<p>Well...if no one deserves to die...why is terri schiavo gonna starve to death?</p>
<p>..lets stop....this is a no win topic</p>
<p>I just want to make these points:
The death penalty doesn't make sense. The whole reason why first degree murder is considered to be such a terrible offense that it can be punished by death is that it isn't supposed to be justified under any circumstances. However, if the government uses the death penalty, then it is implicitly saying that murder IS justified under certain circumstances. In a way, it is like saying that it is justified for people to take the law into their own hands, since that is what the government is doing. </p>
<p>Also, the US and South Africa (and one other country) are the ONLY DEVELOPED NATIONS to still use the death penalty. England, Italy, France, Norway, etc... none of these countries use the death penalty.</p>
<p>Please...getting the death penalty should be considered a luxury to some people. The people convicted atleast have the chance to know when they are to die and can set SOME affairs in order. But did the person who was killed have that luxury?! No....they were killed for no reason by some lunatic in society. Their life was cut short.</p>
<p>that' not a very profound, nor convincing, argument for the death penalty</p>
<p>i wasnt trying to be convincing when i wrote that though....where's your input though if you have something more convincing to say?</p>
<p>ok sorry about that last post.....but the truth is.....every system has its flaws so its pointless to try to change someone's mind over an issue that is not at hand in this country.</p>
<p>one argument against the death penalty is that a system with flaws, as you state, should not give out a perfect or irrevocable punishment. Is such a punishment worth the death of one innocent man? and many more than one innocent prisoner has died from the death penalty...</p>
<p>In most cases with the death penalty, the criminal is guilty. Some innocent people do slip through the cracks and are given the penalty, but I have to wonder why they were charged with a crime if they truly were innocent. What was it that the jury decided that an innocent person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? But to throw out an entire system is a HUGE step. Are we supposed to shack up all these criminals when are prisons are already full? Since it is most likely that the penalty will not be stopped anytime soon....it would probably be a little easier to argue certain types of capital punishment. I think it is Utah, im not sure, that still uses a firing squad...thats a little morbid..ew.</p>
<p>"Some innocent people do slip through the cracks and are given the penalty, but I have to wonder why they were charged with a crime if they truly were innocent"</p>
<p>I was referring to cases where clear exculpatory evidence was discovered after the execution. Wondering why they were found guilty does not bring them back to life nor does it justify the death penalty. If the jury is fallible, why should society allow them to make an indelible judgement. I am sure the families of innocents who were executed find no solace nor meaning in "But to throw out an entire system is a HUGE step" Is not protecting innocent life worth a HUGE Step?</p>
<p>"Are we supposed to shack up all these criminals when are prisons are already full"</p>
<p>It costs the government more money to execute a prisoner than to imprison them for life. Since most of these prisoners are on death row for tens of years (due to appeals - like in California which executed something like only one person on its death row in the past thirty years), it would not further burden the system - in fact it might save some money to open new prisons.</p>
<p>That statistic of saving money by life imprisionment is a number that can be toyed with either side of the argument. It really depends on the time the person went in, what prision they're at, how they are to die, etc.</p>
<p>California is super slow on things. Yes, we've only executed one person because everyone keeps appealing and we don't have enough courts, etc. Lots or arguments for it, I'm not going to make any excuses. Its kind of appalling that that one step is obstructing justice, but anyway.</p>
<p>Juries are fallible, lets go with that. So we should reduce other punishments because it might be a mistake. Maybe we should just get rid of trial by jury and institute three justice tribunals, and force all the justices to have lots of training in all aspects of law, psychology, etc.</p>
<p>The death penalty deters people from comminting crimes. Also, people sometimes commit crimes because jail life is better than life outside the prison walls. We are doing a study in our gov class and have found out that the county jail serves healthier and tastier food than our cafeteria. Go figure that out. If we really want to save money, why don't we look into that...</p>
