In debate class im arguing that the death peanlty should be removed, i need some ideas on why it should, and what do u think the other side might say of why it shouldnt be removed.
2006-12-10 14:24:33 · 10 answers · asked by JP 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The only argument against it {since killing a human being is wrong, double wrong it if is done by a justice system} is that keeping a person who has no value to society is a waste of tax payers money.
It is wrong, because it suggests that we can do what is criminal to the criminal. It is a double standard, even more so retribution has been paid in full by imposing lifetime in prison.
In terms of wasting tax payers money, there a thousands of non violent criminals who are in jail, who should not be, and there are thousands of white collar criminals who are out in society and should not be. The system of justice in america is largley upside down.
2006-12-10 14:31:20 · answer #1 · answered by EM-water2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll give you my argument for the death penalty, but I'm not sure it will help.
First, some background framework. There are five theories of justice: specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and retribution. Specific means you've done this wrong, so I'm giving you X punishment so that you never do it again. General means I'm giving you X punishment so everyone else in society will think of you and not do this bad thing you've done. Rehabilitation means we fix the root of the problem so you never commit the crime again (think alcoholism and drunk driving or anger management and assault). Incapacitation means I'm going to keep you away from society for as long as I can because I don't think I can do anything else to keep you from doing this crime again. And retribution is revenge, self-explanatory.
Most criminologists will say that deterrence doesn't work for killers (who are the only criminals eligible for the death penalty). Rehabilitation is a rare opportunity with a murderer, but for someone who murders because of, for example, a treatable mental illness, it might still be a possibility. I don't think revenge should really be considered, but it is... Incapacitation leaves the last really valid reason for the death penalty. It is the ultimate in removing a criminal from society.
I believe there are truly evil individuals. True sociopaths (or psychopaths, pick your word). People like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. Gacy is my poster boy for the death penalty. Bundy comes in a close second. Gacy was not going to stop killing until all access to victims was removed. That meant killing him because you can't deny visitors. Jason Moss visited Gacy on death row before he was executed, and I think Gacy came pretty close to killing him. Guards were not present because sociopaths are very smooth and manipulative people. Gacy had managed to manipulate the prison guards. Bundy managed to manipulate law enforcement officials from local to federal levels, even just days before his execution. True sociopaths need to be executed because that is the only way to be truly sure that we protect society from them.
2006-12-10 22:48:55 · answer #2 · answered by st_mel 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not only should it not be removed, it should be mandatory! No appeal, no parole, no life in prison. We need to thin the herd, and I see no reason why anyone who would take another life, or rape, or molest should EVER be given any chance to hurt another person. If it were up to me. I would make the death penalty mandatory for a whole slew of crimes. Especially those against women and children. Also, all of those car chases you see on TV, well, the cops should be allowed to shoot anyone who flees from the law.
Go ahead libs....give the thumbs down, you NAMBLA ACLU loving pansies!
2006-12-10 22:31:25 · answer #3 · answered by FRANKFUSS 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because in return-we are taking the lives of a person, which is why the person is on trial. Two wrongs do not make a right. God should be the only person to take a life. People can be wrongfully charged and killed.Also, because it costs more money to execute a person than to keep them in prison.
2006-12-11 02:40:41 · answer #4 · answered by RoxieC 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In earlier times it is written "An Eye For an Eye"; some crimes are so horrific that even penalty of death is not enough.
2006-12-10 22:30:20 · answer #5 · answered by Jon K 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
one of my classmate did a research paper about this and he had to present it. he mostly defended his position (that death penalty should be removed) cuz death penalty has been used on a wrong person and its not ethical
2006-12-10 22:28:57 · answer #6 · answered by Nano 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be removed, because when the government executes someone, we are stooping to the killers level by killing them, and two wrongs do not make a right. The bible says Thy shall not kill. Not, Thy shall only kill killers.
2006-12-10 22:33:25 · answer #7 · answered by Will Wonder 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
it should stay, a life for a life
2006-12-10 22:28:23 · answer #8 · answered by John B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
everyone has the right to live.
2006-12-11 03:18:09 · answer #9 · answered by counterculturalist 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know
2006-12-10 22:26:40 · answer #10 · answered by Egzon M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