Any thoughts on "A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment"?

Question

It's a bit early i know, but i always like to get a jump on the competition. I actually love this resolution, it has a lot of promise for interesting clash. All you LD debaters out there, give me ideas on values and key points, (although of course i have some of my own as well). All you non-debaters, give me your general ideas on the subject. Thanks!

Okay, first of all i would appreciate longer answers than one sentence. Second of all, karma, you are completely wrong about countries that practice eye-for-an-eye. They often have the highest crime rate of all.

THANK YOU susan s, that is exactly what i wanted. All you other answerers take note.

Answer 1

The death penalty isn't an effective way to prevent or reduce crime and risks executing innocent people. Here are answers to questions about the practical aspects of the death penalty system with sources listed below.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?
No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that do not.

So, what are the alternatives?
Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process. Anytime the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs start to mount up even before a trial, continuing through the uniquely complicated trial (actually 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases, and appeals.

What about the very worst crimes?
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??

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 2

People don't take punishment in this country serious enough. Notice how those on death row cry and do everything they can to keep themselves from the death chair, yet they gave no such regard for the person(s) they murdered and did worse to. A life sentence anymore means 20 years, and that is for the heavy stuff. Lesser crimes are dealt with like a slap in the wrist.

Start frying these scumbags quickly... like within weeks after their trial and show the criminal people that those crimes will not be tollerated... you will see a drop in crime. Countries that still practice an eye for an eye have very low crime rates. Not that I think we should go that extreme or anything... but we do need to send a clear message. It's time the fear was put back into the crimminals.

Also, prisons shouldn't be so easy... scrap most of those "luxury" items and make it miserable... heck, make them work... hard... give them reason not to want to ever come back.

Answer 3

I disagree. I also have a brilliant source that i'm hoping you will carefully study in its completely (proper below). So I won't pass into too lots element right here. just to coach you for the interpreting although, the question is rather one approximately determining the suited objective of punishment. the object that I proper proposes 3 rationales given for punishment: restitution, deterrence and rehabilitation. the author is going directly to argue that restitution is the only objective that's no longer arbitrary or barbaric. The question of punishment (capital or in any different case) lies between the guy convicted of the crime and those injured by utilising the crime (consisting of next of kin). i'm hoping which you savor the study! Addition: I study the different comments that have been written on an analogous time as I sought for my link and drafted my reaction. a typical criticism is the possibility of executing an harmless man or woman. I agree that this may be attainable and is the explanation why the U.S. justice equipment has traditionally observed the philosophy of "innocence until shown in charge". That blunders are made even interior the perfect equipment and that our equipment seems to be drifting in direction of extra harmless convictions (a by utilising-made from a monopoly on justice) are separate subject concerns. they do no longer substitute the philosophical foundation for my reaction. regardless of if, those factors ought to certainly be seen while sentencing.

Answer 4

I was pro-capital punishment for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the people who have been released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”

5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 5

My son was murdered. His killer admitted to it, but since only his family members were present - a.k.a. the only witnesses -- the DA could only go for a lesser charge, and the kid pled out.

He showed no remorse in court, even after his own lawyer gave him a slight shove on the arm and said in a loud whisper "At least apologize".

At the time in NC, the max sentence was 15 years, but with overcrowding, the general sentence was 1/3 of that time.

He'd been on 'house arrest' (yeah, he beat up on his sisters, got friends to bring in drugs and generally just did as he pleased without having to go to work or anything) for a year, and that was deducted from his 5 year sentence.

Good behavior was an option which would have let him serve half the time... so potentially could have gotten out in two years.

Damn good thing I have no idea where that jackass lives.

Take your 'life without parole' and shove it.

To be a Liberal at 18 indicates you have a heart. To be a Liberal at 35 means you haven't been mugged yet.

Answer 6

Everything Susan said as an argument against the implementation of DP is simply precluded by "just society." Youre going to have to rely on your own research, not on others that dont know the basic premises of LD.. Otherwise youre going to run things that will be precluded, excluded or simply outweighed..

Answer 7

I believe that the death penalty should only fall on the child molesters/rapists and murderers. As for the dope dealers, they should get the maximum without parole.

Answer 8

The key to debating this will be in how you define "just society".

Answer 9

we need to use it more we now have videos and DNA