How is Capital Punishment justified? Would the value - sanctity of life - be a good value to use in a Lincoln - Douglas debate?
2006-12-18 05:34:22 · 7 answers · asked by Gwen 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In LD, it is very important to remember that your opponent can cross examine you.
If you use the value of life as justification for capital punishment, they might throw back at you that you are murdering someone in order to justify the sanctity of life. This makes it seem as though you are contradicting the meaning of the word 'sanctity.'
My friend actually did a debate on this subject. Here's some advice: Don't bring up price or the eventual lead to world peace (bad bad memories).
2006-12-18 05:43:05 · answer #1 · answered by newsblews361 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hope you're not using Yahoo! Answers as means for your dissertation :)
Capital punishment is justified if the crime is so severe and widespread that the only effective mechanism to bring it under control is by fear of death. It is a policy decision to protect the masses.
However, from the perspective of a person on the death row, it may not be justified, in particular when he or she is innocent of the alleged crime in which he/she has been convicted of. Worse still, in a regime where there can be kangaroo court, capital punishment can be an effective tool for political repression.
So I would say it depends on the circumstances. Do we trust the state enough to give them a tool to kill for domestic crime?
2006-12-18 05:43:22 · answer #2 · answered by jedimaster 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not in all cases. However:
A person that is found guilty of first degree murder and has gone through the appeals process should be sentenced to death for the following reasons:
1) The public at large, fellow prisoners, and prison guards would be at a high risk of being potential targets for another murder. Once a man has been found guilty of murder in the first degree, they must be stopped from ever having the chance to kill again. Only a cruel society allows murderers the chance to kill more innocent people.
2) The man should not be rewarded with life when his/her victims obviously are forever deprived of theirs.
3) spending millions of dollars to keep murderers alive is obscene. That money could be used to help the underpriviledged get access to better medicine. Anything besides rewarding those who kill the innocent.
4) a person who steals from people effectively has their "possessions" stolen by law enforcement when they are confiscated. This is a just reward for being a thief. If you take someone's life without cause, your reward is the same treatment.
5) The "that makes us no better than the murderer" argument is itself hypocritical. If the murderer is paroled or escapes from prison and kills an entire family, society is responsible for those deaths. THAT would make us no better than the murderer, because then we would be either negligent or tacitly approving of the murder.
6) The life of a person who murders people has no value. The sancity of life does not apply to those who do not value life. If a terrorist straps a bomb to their chest and tries to detonate it in a crowd, a sharpshooter who refuses to shoot that person on the grounds that "the terrorist's life has value" is a complete moron, because they are valuing the life of a terrorist, who does not value life or contribute to society, higher than that of a crowd of good, productive, innocent people who do value the sanctity of life. The logic of such a choice is self-contradictory, it goes against the whole argument for the sanctity of life.
2006-12-18 05:49:18 · answer #3 · answered by askthepizzaguy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Obviously, if you truly value life, you would be against capital punishment. Being for capital punishment is when you value life, but you have exceptions. So you don't 100% value life, you just value life for good people.
2006-12-18 05:55:10 · answer #4 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While not a direct answer to your question, I would like you to consider that the majority of people that are anti-abortion (aka pro-life) are also in favor of the death penalty.
As far as justifying capitol punishment, I would look to John Locke and his views of humanity in a state of nature. I believe that this will give you all of the justification you need.
2006-12-18 05:40:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Capital punisment isn't: It's REVENGE driven by mob mentality.
It does not work as a deterrent: Countries without capital punishment have a lower incident of killings than countries that do.
It has killed many innocent people who were mentally unfit, and forced into a confession by overzealous police pushed by the public (again, the mob mentality.)
It's been abolished by civilized counties (except the US)
2006-12-18 05:56:05 · answer #6 · answered by bata4689 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes and Yes...I value the sanctify of life but I have no problem with the State taking the life of one who has killed one or more of his fellow human beings. And I think that execution should be done in the same manner as the life or lives he took. I think "lethal injection" is too good for one who murders another.
Live by the sword and die by the sword...or gun..or knife....
2006-12-18 05:41:22 · answer #7 · answered by Elphy 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