Debate: The Death Penalty.

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.

and possibly to the point of non-existent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.