Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.?

Question

I just want some questions for the debate. I also need opinions, both negative AND positive. And some tips about debating.
Please help!

Answer 1

A just society would not need laws either because everyone would be just and act justly toward others.

How else can a society show that they are
serious about those who are breaking the law?

Parents cannot even spank their kids to dicipline them, according to the government, so they let them grow up and break the law and kill them.

The death penalty is good and should be carried out within 30 days not years later.

Answer 2

You can check out http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1917
which is specifically intended for debaters and students.
One question to ask is whether a just society should use a system of dubious value in preventing or reducing crime, while, at the same time, risking the execution of innocent people. How can we countenance a system whose worst mistakes are totally irreversible, knowing that however just the society, people do make mistakes.

Here are some other questions and answers, 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, which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, 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 not speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 3

First of all, it's not a deterrent to 1st degree murder - a number of studies have clearly shown that.

The U.S. is among a small number of nations (most of them fairly backward and unsavory) that still use capital punishment.

The death penalty is imposed more often percentage-wise upon poor minorities convicted of murder than it is upon more economically well off whites.

The cost of a death penalty trial is so high that the money spent trying to convict under those circumstances (juries are usually reluctant to put someone to death unless the evidence is overwhelming) could be used to support the inmate for life.

In recent years a startlingly high number of death row inmates have been exonerated by DNA evidence showing that they were falsely convicted. Some people actually say that executing an innocent person is a tolerable mistake; that it's the price we must pay for law and order. I wonder how they'd feel if THEY were falsely accused and convicted and sitting on Death Row!

The most important tip about debating is to stick to arguing the subject, don't attack your opponent or his/her integrity or education.

Answer 4

My friend , i used to be one of those who kept yelling - hang 'em high but since i have grown older i've come to the conclusion that the death penalty is ' getting off easy'. It is much more of a punishment to lock somebody up in a 4by 8 cell- let him out once a week to have a shower so he wont stink up the place and feed him well so he may have a long long life in there and make sure he never ever get's out.

Answer 5

I don't see how the death penalty could be a punishment, however I can't see keeping dangers to society alive. In other words, I think the death penalty should be used to permanently remove those people so depraved as to be a danger to everyone around them. Pedophiles spring to mind. Only if it's absolutely proven, or he/she admits to it, but pedophiles definitely lose their right to live in my book.

Answer 6

Hey, I vote to end the death penalty... just as soon as the Phantom zone becomes a reality.

Answer 7

All through out the Bible God tells the Israelites to stone (kill) people for many things.

Why should a murderer live and eventually go free when his victim will never live and the victims family has to suffer with this for the rest of their life.

Laws can't make someone moral. Laws can only try to protect morality

Answer 8

Honestly, I think if you are going to serve life in prison anyways, I'd rather have you dead than be paying for you to live. And whatever crime they did to deserve life in prison, they probaly aren't worth kepping alive anyways. Prisons are overcrowded as it is. I'm not really a mean person, but come on. I think it's ridiculous that most prisoners live a better life than I do.

I agree with rebecca. I think it's disgusting that child molesters are getting 4-5 years in prison, only to get out and repeat offend. sick.

Answer 9

I could give a damn about crime causing human scum.
I support the death penalty, saudi arabian style. http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/8.html

Executions are beheading. Normally carried out in public, with a sword.