Help with debate on Capital Punishment!?

Question

I'm the con side for capital punishment and I need help! Is the death penalty really a detterent. Is the death penalty justifiable?!! I NEED HELP! PLEEEZE!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

Actually people on the pro side will have a harder time in this debate. The facts are on your side. Here are some of them, all verifiable and sourced.

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. The reasons for this include necessary pre-trial investigations to see if the suspect's background, mental health and IQ warrant seeking the death penalty, many more pre trial motions by both sides, longer time to choose a jury, more complicated trial, two stage trial (with separate witnesses)- one stage to decide on guilt,the other to decide on the penalty.

Re: Alternatives
48 states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is swift and sure and is rarely appealed. Being locked in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day, forever, is certainly no picnic.

Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in no more than 10% of murder cases. It is not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It’s human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty isn’t a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Re: Victims families
The death penalty is very hard on victims’ families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

Opposing the death penalty doesn’t mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning the facts and making up their minds using common sense, not revenge.

Those death penalty supporters who are aware of the facts, and who nonetheless support it, are usually retributionists and they say this is not the same as supporting revenge. Some of the people who answered your question did so on the basis of revenge, however.

Answer 2

As far as the deterrent value, the evidence doesn't really seem to support the claim -- look at the states that execute the most often and you will generally find that they have the highest murder rates. Many states without the death penalty have murder rates far lower than those that do execute often.

The other problem with the death penalty is that once the sentence is carried out, there is no chance for exoneration. There have almost certainly been people who were executed who did not commit the crime that they were accused of (Mary Surratt is a classic case of this).

That having been said, you can also argue a restrictionist point of view on this issue, which is where I come from on this. I believe that there are too many people on death row and that it is somewhat arbitrary -- read the early chapters of Execution at Midnight to learn more about a particular case. However, I do agree that there are those who commit crimes that are so heinous that they have forfeited their right to exist. Timothy McVeigh? Absolutely. John Wayne Gacy? Definitely. Connie Evans (the person executed in the book I mentioned above)? Read the book and make your own decision.

Answer 3

Here is a great source:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/

The death penalty is not justifiable in modern society. Because of the appeals process mandated by the constitution, the death penalty will always be more expensive than imposing a life sentence. In addition, the risk of exexuting someone later found to be innocent is far too great to be borne by the citizens. Since 1973, 123 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.

Answer 4

The problem with the death penalty is that it no longer functions efficiently. With all the appeals and time that passes inbetween, the punishment comes many years afetr the crime and the punishment loses relavence. If it were up to me, killers would get a 6'x6' cell witjh bread and water (maybe some vitamins) with NO SUNLIGHT, VISITS, or BOOKS. This is the right punishment. But then you have anti-DP people wanting them to be "treated humanely". I am not a "turn-the-other-cheeker". One good solution:ALL killers go to supermax prison.

Answer 5

Holy Crap I wish I was on the pro side of this debate......

There's a movie that would give you a great perspective on debating itself, called "Thank you for smoking". It isnt going to help with your debate at hand, but it will teach you how to debate. In the movie, there's a line that rings true: If you argue correctly, your never wrong because in a debate you arent arguing to change the opinion of the person your arguing with, your trying to make the people listening to you believe that you know more than the other person.

If I were arguing about the death penalty, you could look at the success rate, but be prepared for the other person to argue against the financial costs of maintaining that prisoner for the rest of his life (that would be my arguement on the pro side).

Answer 6

There are scores of web sites, books, papers, etc. written on this subject.

Do a Google or Yahoo search.

Better yet, visit your local library and ask the librarian for resources.

What you'll find is that for every argument against, there's an argument for. And vice versa.

Is it a deterrent? Well, 0% of those that have been killed via this means have committed new crimes.

Is it justified? Do you believe that two wrongs make a right?

Answer 7

The death penalty is obviously not a deterrant for the mentally insane who choose to kill anyway. The best policy would be to abolish the death penalty and sentence killers to life without parole. The main reason for the death penalty is to protect society, but life without parole adequately protects society without taking human life--human life which is all too commonly innocent. The number of innocent inmates killed to ensure the safety of society does not justify this end.

Answer 8

it actually defeats the purpose....a raping murdering child molester in California will cost over a million dollars on appeal all the while in a safe single cell with cable TV and a computer and will die of old age before a date of execution is ever set....he needs to be amongst the general population and fear real punishment by the end of a sharpened toothbrush.. '' capital punishment" is simply a political tern... effectively useless but gets you votes for being tough on crime

Answer 9

it probably is a deterrent to a degree

I think most people would favor use of the death penalty for agregious crimes... serial or multiple killers, crimes agains children or police or terrorists... although I would not want it to go away I would want to make sure it is justly applied

I do not oppose the death penalty, but it would have to be fairly administered, and it tends to be applied almost never to the rich and famous and moreso to the poor... so I think the weakest part is the fairness of the application... of course it is also irreversable

Answer 10

im all for bringing back public hangings, or stonings.....i think its rediculous that when you are sentenced to death the public doesnt get to see,. but they have to keep the death penelty, otherwise, i can surely garuntee that more inhumane crimes would be commited because bums dont mind living in jail for the rest of their life... on top of the fact that the government cant spend all this money to keep them there.... the world needs to go to the "eye for an eye" act. if you shot someone in the head, you should be shot in the head... if you ripped their arm off, you should ave your arm ripped off... simple as that..