Should the death penalty be abolished?

Question

I'm doing a debate team.... and I'm on the Con's side (It shouldn't be abolished)

What do you guys think?

Answer 1

NO. Here are some supporting ideas...

First of all, 85% of people surveyed believe in capital punishment, which is why you got less arguements against it.

A person who has demonstrated the willingness to destroy the lives of others has no place in society and must be removed. Yes, tougher punishments like life in prison can keep these people off the streets, however they are still causing negative effects on society from within their cell walls.

You need to take into account that on average, it costs $55,000 per year to incarcerate a person long term. If a murderer is given a life sentence and lives in prison over a 30 year period, the bill to tax payers when added up is estimated to be ONE MILLION, SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is for one murderer. Assuming that he is not paroled and gets back into society and kills again.

So, right now it is estimated that there are 128,000 criminals serving life terms across the US. The bill to taxpayers for one year is SEVEN BILLION, FORTY MILLION DOLLARS. After thrity years, tax payers will have spent TWO HUNDRED ELEVEN BILLION, TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS housing criminals on life sentences.

This money could be better spent on education or housing and healthcare for the less fortunate if these criminals were executed.

Answer 2

The question is pretty misleading. It is not about abolishing death penalty but to change the way we administer it. Meaning, death penalty stays and how it will be mete out would depend on a case-by-case basis. If we understand this, then we know the answer should be yes we should change the way how it should be administered; and no we should not abolish it as it is an effective deterrent to those thinking of committing a serious offence in Singapore. Not trying to be a saint here or play hero, but people do deserve a 2nd chance. However, whether they deserve it or not is a very subjective matter. I would think that the current system makes it easier for the judge. You do something wrong and deserve a death penalty they administer it. If you change the way it is going to be carried out. Then, inconsistencies and problems may arise. So, the current system is working and it is giving the judge less pain so keep it. In this instance, the Msian guy, does he really deserve a death sentence, based on the evidence collected? Yes? However, can the law exhibits some humanity? Give him another chance? Yes, the president of Singapore can do that. So there is an avenue to pardon a death penalty and it lies on the hand of our President. So if you look from that angle, the death row prisoner does have a last avenue to stay alive. It depends on the President. So, to all...Just stay good and be nice. Dont flout the law, I mean serious ones. Otherwise your life will be on a hanging loop....

Answer 3

Well I wouldn't go with Sgt G's advice. He has rolled off a bunch of statistics without giving any sources. Why? Because they are lies. One is an outright lie, the others half lies.
First the outright lie - there is no way 85% of Americans support the death penalty. It is a majority that do (which begs the question why one needs to exaggerate it so massively) but nowhere near 85%. (see below for the source)
As for the $55k a year figure - let's assume it is true (although again Sgt G has decided to keep his source a secret - or just made it up like the first figure). Well this is an AVERAGE cost - not a MARGINAL cost.
If these prisoners were summarily put to death just to save money (and if this is the argument shouldn't we also put to death anyone that is a drain on the public purse - eg all other prisoners, the unemployed, the elderly, the terminally ill) - we would not save 55k for each one. Prisons are already built, guards already hired. Just killing off one prisoner does not mean we can eliminate thier 55k. Hence while the number may be true (we will never know - thanks Sgt G) it is still a half lie.
Whatsmore his argument assumes that putting people to death is immediate and costs nothing.
Death Row conditions I would imagine cost even more than typical maximum security. Appeals against death penalties can take years and cost a great deal as well (and with our record for erroneously applying the death penalty not even the most extreme right winger would deny the right to appeal surely) yet these costs are conveniently swept aside by Sgt G.

Answer 4

I most definetly think it should be abolished. I think it is barbaric. It's as if we are going for an eye for an eye. It doesn't prove anything. I always saw it as if you kept a man in jail for the rest of his life it was a lot more cruel in a way then ending his life. There is a lot more suffering being stuck in jail then giving him a way out, death.
But, that's really not my reason for being against the death penalty. The real reason is that there is the possibility of making a mistake. no matter how great our trial system is, there is the possibility of making a mistake. If you enact capital punishment, the person is dead, there is no bringing him back should you find the correct person who was responsible for the crime. If however, he is sentenced to life in prison, he may be in jail for a long time, but if they find the guilty party, he can be released and he still has a life to live, even though he has lost a good part of it, but he is still alive. With the thought of just one wrong person being put to death, I can't agree with capital punishment.

Answer 5

It has been a deterrent & punishment for centuries.
Usually something that stands for hundreds of years is correct.

