Debate: The Death Penalty.
 

A truely controversial subject. Is it humane and ethical to euthanize America's most violent inmates? Should the death penalty be abolished in favor of counseling and life long prison sentences? The topic is set. Debate away.

yes.


no.

why? the term "most violent inmates" would most likely refer to a murderer or a mass murderer. but, the question isn't "is the death penalty humane and ethical?". it's "how inhumane and unethical should the death penalty be?". what's controversial about it? you kill someone, you get killed. pretty simple if you ask me.

Yes, but think about it..

Bill kills someone, he gets the death penalty. Then to put him to death, someone is actually technically killing him by injecting the lethal injection.

So in the end, someone is getting away with murder.

but it's justified because you're killing a killer. killers are bad.

No. That is just a dumb way to rationalize the situation. Technically, someone is doing the lethal injection, but they are ordered to do so. They didn't pre-meditate anything. They don't have malicious thoughts about brutally killing another (Let's hope not anyway). It is their job, and even though they may reluctantly do so, that is how they make a living. It's just an eye for an eye.

Yes, but then someone is killing and getting away with it. Right after someone else is killed for killing.

Your killing someone because they took someone or someones live/lives away and you're getting away with ending them.

You killing, just liek the other person.

With that mentality, dog pounds and vets should be shut down for being genocidal killing camps.

Im just tryin to make a good argument why ther should be no death penalty.

Also, if the death penalty was abolished, think of how many dangerous criminals would be filling up our prisions. People are executed because they are a threat to society, and have no hope of rehabilitation.

If I did pay taxes, I woudln't want my money going towards providing housing for some serial killer who raped and murdered 12 young girls.

Let the punishment fit the crime.

People have ONE life. You will never exist again. Once you die, you're dead until time itself ends. To allow someone to take this precious life of a human being without equal collateral would be unacceptable, in my eyes.

Good point, but it is still moraly wrong to take lives. Plus, the criminals are good for picking up trash and such. Let them do stuff like that for free.

But then again, the US has a lot more murderes than Canada. We dont have a death penalty cuzz are prisons aren't as full of killers and such.

I don't know if there will be much back for the other side of the argument. And if Tyrannicide keeps bringing up these *great* comebacks, it will be over before it started.

The murderers being in prison thing is kind of a moot point Sov, because our jails are packed constantly. Not that many people are given the DP, and it takes a long time.

not in texas.

Yea really, they stay in jail for like 20+ years before they even have a idea when they are gonna be put to death right?

Death Penalty should mean your killed within 1 year, not 20 years later or longer. Defeats the point.

As far as I know, there is a bill pending in Texas that will make it so that a death sentence for a crime with more than three eye witnesses will be carried out with no death row. (This "as far as I know" is derived from a joke, but I think [for no logical reason] that there is actual backing to it. Anyhow, I may look into it later, but I'm at work now, so too much internet is a bad thing.)

I do not oppose the death penalty. It may be morally wrong, but I'm all for eye-for-an-eye type punishment. I think that all punishment should be related to the crime. I actually like the idea that, in some countries, a thief gets his hand cut off. It's simply more fitting than sitting in jail for x amount of time.

Also, I'm very opposed to the idea of jail. I understand the need for punishment as a society. If there is no punishment, there will be no order, but imprisonment voilates my views to such a large extent. It takes away ones freedom. I know that there is no mandate that grants freedom to those who impose on the freedoms of others, but that's basically hypocrisy.

I'm all for caning somebody who litters. That's cool with me. Fines are okay too. However, I don't believe that someone sould lose a year of their life because of it. That's a portion of their life, a resource of immeasurable value, that was lost to slavery because of an infraction of behavioral policy. Within reason, anything other than prison sounds good to me.

So, yes. Let the state murder people who take the lives of innocents.

Sounds like a not-so-severe Israel to me. Funny thing is, I agree.

What the!? Where the hell do you live to be getting a year in prison for littering? Around here, it's $500 max.

Anyway, I agree with everyone in this thread excluding Tyrannicide. One kills a person, the killer gets killed. It's way better than spending around 50 years in prison and then getting out on parole(sp?). If they kill again, who's fault is it for letting them out of prison? Eye for an eye as Titus has stated.

