Death penalty: need reasons for pro?

Question

I am doing a debate and i really need some reasons for pro death penalty so far all i can think of are:
1) deters crime (even though its kind of untrue, i cant think of anything else)
2) prevents recidivism
3)provides justice/closure for families

well i know these arent great arguments but i cant think of anything else! also if you can find a source that proves that it deters murders that would be great because most studies show that it doesn't.... thanks best answer 10 pts

Answer 1

You should know that some of the responses you received are wrong. You may as well have the facts right when you go into the debate.

The most egregious error is from the person who wrote: ever since nyc adopted the death penalty, homicide rates dropped 4 times(!!!!!) (2000 to ~500 a year) making nyc the safest city in the nation. Crime rates in New York City had been dropping well before NY State adopted a death penalty. Reasons cited include a drop in the use of crack cocaine, and smarter policing methods, COMSTAT for one. Furthermore, the murder rate in New York County (Manhattan, where the local District Attorney has said he will never seek the death penalty) has remained significantly lower than elsewhere in the State, including in one upstate county where the District Attorney has often sought the death penalty. This is just one instance where it is clear that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

The cost of having a death penalty system and implementing the death penalty (determining whether to seek a death sentence in a case, two stage trials- guilt phase and penalty phase, appeals, costs of a separate death row) add up to significantly more than a system that does not have the death penalty. One example is New York State: in the 10 years when it had a functioning death penalty system the costs associated with it came to well over 200 million dollars. Just 7 men were sentenced to death and none were anywhere near exhausting their appeals. Most had not even begun the appeals process. The average annual cost to incarcerated someone in New York is estimated at $35,000. Non death penalty trials cost a very tiny fraction of death penalty trials. In addition, many cases where the death penalty is not being sought end up in plea bargains.

Recent cases strongly suggest that innocent people have been executed in the past. In one case, that of Calvin Willingham, he was charged with murder by arson. Better forensic techniques than at the time show that the fire was not caused by arson, but was accidental. (Sources: The Innocence Project, Chicago Tribune and many others). In another case, in Missouri, the current prosecutor has reopened the case of Larry Griffin, executed in 1995, for a 1980 murder. (Google news will lead to stories about this.)

Fear into the thinking of criminals. Most murderers, if they think at all, do not think they will be caught.

Life without possibility of parole is on the books in more and more states. It means what it says. Also interesting that lifers are among the least violent prisoners.

Speeding up the process: Many of the over 100 people sentenced to death and later found to be innocent would be dead now.

Closure for families: many victim family members don't believe this happens, including some who might support the death penalty in theory, but see that the process keeps reopening their wounds. (2006 Public Hearings in New Jersey on the death penalty.)

As another responder said, you drew the short straw. In general, on the statistics and on the facts, when they are known, abolitionists win the debate. Most major religions – Catholic, Episcopalian, United Methodists, Lutherans, and so on, oppose the death penalty. The United States is in the company of China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and the like in continuing to execute people. The only other democracy that practices capital punishment is Japan. The main argument death penalty supporters have used, when the facts don’t add up for them, is the so-called “retributionist” argument. I have not been able to distinguish this from revenge, but this is worth a try.

Good luck.

Answer 2

The only possible justification for the death penalty is if it's the only way to protect the people. If you're a Christian and live in an area of the world where the death penalty is a necessary means for keeping you, your family and the rest of the populous safe then you can support it. I don't believe that that's the case in the US, it doesn't serve as a deterrent, there's always the possibility of sending someone innocent to their death (we're only human what gives us the right take a life?), and we have other means of keeping people safe from these monsters. That's where my thoughts on this subject are at right now, I'd have to do a lot more research before I could say either way with any real assurance.

Answer 3

death penalty puts the fear on the current criminals and the criminals in the making, often making them think twice and helping them become normal citizens. in some countries (i believe it is in the philippines), where the laws are so strict that spitting on the street will get you in jail and receive corporal punishment, murders are really rare--in such countries murders are not only repaid with the death penalty, it is preceded by gruesome torture. fear is the key in educating people from stop committing crimes.

of course, educating criminals is the best option if we are not dealing with murderers. but when it involves the lives of innocent humans as a trial and error, the opposition of the death penalty should consider that they're really the accomplices of the future murders. learning from patterns and histories is a valuable lesson.

ever since nyc adopted the death penalty, homicide rates dropped 4 times(!!!!!) (2000 to ~500 a year) making nyc the safest city in the nation. it may sound like a cruel method, but it is the most efficient method in keeping crime down.

fear has been the proven method of dealing with criminals time and time again. and what better way is it to put fear in people other than the fear of death itself?

Answer 4

You really drew the short straw on this one. Consider this, by supporting the death penalty it is understood that it is alright ot take life. So the taking of life is condoned, killing is right if it's justified, that's the premise
. Now who's going to decide this, a jury of your peers perhaps.How many people in America alone have been wrongfully executed. Here in Australia our Prime Minister is on record as saying , it's not that I don't support the death penalty it's that I know the system is flawed and mistakes occur.Surely intelligent people can find suitable alternatives
Let the cycle of life and proper natural Law exact justice

Answer 5

--Economically efficient (sort of cold, I know). In reality, it's more expensive to kill a person (appeals, care, etc) than to keep him/her in prison for life. But, if that's brought up you can respond that the death penalty should be carried out more quickly and therefore more cheaply.

--Ethical/moral argument (eye for an eye)

--No evidence that the US has executed an innocent man under the modern system (1970's-present). This is more of a counter-argument to a predictable oposing argument than a primary argument.

Answer 6

Saves the tax payers millions of dollars that we dont have to spend on housing, food, etc... for criminals

Lowers recidivism

True justice for heinous crimes

Lowers rates of over crowding in prisons, ( huge problem right now)

Answer 7

It may not deter someone ELSE from committing murder, but it sure prevents that one particular person from being free to murder AGAIN doesn't it?

Answer 8

Actually Bambi,

It costs more to execute someone than it does to house them for the rest of their natural life. Due to the automatic appeals process and all the lawyers, court costs, and such, It cost much more to put someone to death than it does to give them life in prison.



Good luck.

Answer 9

most religions call for capital punishment so use devine truth , it's hard argue this one. good luck.

Answer 10

No executed offender has EVER reoffended.