The other side is for the death penelty so they will ask me questions like ....If somone came in and killed your family would you want they dead? Since I am against it how woauld i answer that question?
2007-12-14 04:35:27 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Here is a terrific website for debaters or students: 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. I have included something about families of victims below.
125 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 those 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.
Among these are people who support the death penalty in theory but no that the legal process forces them to relive their terrible story over and over, and in public.
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.
2007-12-14 15:04:52 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are against it then you should already know why. Forgivness, love, compassion, all that crap that will fly out the window as soon as someone you love is lying dead on the kitchen floor, but only an emotion can override natural instinct so, forgiveness is your best bet. I'm for the death penalty, I would do it myself if I had to, but for the sake of your debate, if its wrong to kill its wrong to kill regardless. Thats the only logical excuse people ever give for keeping these losers around and breathing while I pay for them to eat 3 times a day.
2007-12-14 12:40:58 · answer #2 · answered by E.F. Hutton 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two wrongs don't make a right.....The only difference in Murder & the death penalty is one is LEGAL murder & the other is illegal murder.
As far as the family question, you can answer with....ya know, I can't answer that question....because that has not and I pray that it will NEVER happen to my family.
Ask them if they would like to be the one that pushed the button on the electric chair? If they could live with themselves knowing that they committed LEGAL murder!
I had the same debate in high school! Good luck!!!
2007-12-14 12:41:21 · answer #3 · answered by castlequeen 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Many families of murder victims don't believe in the death penalty. Here are some reasons:
1) they don't believe that another killing solves anything
2) they know that the victim did not believe in the death penalty
3) they would rather the murderer rot in prison for life, a fate worse than death
2007-12-14 12:42:40 · answer #4 · answered by mom 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
death penality is too easy. One injection and their suffering is over, while the suffering of the family goes on.
In some cases, psychologists can learn from the murderers, particularly those with low iqs, emotional problems and brain injuries.
What happens if you convict and kill the wrong person. That is murder, so do you then execute the judge and jury and executioner?
It is a form of condoned killing, and it promotes the idea that it's ok to kill if the government says its ok to kill. Promotes a violent society that in turn, produces more killers.
2007-12-14 12:39:57 · answer #5 · answered by Fancy That 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the issue is that it wrong as much as it is that there have been way too many people released from prison including death row that were found to be innocent to believe that the state is responsible enough to have this power.
2007-12-14 12:39:58 · answer #6 · answered by 7 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If somone came in and killed your family would you want they dead?
If someone robbed my house I might want them dead. If someone cuts me off in traffic, I might wish them dead. Is this truly the measure we want for putting some one to death?
We should not sentence people to death for emotional reasons.
2007-12-14 12:41:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's the ultimate punishment, they don't use dna evidence in some cases, how can you be 100% sure they committed the crime...
I support the death penalty however.
Good luck!
2007-12-14 12:38:24 · answer #8 · answered by Andy U 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
People are wrongly convicted in this country every day. It woud be morally wrong to kill someone who didn't committ the crime.
Google this topic. There are TONs of essays on the subject.
2007-12-14 12:38:51 · answer #9 · answered by Itsa Secret 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Simple.. Two wrong do not make a right. Killing another human will not bring those people back to life.
2007-12-14 12:43:06 · answer #10 · answered by angel 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