<p>Jail life varies tremendously from jail to jail. For more information, read "Newjack" by Tim Conover.</p>
<p>The deterent aspect of the death penalty is highly suspect and entirely unproven. If it works so well as a deterent, then why does the US have much higher murder rates than all of the European countries that don't have the death penalty? If the deterent argument were to hold true, then states with no death penalty should have higher murder rates than others, and murder rates should spike when a state makes the death penalty illegal. These scenarios haven't happened. Also, if someone is seized with the passion to kill, do you think that person is really going to stop and think about the death penalty? Unlikely.</p>
<p>I'm sorry to everyone who was fighting with me on this......but I'm getting really tired. I'm gonna just lay this thread on the table....let's face it....i'm conservative...you guys are...well w/e....i was talking about debating in the Harvard forum about how much a waste of energy it is to debate in a forum. We're not gonna change each other's minds...so can we go back to dreaming about Yale?.:)</p>
<p>Haha, well, people always imagine Yalies discussing Kant over lunch... intellectual discussion and whatnot.</p>
<p>For those to-be Yalies with strong anti-death penalty views, Yale does have a Coalition to End the Death Penalty. In addition, the campus ACLU has worked with this issue recently because Michael Ross' execution (which was originally scheduled for January and is currently under very heavy debate) would be the first execution in CT in over 40 years. On 3/10, the a bill to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment without possibility of parole got through a committee vote. For more information, check out <a href="http://cnadp.org/%5B/url%5D">http://cnadp.org/</a> .</p>
<p>"Juries are fallible, lets go with that. So we should reduce other punishments because it might be a mistake. Maybe we should just get rid of trial by jury and institute three justice tribunals, and force all the justices to have lots of training in all aspects of law, psychology, etc."</p>
<p>This is not an argument against my line of reasoning. The only irreversible punishment is the death penalty. That is what I meant by saying it was a "perfect" punishment. Your argument is reductionist, and I could equally argue that death penalty is wrong because we will eventually extend it to crimes like theft and parking violations. Taking things ad infintum does not address the main concern that jury's are fallible, thus why should we allow them to KILL a person? I believe that the death penalty is the correct punishment for a murderer. I don't believe that it can be administered by people without innocent people dying. There are numerous examples of this happening.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In a way, it is like saying that it is justified for people to take the law into their own hands, since that is what the government is doing.
[/quote]
Ummm...the government does have the law in its hands..since it is the government...and they make laws...and prosecute...yeaa</p>
<p>And I'm not saying I support the death penalty, but there are countries where the government punishes people, oftentimes torturing and killing them and they don't go through a just trial. Compared to that, the death penalty is a lot better.</p>
<p>But I agree with whoever said that you can never be 100% sure that someone is guilty. A lot of the times people are even pressured to confess when they're not guilty. THAT I find really messed up..that whole bargaining thing "if you plead guilty you'll get 20 years but if you plead not guilty and then get prosecuted you'll get 50" like...that's just playing with people's minds. You should have to take a chance for your freedom like that.</p>
<p>Yes.... I believe that the ethical issues surrounding the death penalty shouldn't even be significant until there is a 100% accurate way to judge crimes. Until that happens, the first and foremost issue is that lots of innocent people have and will die due to the death penalty.</p>
<p>Unless you're at a school with specific conservative leanings (e.g. Brigham Young, Wheaton, other strongly religious schools), I think you'll find that college students in general tend to be liberal.</p>
<p>Oh and by the way you can never be 100% accurate in judging crimes, or at least all crimes. The jury is going to have prejudices and biases that the lawyers may try to screen in or out, but they are present and it will play a role in deciding guilt. If someone were to be psychic persay, and they said they were 100% sure of whether that person was the killer would the judge accept it? No, because they would be disregared as a quack. What other ways are there to be 100% sure. And even if you can say that they were the killer how do you know that it was premeditated or that they were not mentally unstable?</p>