Well, considering most killers serve about 12 years, then get out for good behavior is appauling. I mean honestly, anyone can fake "good behavior". The worst part is generally when they get out, they kill someone else and repeat the process.

Thats what the old mesopatamia{sp} laws were. Still, in Canada we have no death penalty, and I agree with that. Maybe because im use to it and its what I believe along with a lot of the country.

I have rights to my beliefs aswell as the rest of you. If they murder 2 or more, give them the DP, 1 should be a life sentence.

Another thing that is dumb is how the defendants try to argue that there client is unstable in the mind and such. What do you have to say about that? they usually get off to like life because they are psychotic.

Well, I don't think you can put a number value as a constraint on giving the Death Penalty. I think it is the severity of the crime really. Of course, murder is murder is murder, and that is severe enough, but I'm talking about additives, like rape, mutilation, etc. along with murdering. That for sure deserves the DP.

Rape isn't killing someone, thats were it is really iffy. You can emotionally harm them and such, but you didn't kill them. But yet, sometimes rapist will get a worse sentence then a murderer, a fault in the system. And do you consider abortion murder? When is it considered murder and such. These are all holes in the system.

He meant rape someone before or after they kill the victim.

I am saying that rape itself is a capital offence, which can be a death sentence or life in jail, worse them some murderes have got.

We know what you are saying, but you took my post out of context. Slim just summed up what you misunderstood. I never said anything about rape alone, I said if someone raped, killed, then mutilated someone, that would surely be grounds to dismiss your, "You have to kill at least 2 people to get the DP" argument.

I know, but im saying rape alone is a capital offence, you woudln't need to murder or anything, ur screwed for life if convicted for murder.
Add the stuff u said along with it and and sure, give them the DP if u want.

Who has gotten the death penalty for rape?

Does that even make sense?

I didn't say DP for rape, but a long ass jail sentence is given, sometimes longer then murderes cause they get out on parole.

Well, I, for one am strongly opposed to the death penalty, but by the looks of previous responses it looks like I'm entering a losing argument, so I'm not going to post my reasons. Maybe I'll post them later tonite if I don't have anything to do.

Well, that is two of us against the death penalty. Welcome to the losing side.

You can't expect to win if you don't express your views or opinions. You may have some very interesting ideas we haven't thought of. For instance, way back when, in middle school I think, we were debating Abortion, and I hadn't even thought about the rape circumstance. That was a HUGE deciding factor in mine, and many eyes.

Titus, you should know me better than that. I've posted about the death penalty before. If I get into it, it will be a very heated debate because I am so strongly against the death penalty. I'll probably post, eventually. When I argue about something that I believe in I get heated, and I don't like that. Either way, not now. Maybe later tonite you will see a huge post from me.

Well, don't make a HUGE post. Break it up into many different arguments, so each one can be addressed more appropriately.

I, for one, believe all people have the ability to change if their willpower is sufficient. No-one should be given the right to end someone's life because they consider them to be a "threat to society". The death penalty is, in my eyes, a lame attempt to preserve a reasonable government budget. Face it, if you support the death penalty, you do so because you don't want anyone mentally incurable to live at your expense. If you're planning to say that "qualified shrinks determine whether the accused is mentally ill and/or will repeat the murderous behaviour again once let back into society", don't make me bring up how many times psychiatrists have been blatantly WRONG in such, and other matters.

Do you remember that "mentally ill" person who was somewhat recently executed in Texas? Officially, no-one takes the blame. Unofficially, the "chances are he will kill if he is let back out", plus the costs of keeping such a criminal in prison catapults straight out of the galaxy of feasible budgets. The solution? Execution.

And of course, the system can easily backfire, too, and mistakes are permanent; irreversible. People HAVE and WILL be executed despite innocence, and anyone assuming such mistakes will be discovered while on death row will be surprised that almost all mistakes are found after the execution despite the long wait some of you have mentioned.

