Death penalty debate?

Question

ok i got my topic but i need some help with it. heres the resoulution, Resolved:the death penalty penalty should be abolished in the united states.
any pros and cons or opinions will help my partner and i greatly.

Answer 1

I was pro-death penalty 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 2

This topic is much too important for sound bites. 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. Here is some information about the practical aspects, 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 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 3

I am pro death penalty as a general philosophy, but there are too many problems with how it is carried out in the USA for me to support it in practice.

- There have been MANY (not just one or two) cases of individuals being found innocent of the crime after spending years on death row. In some cases, the police have gone so far as to manufacture or hide evidence. And, even in cases when their is no maleficence by the police, a lot of pressure is put on witnesses (by police and DAs) to be more 'sure' than they really are. There are even cases when the star witness of the prosecution is in fact the guilty party.

- The death penalty is unfairly applied. If you are poor or a minority, you are far more likely to end up on death row. This is usually a factor of not being able to afford good lawyers. But, there are other inherent racial or social biases in the legal system.

- The death penalty is also unevenly applied by the DAs and judges for political reasons. Often, DA's and judges are looking to make a name for themselves will seek or support the death penalty because they want to look tough to the voters or to other political leaders. The death penalty should only be applied in the most severe conditions, never to get a promotion.

You might ask, why am I 'pro' given everything I have said. My feeling is that if we can KNOW that someone is guilty of a horrible crime, something that will put them away for the rest of their lives. Then, why keep them alive? What purpose does it serve to leave those people in jail? But, this should be limited to those where the evidence is overwhelming and the crime particulary horrible (a Dalmer or Gacey).

Answer 4

I live in Texas and it is no secret we are the execution capital of the USA . Fact is we come close to being the worlds. People argue like it is in the Bible. That's the Old Testament not the new, so hard for a Christan to honestly argue that. They argue it would cost too much to put the worst in a maxium security facility with life with out parole. There is only a few hundred condemned prisoners right now and if we had a mass execution of them all it would be a drop in the bucket in our prison system. We have more prisoners than anywhere in the country. Which says something about our system of prisons and the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. Each execution cost's thousands to millions more than housing the losers for life in a special maxium security prison would. And we have possibly executed several innocent people. Which is something none of us like to admit. What are we supposed to do? Dig 'em up and say gee fella we are sorry. Will you forgive us? Little late ain't it? I honestly feel some of the worst killers want the death penalty, they are complete losers and it gives them their 15 minutes of fame. So there you have my opinion. It costs way too much, it debases our state's reputation, and it brutalizes our society, it has no deterrence and actually emotionally rewards some of these idiots. The money we spend on it could be spent on a lot more useful things in Texas.

Answer 5

Prisons are full. Murderers up for death penalty have no conscience. Families they have ruined will not miss them! Druggies, robbers and animal abusers are getting WORSE treatment than murderers!! Raise your hand if you're confused!! Go to your local library and look up 'death penaltys in your state and other states' to get a real idea of the issue. The people that have REAL opinions can't change it. The people who don't have families that have been permanetly damaged are running the countries and debating about it!! Good luck!

Answer 6

cons
With no death penalty what would discourage a person serving life, from killing a guard or other persons. he is already doing life. Also people should know if they shoot a cop they get the death penalty.

Also the death of the person can give some closure to a rape/murder victims family, because then they know an appeal wont get the person out.


Pros- there are an enormous number of innocent people in jail, most are poor.

Answer 7

As long as there is no guarantee that a person convicted and sentenced to capitol punishment is indeed the guilty party, the death penalty should not be legal. The innocence project is monthly finding persons who have been duely convicted of a felony offense but can now be proven to not have committed that offense. Those people can be released with a very weak apology. A person executed is a person society can not offer a "take back" and an "I'm sorry". As proven in the "Thin Blue Line" case in Texas, all who are convicted and sentenced are not guilty. Luckily, thanks to local journalists that death row inmate was cleared and released before he was executed.

Answer 8

I am against the death penalty, here is why:

If killing people is wrong, you don't kill people.

Mistakes happen. DNA testing proved that 30 % of the people on Illinois' death row were INNOCENT of the crimes they were going to die for, that is innocent blood and you do not ever want blood on your hands, ever.

People like the death penalty. They like it. It appeals to the worst element of human nature, blood lust. It sets a bad example of killing people and suggests to some unstable people among the population that killing people is OK.

States and countries without the death penalty have lower violent crime rates than those that do, because appealing to blood lust stimulates blood lust.

Dangerous types can be kept isolated from the population in prisons for as long as necessary. The time there is not pleasant, they are paying for their crimes. And if God forbid an innocent person has been sent there, they can be freed and given some compensation. A California man was recently released from prison after serving 28 years (think of it!!) for a crime that DNA testing proved he could not have committed. But at least he was alive.

Answer 9

Cons:
It is a states rights issue, and you will be violating the 10th and 14th amendment if you make it a federal government issue.

Our prisons are already overcrowded, we do not need to keep those killers and rapists in there for longer.

It costs the state to feed, house, and protect them, it will just cost more to do so.

Why on earth would you abolish it? I dont see how it can be considered "cruel and unusual," No one else gets to know they are going to simply die peacfully in their sleep. People die painful and violent deaths every day, Why do they get these simple pain-free deaths? their victims didnt die that way.

When the death penalty was abolished in California, many peoples sentences were lightened. CHARLES MANSON is serving life WITH the possibility of parole. He was originally sentenced to death.

Answer 10

death penalty should continue
states are not in the business of revenge, they are in the business of punishing criminals, that is what this is about

DNA is more correct than the writer of the other comment knows.

is is possible an innocent person will get death, sure, but a lot more criminals get it. Is it right for the innocent to die, no, but it is the best legal system we have it is what we use and no system is perfect.

an finally, as one pointed out, for some crimes, death is a reasonable punishment.

I would that parents would discipline the kids so that they don't grow up to be criminals. But since they do not, that is when government goes in with what we call retro-abortion, we kill them after the fact since that is proper.

geez, kids these days, want to be criminal, post it on youtube and not pay for their action