Why should we have Capital Punishment? in U.S.?

Question

Hey guys I have a debate going on in my class and it's about Capital Punishment. whether it should exist or not and i am for capital punishment, but in order for me to participate in class i need to have strong points. if anyone can help me out that would be great.
Thank You!

Answer 1

You will find a terrific website specifically for students and debaters (on both sides) at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1917
If this is to be a fact based debate, yours is the tougher side.

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. Here is some of you will have to contend with.

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.

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 2

It is a touchy issue and there are points to both sides. I think that truthfully we have executed many innocent people over the years in the country. It is an unfair system where the outcome may depend on how good a lawyer a person can get.

When a person willfully murders another person, they are usually not only taking a life, but ruining the families left behind. The trauma of this is tremendous. And don't say that killing them won't bring the loved one back. It isn't about that. It is about ridding the world of someone who has proven they are not worthy of living in a society.

Death penalty cases should be given only in cases where it is beyond any doubt that the accused is guilty. The argument that it isn't a deterrent is wrong also. It isn't a deterrent the way it is administered now, but if these cases were done quickly, without years of appeals, then it would. People must be held accountable for their actions and the deliberate taking of life deserves likewise.

Answer 3

Absolutely. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime. I am sick to death of all the bleeding hearts who are worried about the rights of the offender. I think that we should be concerned more with the rights of the victim and the families that suffer because of heinous crimes. The biggest problem that I see with the death penalty is that there are no time restraints on the appeals process. Good luck with your arguments and your debate.

Answer 4

The strongest argument would be that it serves as a deterrent for career criminals.

Another would be the overcrowding of prisons.

But be prepared for the opposing argument regarding false imprisonment.

Answer 5

no its wrong!