Capital Punishment?

Question

IN MY DEBATE CLASS I'm arguing against Capital Punishment (A.K.A, the Death Penalty). Now, I am usually for it when it comes to certain cases, i.e, rape, murder, or smt equally as heinous, but I have chosen to argue against it to see what the other side has to say about Capital Punishment.
I was quite dismayed that most arguments against Captial Punishment was for religious reasons... now, I have to research my side, and I'm curious as to what both sides for or against Capital Punishment has to say, but I am not interested in religious reasons why it's right or wrong, K?

Answer 1

If you have the time, can I suggest that you take a look at deadmantalking.com? This is a website written by a prisoner on California's death row. I think he writes very well. A lot of death row websites can be a bit of a rant, but he puts forward considered arguments on a lot of issues. He does not dwell all the time on death row or the death penalty, but it may give you an interesting insight into life there, without having to visit.

Answer 2

If there were a way of being absolutely certain of guilt, then, maybe, I could see an argument FOR capital punishment...

BUT! With all the recent disclosures during the past decade of people in prison cleared of murder charges through the use of DNA evidence proving their innocence, I don't understand how anybody could be a proponent of capital punishment. Too many mistakes are made, too many innocent people found guilty by juries who are composed of people who may decide guilt for other reasons than evidence, or using evidence that has been manufactured, or evidence that has been with-held. How can we put anybody to death when there is no certainty? It's wrong, and not just for religious reasons. Too many religions condone murder anyway!

Answer 3

On the cost issue: A system that includes capital punishment as the worst penalty is much more expensive than one which does not. In New York State, over the 10 years when the death penalty was in effect, it cost the state well over 200 million dollars to see just 7 men sentenced to death. None of the 7 men had come close to exhausting all appeals. For most the appeals process had barely started. Extra costs are due to: pretrial investigations to decide if a case warrants seeking the death penalty, two stage trials (mandated by the Supreme Court, one stage to decide on guilt or innocence and one to decide on the sentence), costs of maintaining a separte death row, among other things. Cost of incarceration someone per year are estimated at 35,000.
No comparison.

Also, more and more states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. In fact homicide rates are higher in states that have it than in states that do not. No reputable academic study has shown that it ito be a deterrent.

The death penalty system is biased. It is the race of the victim which matters most. If the victim is white, the defendent is much more likely to be subject to the death penalty than if the victim is not white.

Having a death penalty puts us in company with China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia. The only other democracies that have it on the books are Japan and Israel (which has executed just one person in its entire history.

Human beings make mistakes. Over 100 people sentenced to death have been exonerated with evidence of their innocence.
And yes, evidence that innocent people have been executed is emerging. Calvin Willingham was executed for murder by arson in a case where there was no arson, according to forensic experts using up to date methods unknown at the time of the crime.

Answer 4

check out this site for good stats: www.amnesty.org/deathpenalty to support your argument. Other reasons include economic, innocent people on death row who have only been exonerated due to DNA evidence, etc. Check out stuff on Ohio's moratorium too. They had really good, empirical reasons for the moratorium. Also see if you can find the study from the Univ of Georgia on racial disparities in sentencing.
Just as an FYI...the Supreme Court held capital punishment for rape violated the 8th amendment.

Answer 5

I simply think it is wrong to kill, regardless of who is doing the killing. I don't see why one side can be justified and the other isn't. The state kills people because it is wrong to kill people? I think it is hypocritical to say it is wrong to kill someone, so we are going to kill you.

Also, since there are many cases where people are found innocent later, I don't like capital punishment. There is always the slightest chance that some new evidence will prove a person found guilty was actually innocent. If one innocent person is killed, isn't that too many?

PS: I'm not religious.

Answer 6

It's not a statistic or fact, just common sense to me: we have an imperfect system. A system that penalizes the poor and minorities. How can we have a system with imperfections like this be allowed to kill people. We constantly see guilty people walk free because of a technicality. How can we allow a system like this to execute people. One executed innocent person, or worse than all the guilty who go free.

Answer 7

well let's say ,a guy kills 5 people and gets 80 years to life ,instead of death....now it cost taxpayers $60,000 to $100,000. per year to keep him locked up.....for however long he lives, that amount of money could help at least 6 families with 3 to 5 persons each thru some difficult times if needed .for a year. so which would scarce money be better spent?

Answer 8

When there are cases of Murder in cold blood or child molestation or rape and the person is 100% gauranteed guilty (such as O.J.), I am all for the death penalty.

Answer 9

The biggest violators of the laws that bring about capital punishment are above the law. George Bush has killed thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis but he will not even be accused of these crimes. Therefore, how can you execute someone for killing one or two people?