Edadevletsah's Waterfall
There is no better way to help the families of murder victims. The murder affects more than one person. Put yourself in the victim's shoes. Imagine losing your child due to murder. For example, the mother of Brandon Teena, a transgender murder victim whose story was the basis of the film "Boys Don't Cry," said life in prison without parole isn't enough for the man convicted of killing the 21-year-old and two other people in 1993. "I want him to die," Joann Brandon said of death-row inmate John Lotter. "It will bring some closure to me. It bothers me every day because I think about my daughter constantly and I don't see any justice being done for her.
"He was sentenced to die. He should have died a long time ago."
Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death... life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder.
Ted Bundy exhausted every single legal point he and his lawyers could think of to spare him execution. He “defended” himself in prison interviews by blaming pornography for causing his uncontrollable actions, and for causing him to think of women as objects and not humans. When that didn’t work, he pretended to come clean and tell police where the bodies of unfound victims were, so that their families could have closure. He never once admitted that he was a bad person, and just before his execution, he claimed that he hadn’t done anything wrong. It was obvious that he feared being put to death. He did his best to avert it. This means that he did not fear life in prison. He had many opportunities to kill himself in his cell, but he did not. This suggests us that many prisoners and criminals like him are afraid of death, and this may decrease the amount of crime within the US.
http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/
No, I am not agreeing with you. I have clearly stated in my argument that in a long term period, executing a criminal costs more than keeping them in prison. Please read the entire post.
I disagree. Imagine a close friend, or maybe a relative of yours being murdered. There are many victims of a single murder. The criminal gets caught, tried, and convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe. But the person he has killed no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived his family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the murder. It may not end with the murderer’s execution, but the execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal—a feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives on. A system in place for the purpose of granting justice cannot do so for the surviving victims, unless the murderer himself is put to death.
Our 6th point mentions the religious point of view. The doctrines of the world’s majority religions, which is to say the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran, have occurrences where the death penalty is supported. If the Bible and Torah are any indication, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21:23-25) makes it very clear what a religious conservative’s opinion on the death penalty should be. In seeing a religious conservative’s point of view, who are they to argue with the word of God? As a result, the death penalty has and will continue to be one of the strongest arguments for death penalty, especially in countries where religious doctrine has a strong influence on legal doctrine, such as countries within the Middle East, Israel, and even the United States.
Our 5th point is that how some criminals are truly above the law in that their influence can reach the outside world even if they are behind bars. For example, criminals such as Pablo Escobar, a criminal so ruthless he allegedly mailed witnesses invitations to their own funerals, was not only able to control his criminal empire from a luxurious prison, but he was also able to escape with a disturbing level of ease. Some criminals are truly above the law, in that their influence can reach the outside world even if they are behind bars. For this reason, some criminals are simply too dangerous to live at all.
http://akorra.com/2010/03/04/
Forget all arguments against and for death penalty, and the people who wage this war of beliefs on the internet, in print, and in courtrooms. Forget the rights of the criminal, forget the judge, forget the legal aspect of trying and punishing a criminal completely. As long as you remember the victims. While what constitutes an offense punishable by death differs around the globe, there is still one constant between these offenses: someone is harmed. With murder being the worst of all offenses, the victim is far from the only one to suffer. The family and friends of a victim will have to live with not only the pain of losing a loved one, but they must recognize that the person responsible for their loss still lives while the victim does not. Long after a death row sentence has been handed down, a criminal still eats and breathes (Like Ted Bundy who even fathered children.) Victims of murder cannot avenge themselves, only the law and those closest to the victim can do this. A victim’s family feels, rightfully so, that they are obligated to attain justice for the victim. If you’ve never lost a loved one to violence, consider for a moment the person you love most is taken away from you because a criminal wanted their money, or just wanted to know what it felt like to take a life. I don’t imagine there’d be anyway you could truly have your mind at ease without some level of retribution. It isn’t possible to bring back a loved one lost to violence, but bringing peace of mind, a remarkably priceless thing, may be the only true consolation a legal system can provide.
