"A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment." Do you agree or disagree?

Question

This is for my debate class, I praticipate in Lincoln Douglas style of debate, and just brainstorming basic ideas such as "people who ae innocent" "its to expensicve' the more logically arguements but i was just wondering, if any one has more ideas about it when im sure they do. If at all possible could you also tell me the source for i can provide te tangible evidence. Thanks for all the help

Answer 1

My biggest problem with the death penalty is that it has never been applied equitably. Poor people, and dark skinned people are more likely to be executed than rich, or white people.

For example, Regardless of whether he did it or not, O.J Simpson would be sitting on death row right now if he were not rich and famous. He got off, not because he was innocent, and CERTAINLY NOT, be cause he was black. He got off because he had enough money to afford Johnny Cochran, and F. Lee Bailey.

Answer 2

I disagree. I have a great source that I hope you will carefully read in its entirely (linked below). So I won't go into too much detail here. Just to prepare you for the reading though, the question is really one about determining the proper goal of punishment. The article that I linked proposes three rationales given for punishment: restitution, deterrence and rehabilitation. The writer goes on to argue that restitution is the only goal that is not arbitrary or barbaric.

The question of punishment (capital or otherwise) lies between the person convicted of the crime and those injured by the crime (including next of kin).

I hope that you enjoy the read!

Addition: I read the other comments that were written while I searched for my link and drafted my response. A common complaint is the danger of executing an innocent person. I agree that this is a risk and is the reason why the U.S. justice system has traditionally adopted the philosophy of "innocence until proven guilty". That mistakes are made even in the best system and that our system seems to be drifting toward more innocent convictions (a by-product of a monopoly on justice) are separate issues. They do not change the philosophical basis for my response. However, these factors should certainly be considered when sentencing.

Answer 3

You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people.

In q and a form (good to have in mind for a debate) here are some facts about the practical aspects of the death penalty system, with sources 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 and can’t guarantee we won’t execute 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. When the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs mount up even before trial, continuing through the uniquely complicated trial (actually 2 separate trials, one to decide guilt and the second to decide the punishment) 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 4

I don't think we should use the death penalty but not because I disagree with killing certain criminals. I think certain ones should be put to death. The problem is that there are too many examples of convicted death row inmates being proven not guilty after further evidence was found and examined such as DNA evidence. certain criminals are beyond rehabilitation and their crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty. Rape and murder of a child should get the death penalty. Treason, serial murder and a few other crimes should also get the death penalty. If we're going to have the death penalty though the burden of proof should be greater than just beyond a reasonable doubt. They should have to definitively prove beyond any doubt that the person is guilty and it couldn't have been anybody else. It is bad enough when society sentences the wrong person for a crime to a jail term. When society sentences the wrong person to death it is murder.

Answer 5

i believe in the death penalty for the most extreme cases, where there is no doubt involved.

My theory is this: Some crimes are so horrendous (and generally these are the types of crimes that have been preceeded by years and years of other horrible crimes) as to render you no longer human. What I mean is that you clearly have not capacity to relate as a human being anymore. You just can't do it, you have no compassion, regard, empathy, respect, etc.

So you can no longer be trusted, you should be eliminated from society completely. Serial child predators are the best example of this. No one has ever cured a pedophile, all agree is just isn't possible.

Answer 6

If we 'were' a 'just' society the death penalty would not be riddled with appeals forever. Once a jury convicted some one of a crime that received the death penalty, that person should be put to death within a week. And to make it better they should pre-empt all TV shows and televise it. No one will sit around in prison watching TV, goofing off, eating good food for years and years at taxpayers expense. It is a waste of money. With the advent of DNA testing we should never have to put up with prisoners for more than a week for capital crimes. They will never commit those crimes again. If they are convicted of murder and such and end up getting a parole, very few will end up getting work that is profitable because not many companies will hire them and they will end up committing more crimes. Be convicted and sit around in jail at taxpayers expense for more years. This is just my opinion, but they can't come back from the grave to commit any more crimes.

Answer 7

Here's my 2 cents worth:

My ultimate objection to the death penalty is this: No system of law enforcement/jurisprudence is perfect. That being the case, as long as we have the death penalty, we will be killing some people who are innocent. And that is the most fundamental injustice possible.

There is ample evidence to support this, incidentally. In a number of states (my home, Georgia, is one) legal advocates have proved a number of inmates on death row are innnocent o the crimes they were convicted of. If you do a little digging oon the Internet, you can get some of these cases to cite toback up the point.

Answer 8

Good morning Austin... I use to believe in the death penalty years ago, I thought it was necessary when it came to the brutal crimes that some individuals had committed. Now that I have witnessed so many die from the death penalty and years later the forensic department found evidence of innocence, I have changed my mind on the death penalty all together. There is always that small chance that someone could be innocent. Have a good day!

Answer 9

Winning a debate with a Weenie can never be done -- because many people can't admit they've lost an argument. And that's mostly a Liberal's make-up... they just scream, and call the opposing viewpoint names, like 'stupid' or in-bred, etc. etc. (and can't see reality if it was painted across their heads).

For all of history -- society has known how to deal with a killer. Our society think its giving him cable-TV, and causing grief for jail-employees and murdering AGAIN in jail, etc. etc. (something your opposition will never talk about, because out of sight is 'out of mind'). Some people are simply evil -- some crimes are so deprived that the person should be eliminated as soon as possible.

Find a few, and ask them if Life in jail, is enough? What should happen, is that this world should be rid of a person who'd do the extent of harm, and pre-meditate a torture or killing, etc. -- upon another human being.

Answer 10

What are the alternatives? Keep someone behind bars for the rest of their lives and put the lives of others at risk? (prison guards, lawyers, other inmates, etc.)

I'm on the fence with the death penalty. I kind of see it as a necessary evil until we can decrease the problems that lead up to someone committing a horrible crime. I don't buy the Republican's rhetoric that some people are evil. That is too simple minded for myself. We do a horrible job at dealing with mental illness in the states and we don't do enough to stop bullying out in public and at home. Our educational system is outdated and needs improvement.

Answer 11

The operative words here are "just society"... that's a subjective phrase. I hear of horrifying crimes and think the perpetrator needs to be removed from society, but not sure if death is appropriate punishment. I do not think that solitary confinement for life would be cruel or unusual considering that their victims were murdered. The drawback is that the state pays for their upkeep, but I guess I would rather do that than have a death on my own conscience.