Ad interim, anyone who thinks the death penalty is a legitimate way to aghast the public from doing more serious crimes, consider your assertions fallacious. There are NO proven facts that the death penalty, despite the, in some of your minds, obvious reasoning, that the death penalty hinders criminals from committing crimes. In fact, many countries, including the United States, has a globally high rate of homicide, which may evidently depend on other variables, such as the high rate of firearms within the borders of the nation. Other countries with a legalized death penalty show a similarity in high crime rates, too.

But then again, I'm not an US citizen, what could I possibly know about objective reasoning? More than you can anticipate, I assure you.

The points you just brought up are part of the few exceptions that are bound to happen in just about any and every situation that could ever arise. Sure, there are people that might be able to be cured, but that might is never a definite. You will never hear someone in their right mind say they can definitely change a convicted murderer for the better through intensive psycho therapy. That is just the problem with therapy, there are no guarantees.

You said as long as their will power is sufficient. Clearly, in my opinion, if someone can commit such a heinous crime, such an injustice to humanity, then their will power is in an unstable state. Of course, there are anomalies, and there always will be, but that doesn't mean the whole system should change..

How many times psychiatrists have been blatently wrong? How about how many times they have been obviously correct? I'm sure that number more than heavily outweighs the preceeding.

Talk is cheap, and liberal talk, citing the government budget, is even cheaper. Besides that point, which is even more moot than all of Tyrannicide's points thus far, and isn't at all a valid debating point, the Death Penalty is simply something that is not utilized enough. Why would you even want a rehabilitated serial killer that raped 12 year old and younger girls, then mutilated their bodies living out his life in jail? Now how is that reasonable?

With all the technology and education in the world today, those exceptions will surely shrink in size, and possibly to the point of non-existent. That is just the plain truth.

Non-existance I severely doubt, there is always a margin of error no matter how minute it is.

Possibly.

Clearly, nothing is absolute. I mean, it can't even be claimed that simulataneous tornados won't throw a cow perfectly towards each other and eventually land through my window a crush me. Sure, the probability is like 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999 % that it won't, but nothing is impossible. If you take a statistics/probability class, you will realize this.

I understand statistics and probability just fine. I need to slow my reading down a bit though, I skimmed over the word possibly.

Back to the debate, I see both of your points on willpower but the fact is there is always reasonable doubt. Lying is simple, and most murders lie their asses off in court trying to get out of their punishment. Doesn't this show something wrong? They don't have the willpower to contain what they were feeling and can get off the hook because they claimed they changed? It's bullshit. I'll equate it to Zelaron, do you want The1 coming back and annoying you all? No, of course not, and he claimed to have changed. It's the same principle, although The1 and a violent killer aren't the same obviously.

Sigh, here we go again with the financial reasons. So let me get this straight, instead of taking the chances of being able to find out who may truly be innocent and who should be let be back into society, even though these numbers are relatively small, they should all be executed BEFORE more thorough investigations can be performed? If you want to claim the legal system is perfect, then why have a reasonably large number of "criminals" been executed while innocent?

And no, the the financial reasons are not moot by any means. They are quite obvious, fundamental reasons behind the whole idea of the death penalty.



Frankly, anyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it carries no significant weight. And besides, your assumptions are fallacious. Their willpower is not likely unstable; rather do they have certain, subconscious goals like most people, some of which include lying to psychiatrists in order to gain freedom, or in the cases of "mental evaluation", to be determined legally insane.



Assumptions. Phychiatrists aren't perfect; nor are lie detectors although the latter work very well on just about all people who do not know how lie detectors work, plus a selection of "skilled sociopaths". These special people still represent a diminishing minority of criminals. Unfortunately, lie detectors are not commonly used, not to mention there are legal ways to escape the tests I do not intend to discuss in detail here. In short, more thorough investigations of criminals should be made. If they're not fit to be let back into society after a time in prison, then let them stay for a longer amount of time. People change, and there are no good reasons behind keeping people in prison "forever" except for pleasing members of society, if they will no longer revert to their old, destructive behaviour.

I have to agree with Titusfied, if you rape like a fifteen year old girl, then you kill her you desever the DP. It goes along with an eye for an eye, you might also get raped in jail. But anyway the DP is a good thing to have it punishes those who commit hanous crimes. Also for every one person killed by the DP, 18 murders are detered.