DEBATE TOPIC: How do you feel about capital punishment? (Death penalty)?

Question

give arguments for/against

Answer 1

Fry those f*ckers so I don't have to support them while they live in jail.

Answer 2

The best source for this is at the Death Penalty Information Center (website below) There you will find a resource specifically for debates, at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1917

In the meantime, you don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. Your question is much too important to settle without answers to these.
124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't 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 don’t.

We have a good alternative. 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.

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.

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?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. 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.

Problems with speeding 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'm against it simply because it's too easy for a person to be wrongfully convicted in the U.S. on circumstantial evidence, and the appeal process is so strict that you would practically have to convict another person before an innocent person can be freed. Sometimes a judge might decide to not allow for exculpatory evidence to be presented, and a jury won't know about that exculpatory evidence.
Imagine if you were at home minding your own business when the police show up and ask you to come to the station to answer some questions about a murder that you previously knew nothing about. Then before you know it you're arrested and charged with 1st degree murder, tried, and sentenced to death. It's happened, and who knows how many innocent people have been executed. Aaron Patterson of Chicago, for example, was sentenced to death and spent years in prison, only to be pardoned in 2001 or 2002, but imagine if an appelate judge decided to not even hear his case?
I can understand how it seems reasonable for a person who commits murder to be sentenced to death, but I don't feel the U.S. justice system is flawless enough to be given the empowered with the ability to snuff the life out of somebody. This isn't about caring more about the criminal than the victim, this is about making sure the person really and truly is the one who perpetrated the crime.

Answer 4

Ideally, I would like to see the criminals get mortally punished when they commit a crime. It would serve them right to mess around in society, especially a major crime that needs to be punished.

But, the laws that are applied are not are always done so the correct way. Mistakes are made as there have been innocent people that are on deathrow. We can't go around getting retribution towards the innocent. Of course, that it is rare, but does happen on occassions.

The system needs to be improved as much as the criminals need to be punished. As long the system has flaws, we need to stay put with our emotions for getting justice in the name of capital punishment.

Answer 5

against. El Guapo has lined this very thouroughly. i could only upload 3 factors and components for the two our solutions- The demise penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, yet for defendants with the worst attorneys. It does not persist with to those with money. whilst is the final time a wealthy individual became into on demise row, no longer to show completed? The demise penalty does not inevitably help families of homicide sufferers. homicide sufferer kinfolk around the rustic argue that the drawn-out demise penalty technique is painful for them and that existence with out parole is an appropriate option. problems with dashing up the approach. Over 50 of the harmless human beings released from demise row had already served over a decade. If the approach is sped up we are confident to execute an harmless individual.

Answer 6

If undeniable proof warrants the death penalty, then "yes, do it."

Those vicious criminals have waived all their rights once they committed the crime and were found guilty by a jury of their peers.

I am sick and tired of lawyers who want to continue to defend a criminal who has no evidence of being not guilty, and all the proof in the world that they are guilty, only so they can up the ante and get more money.

Meanwhile, the guilty party sits in his prison cell with room and board payed for by you and I.

I think if a person is found undeniably guilty of a crime that warrants the death penalty, then there should be no other consideration and he/she should be executed within 45 days of being found guilty.

They new the punishment before they committed they crime. Now is the time to answer for your own actions.

Consideration must be given to the possibility of true insanity. In which case, an assylum, with no possibility of parole. They must have a certain degree of insanity to have committed such a crime to begin with.

I believe in making laws of punishement and then not waivering from them.

Answer 7

I am all for the Death penalty. I feel once you have been convicted of a crime that has sentenced you to death then it should be carried out. Don't cry to me about the rights of the criminal, because they did not give a damn about the rights of their victims or their families. Giving these people years and years of appeals is crap. It should be one strike you are out of here for good. I know this may sound cold to some but it has always how I believe. There are crimes that there should be no parole for ever. and if you are convicted to die then it should be carried out.

Answer 8

I agree with it... without consquences in this world people will go crazy... i think it should be inforced more... so that way people will begin to think twice about commiting murder. I also would in a prison and i see inmates everyday that have done horrible crimes and dont seem to have any remorse or guilt! Murder is sad cuase that persons life is over... so y not take the persons life that took theres... ?

Answer 9

It should be enforced 30 days after the sentence is handed down. If you take a life, expect your life to be forfeit. To answer easter bunny, its a matter of innocence and guilt. A child is innocent, while a murderer is old enough to know what they did.

Answer 10

For it. I'm tired of this country caring more about the rights of criminals than they do for the victim of a deadly crime. Those who rape & murder children especially shouldn't be given any mercy. They should also change the appealing process. How come a killer can appeal for 20 years while a victim can never appeal to anything? That's bogus & that's has to change.

Answer 11

if they got the death penalty for their crime then they need to be put to death asap! look at california, they have over 500 people on death row yet tax payers are paying for them while they're still alive.
then when it's the time for someone to die there's political arguements that it's inhumane.

i.e it was several years before timothy mccvae to be put to death, when it was time they said giving him the shot was crude and no human needs to be treated like that...yet he murdered hundreds of people.