Our third point is how executing a criminal may be a more humane option and how financially could be better for the society. Executing a criminal may seem like a more humane option. A criminal sentenced to life without parole will never again see daylight, and will have to consider the consequences of their crime until the day they die. From an emotional standpoint, ending this suffering for a prisoner could be considered a mercy. Executing a prisoner, is far more expensive than simply imprisoning them for life. Statistically, this is true. Deathpenaltyinfo.org reports that in the state of Maryland, it can cost up to $37 million to execute a death row inmate rather than keeping them alive and imprisoned annually at around $1 million per year. However, while the execution figures factor in costs of an inmate’s numerous appeals, the figures representing the cost to keep a prisoner alive per year do not. Given that those sentenced to life without parole have an indefinite period of time to appeal, unlike a death row inmate, in the long run the financial cost of housing a lifer will easily surpass the cost of housing a death row inmate.
http://akorra.com/2010/03/04/
Errors will occur in any justice system, but the through due process of executions, above the process of any other punitive measure, may make the margin for error in capital punishment cases that much smaller. It’s far more likely that those facing death are actually guilty of their crime as a result. For example, Saddam Hussein was captured and tried via an Iraqi tribunal in 2005, he still remained a threat; one of his tribunal judges was assassinated before the trial even began. Charles “Lucky” Luciano, possibly the most successful organized crime leader in history, continued to control American organized crime long after his exile to Italy. For this reason, some criminals are simply too dangerous to live at all.
Executing a criminal may seem like a more humane option. A criminal sentenced to life without parole will never again see daylight, and will have to consider the consequences of their crime until the day they die. From an emotional standpoint, ending this suffering for a prisoner could be considered a mercy.
The death penalty saves lives of innocent people; in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new researched which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because other criminals were deterred from committing murder. The death penalty certainly stops the murderer who is executed. This is similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in prison, or in society. The death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/
The 8th Amendment states that cruel and unusual punishment should not be allowed. But by saying that life in prison is more cruel, you are supporting cruel punishments.
I agree. Criminals should face charges in order to keep the society safe. In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new researched which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because other criminals were deterred from committing murder. The death penalty certainly stops the murderer who is executed. This is similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in prison, or in society. The death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/
This does not make sense. In your opening statement, you have stated that executing a criminal is more humane than keeping them in prison for a lifetime. Now, you are saying that executing is not humane.
According to a research that measured the yearly homicide rate according to number of executions between the years of 1950 and 2002, the amount of murder increased as the rate of executions and death penalty went down. This is because many criminals were not afraid to kill as states paused the death penalty. This supports our argument and first point.
The 8th Amendment is a controversial topic within the United States and globally. Some citizens believe that cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty should be banned, while others believe that the death penalty is essential for a safe society. In this argument, we will be discussing the key points on why the death penalty should be allowed, how important it is for a victim’s justice, and how executing a criminal may be a more humane option. We will also talk about how it’s far more likely that those facing death are actually guilty of their crime as a result and how some criminals are truly above the law in that their influence can reach the outside world even if they are behind bars. At the end of this debate, we hope you will understand why the death penalty should be allowed under the 8th amendment.
Women should also be able to allowed to do combat. There are females that have performed valiantly in combat. Women have died in defense of this great country. If you served, you served, regardless of what capacity. You raised your right hand when others wouldn’t or couldn’t. Therefore, women should be allowed to do combat and take part in battles just as being in the same training environment as men.
I totally disagree, women should also be able to allowed to do combat. I am not sexist. I know for a fact that there are females that have performed valiantly in combat. Women have died in defense of this great country. If you served, you served, regardless of what capacity. You raised your right hand when others wouldn’t or couldn’t. I don’t care whether you wear a sports bra or a jock strap; you have my utmost respect for serving.
I agree, women should also be able to allowed to do combat. I am not sexist. I know for a fact that there are females that have performed valiantly in combat. Women have died in defense of this great country. If you served, you served, regardless of what capacity. You raised your right hand when others wouldn’t or couldn’t. I don’t care whether you wear a sports bra or a jock strap; you have my utmost respect for serving.
I agree, women should also be able to allowed to do combat. I am not sexist. I know for a fact that there are females that have performed valiantly in combat. Women have died in defense of this great country. If you served, you served, regardless of what capacity. You raised your right hand when others wouldn’t or couldn’t. I don’t care whether you wear a sports bra or a jock strap; you have my utmost respect for serving.
I disagree and believe that men should be able to control their own manners in sexual ways. They should focus on their own training and understand what is important which is fighting and training for their country.
Are you supporting that women cannot do specific activities because they are not as physically strong? I believe that women have goals too and saying that men would get distracted by working in the same environment as women is sexist.
No, women and male should not be separate in training. Women have just as equal rights as men and are just as strong. Separating men and women would be a case of non-equal rights.
