Do you belive in the death penalty?

Question

i have a debate about the death penalty. I want the death penalty to be abolished or destroyed.Help!!!!!

Answer 1

I agree with you. The most useful source for debaters is at
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1917

In the meantime, here are some q and a's on the death penalty with sources listed below.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?
125 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 2

The death penalty should be used for "cruel & unusual" crimes, serial killers and the string of cops that seem to keep murdering their girlfriends/wives, when there is no doubt as to their guilt.

It's not about wanting to "get back" at someone, it's about protecting our society and not wasting our precious tax dollars on someone who can't be released or rehabilitated.

Yes, you could argue that the punishment itself is cruel & unusual, but in some cases, it is a necessary evil.

In the US it costs roughly $26,000 a year to keep 1 prisoner alive in prison. Not adjusting for inflation, which would make it worse, if someone stays in prison for life, from age 25-85, that costs us 1.3 million dollars, just for that one person.

If they committed truly heinous crimes, beyond a shadow of a doubt (think Jeffrey Dahmer types) where there is no way we would ever let them out, and rehabilitation is out of the question, do us all a favor and use that 1.3 million to do something good in the world.

Yes, I'm sure some innocent people have been killed by accident. By if you examine their "innocence" you often see those individuals are far from being upstanding members of society. Not that they deserved death, but usually they are lowlifes who have committed many other crimes and/or were associated with the actual killer. A necessary risk in my mind.

The biggest need for change in the Death Penalty is how quickly we apply it. It should happen within 6 months of their conviction if there is irrefutable proof.

Answer 3

Lawrence is right ... your argument should be that the death penalty in its current form is too slow to be effective. Why do you think crime rates were so low 100 years ago? Because as soon as a crime was commited ... BAM! Dead. Was it barbaric and harsh, of course it was ... was it effective? You can't argue that. There is a fine line of civility we as a society must walk as a "modern society" and our current methods for reaching the death penalty do fall short, but if we're going to do it at all ... we must be sure there is no other recourse and that the truth of the crime is proven ... if that criteria is met, we have a duty to the criminal to do it swiftly.

Answer 4

In its current state, no. The incessant appeal process that lowers inmates into the gas chamber then reels them back out is tantamount to torture.

I do believe, however, that a swift process would be an effective deterrent to violent crime. Until that happens, let the butchers rot in a rat-infested hell hole.

Answer 5

First your debating skills are way off. You obviously believe in the death penalty, as you have said that you want it not to exist anymore. Therefore, you are cognizant of its existence, and believe in it.

Answer 6

I will decide that when someone tries to break into my house and harm my family. Something else needs to be done with the prison system. They have it too easy. But I don't have an answer.

Answer 7

I believe everything depends on the case and the person.

Answer 8

Sorry, you and I are on opposite sides of this one. I can't help you with your debate.

Answer 9

I believe some offenders like men who rape, torture, and murder any type of human they can get their hands on need to be put down like the filthy dogs they are.........................

Answer 10

yes i do