It stops repeat murders from occuring. It stops prison guards from being murdered by lifer without parolers. It even stops the murder of fellow prisoners. When someone is serving life without parole, there is little reason good behavior.

The cost to care for maximum security prisoners averages
over $32,000 a year. If the murderer is 30 when caught & lives to be 70 (below average for people), it would cost over
$1,280,000 to keep him in prison. That would feed a lot
of innocent children.

CA has over 30,000 life without parole people. Same ages & you are at $37,600,000 just for California. The low end is
Georgia with over 3,000 inmates - death penalty more popular.

Many people have admitted not killing to keep death penalty
off the table.

My brother was 32 yrs old when he went into a convenience store to buy milk for his children's breakfast. 3 men attempted a robbery & shot him point blank in the chest.
His baby turned 2 yrs old the Fday after his death.
His sweet wife who meant the world to him was left with
a 5,3, & 2 yr old. He was 3 weeks from college graduation that he took night classes while working as an engineer.
He worked a 2nd job so his children could have there mother at home with them. Within a year she was working & now the children have no memories just pictures & stories we tell them. The murderers argued against the death penalty because they came from a good home, they had family picnics & they believed in God. Then they should not have taken someone's life. They were criminals since 14 yrs of age, they winked at my mother during the trial, & they disrespected my brother by calling him by his first name - they were not his friends. The death penalty was overturned & the shooter was released last year - he killed an elderly woman less than 4 months ago. They killed a good citizen & an asset to the community but the system killed her.

Answer 6

Yes, If you look around the world the US and Japan are the only ones doing capital punishment of the developed countries. Every one else has abolished it.

Experts on Crime say that their is no deterrent in killing one prisoner. I bet more people would be against it if people saw an execution for real. That is why they do the deed behind the walls of the prison, other then the reason that the person in in the jail why move the person over to the machine when you can just put the machine in the prison.

Let's face it, if we all did an eye for an eye, we would all go blind. For you Christians, did Jesus say, forgive and forget.

Answer 7

I am against the death penalty - it should not be the state's position to issue vengence. You can create justice with a life sentence in prison. Killing a criminal is done purely out of bloodlust and a desire for revenge. The justice department's key duty should be to prevent and discourage crime. There has been no evidence that the fear of execution does anything to actually lower the amount of violent crime committed, and the same effect of prevention can be had with a life sentence. Therefor, it can only be assumed that the sole reason the death penalty is carried out is because of the life-for-a-life attitude.

It should also be noted that the vast majority of countries still using the death penalty are considered third-world countries and typically shunned for their human rights abuses. The US, Japan, and Belarus are the only first-world countries to still use it.

Answer 8

It shouldn't be abolished. It just needs to be overhauled. In Texas they want to redefine it to horrific crimes were there are three or more credible witnesses. If we update the guildlines for capitol punishment we can eliminate the arguement of innocent people being put to death.

If the goal of our prison system is to rehabilitate, then we must realize that some people can not be rehabilitated.

Answer 9

It should ABSOLUTELY be abolished. Period. I don't trust the government to do the right thing with that kind of power. I don't even trust the government to help the poor, which is why I'm against welfare. I have no faith in government anymore. Um if I wanted to help someone, I'd stop my car as soon as I see a bum, get out my checkbook, and cut him a check and give him a job application. Besides not trusting government with any kind of power over anything (governments have ****** up too many times for me to trust them with anything) even 1 mistake is unacceptable when it comes to the death penalty. I don't think prosecutors are perfect therefore there should NEVER be any kind of death penalty.

Answer 10

Yes it should. I don't have an issue with the punishment itself. History tells us that it is not an unusual punishment and has been practiced for thousands of years. Nor can it be considered particularly cruel, as locking someone up for life without parole would be just as cruel. Therefore, it cannot be said that capital punishment violates the constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment. The issue I have with it is in the determination of guilt or innocence. Mistakes can be made and with the advent of DNA testing, it has become more and more evident that mistakes ARE made. Also, having sat on several juries, I can tell you that I would not care to have my life in the hands of a jury. Some of the jokers that crawl out of the woodwork and into a juror's chair are truly frightening. The practice should be banned because no one can 100% guarantee that it won't be carried out on an innocent person.

Answer 11

It shouldn't be abolished.
It should be Used for every murderer and rapist.
70% of them are not reformable. I know this from studies kept on sex offenders by institutions like the one I work in. 70% will reoffend within 5 years. That is only of the ones that are reported, probably some people do not report they have been hurt.
Prison does not even try to reform them it just keeps them locked up.