are the topic. I argued against capital punishment on ideological grounds. Practical matters are rendered moot if we get the ideological answer right.
Well, on the ideological stage, I still think that murderers should be killed. Not much to add to that. Whether or not it is the government's decision is where I am a little on the fence. I know that from the victim's family viewpoint, they would agree. On the other side, the murderer's family would think the opposite. But really, I think that the victim's viewpoint would be more important. They are the ones that have to deal with the loss, and the criminal's family have to realize that what the person did was wrong and that there are consequences for it. In the end, I think it should maybe be the victim's families decision. But, most families in no way would want to make that decision-so its back up to the government. So basically I just talked myself into a circle. What I'm saying is that if you kill, you should be killed.
I totally agree with this and Dom... I think that they should get a second chance and if they do screw up then off with their head...
Yes but that eye for an eye method is something that shouldnt be legally practised. If the whole world believed in "eye for an eye" we'd all be blind. Muderers being murdered doesnt sound like the most suitable approach. Imagine you hit someone's car by accident but the court see otherwise and your punishment is that your car is then ramed, would you be pleased with that result?
War in Iraq has reached over 3 trillion dollars. Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict Cost of a single inmate per year is $19,002 Statistics in Brief - Inmate Cost Per Day If we didnt haved the war, that would be an extra 3 trillion+ for the US govenrment. We still could fund all the prisons in the US without the 3 trillion. So imagine what we couldve done with that 3 trillion? What Im trying to say is, we can hve justice without capitol punishment. And its not the governments finances that are allowing us to kill serial killers, its revenge.
Thanks for bringing up the statistics +rep to you. But really, the argument isn't really that the war in Iraq costs WAY more then inmates, but rather that inmates still cost a lot. Let's put it this way: Let's say the inmate lives for 40 years in prison 19,002 * 40= 760,080 Yeah its wikipedia...kill me for it 760,080*3,263= $2,480,141,040 That's over 2 billion dollars spent on murderers. No where near 3 trillion, but 2 billion is 2 billion. That's assuming an inmate lives for 40 years in prison, it could be more if they were convicted at 25, or it could be less if they are convicted when they are older edit: from the same page I linked to above, I suggest a solution that will still uphold capital punishment: Limit the death row inmate to 1 appeal, if he is still there, lethal injection.
Ah, an eye for an eye, eh Pred? rofl... I don't particularly know where everyone stands on this, I am going to read pages 2-4 after I post this, as I like the way Pred started this thread, without swaying the debate with his own opinion.... The death penalty...What is it? As posted on Wikipedia: Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. What are some facts about the Death Penalty? 1) Essentially all of the persons executed are male. since 1976 when executions resumed, there have only been four women executed -- all in Southern states. 2) Texas holds the record for the largest number of executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Virginia has executed a larger percentage of its population than any other state over 1 million in population. 3) Almost all states have an automatic review of each conviction by their highest appellate court. 4) In the United States, about 13,000 people have been legally executed since colonial times. 5)[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] By the 1930's up to 150 people were executed yearly. Thanks to this website for the facts...Which btw, they use many references aswell... What are some positives of Capital Punishment? 1) Deterrence (Cause fear of death penalty, will cause people to not murder) 2) Lex Talionis (a life for a life) 3) More Humane then Life Imprisonment. 4) More Economical then Life Sentance. 5) Maximum Public Safety (what says a killer won't kill again?) 6) Should Be Enforced in a Much More Timely Fashion...(then a life sentance anyway) What are some negatives of Capital Punishment? 1) The convicted would not have the chance to "pay-back" society. 2) Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Actually this is technically crossing the 8th ammendment.) 3) Absence of Deterrence. 4) Less expensive then execution. 5) Moral Argument. 6) Possibility of Innocent Death. 7) Crossing human rights/dignity. Thanks to this website for the facts: They also provide multiple sources. --------------------------------------------------------------- So enough of the banter. Where does Tex stand? I personally, feel that murder is wrong, and with the death penalty in action, it won't particularly help the problem, considering that people still murder anyway. This link actually provided a really interesting fact. That there was an absence of deterrence from the death penalty, I had no idea of that...But it appears that the whole point of this, is rather null...Anyway, I don't agree with murder, nor the death penalty, but I do believe that our population is getting out of control, so why keep the bad bunch on this planet? [/FONT]