Sunkweonim's Waterfall
As stated, the death penalty is cruel and and unusual as the way that the execution is held out is cruel and wrong with how it tortures them to death. They give that medicine which will paralyze people so they won't feel it but it sometimes doesn't work. Electric chair is not humane as putting through 2000 volts is cruel so is other ways. This is always cruel and unusual punishment.
The argument is not about abortion. It is about cruel and unusual punishment of death penalty.
This isn't proven by stats. Psychology is a type of science where answer can be always different.
Killing someone is wrong, but killing the murderer is wrong too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
How is getting shot by the firing squad and dying by suffocation in a gas chamber like how the nazi's did is humane and okay punishment?
http://edition.cnn.
According to a lawyer and a senator of Nebraska, Les Seiler said “I think you can make an argument that it will deter somebody from committing murder, but when you use it in every 19 or 18 years, it's not a deterrence.”
Sodium pentothal is not made any more and the doesn't have the stock. The drug the government will use now is midazolam and it showed flaws like what happened in Oklahoma.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/29/
The supreme court already made a case that stated that death penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment in the case Furman v. Georgia. Although it has been overturned, the precedent that stated that it is cruel is one that we should pay attention.
They are not killing a baby, they are kill the unborn fetus. There is still an argument such as abortion and should be about the death penalty. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/
Having a good lawyer or not has a huge impact on the outcome as well. www. aclu.org/case-against-death-penalty (link from tom canino)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
A 2010 poll by Lake Research Partners found a clear majority of voters (61%) would choose a punishment other than the death penalty for murder.
It happened once, and it doesn't matter of the quantity, but what happened to one person.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/29/
The patent is dead in the view of the science and everyone. Taking the life support is not giving them a drug to kill him, but rather to let nature take its course. http://www.webmd.
The alternative to the death penalty is life in prison without parole. They can't go out to the world.
http://edition.cnn.
If you haven't noticed, the death row inmates are kept in jail for a 19 years.
Although this debate is about execution, the time of the death row is also unconstitutional as the people are constantly tortured by the thought of dying today or tomorrow.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/16/
This debate is not about crimes that will happen in the jail itself, however about if the death penalty is cruel or not.
He is not stating that the government is killing the mass population like a genocide. It is about the criminal, as wrong of a person as he is, the word you have to focus on is person. He is a human like no matter what, and killing him, from the government that is suppose to protect him is wrong.
How is giving people to death and the better alternative and a cheaper alternative life in prison without parole any different?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/
They are both excluding them from the society. Also the source you have posted is invalid as it does not source their arguments and is not a reliable source.
The person is not uncouncious as shown by the case of Clayton Locket, whom was talking when he died of a heart attack. Also stated by Dr. Zivot, anesthesiologist in Emory University, “I’ll tell you that lethal injection won’t work. Even if it looks like it works it won’t satisfy the question of cruelty. To my view, lethal injection is no less cruel than any other method per se. Only reason why lethal injection appears to be less cruel is because of paralyzing drugs for example, where they just don’t move around, there is no spilling of blood, and there is no sound. This is like a theater. It is the appearance that is being created here. Curtains going up and down feels very unseemly.”
He stated that it is all an act and we do not know if he is feeling the pain or not.
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/
I do not agree to this point as it is not proven to deter any crime, shown by the murder rate.
The states has used ways of execution such as electric chair that will put through 2000 volts of electricity through a person or even getting shot by the firing squad. How is this not cruel as it tortures the victim to death?
is about the criminal, not about the crime he has committed. Giving back the killing is not right, as in a saying two wrongs don’t make a right. Also, crimes like treason isn't a crime that would harm the majority so this claim is invalid.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/
The murder rate has not declined in states that doesn't have the death penalty. In 2011, states with death penalty’s murder rate was 4.89% out of 100,000 people and states without death penalty was 4.13%. In the past years, the murder rate was always lower in states without death penalty. Saying death penalty will prevent homicides is irrelevant.
Doctors looks at data to confirm that the patent is dead such as no heartbeat for a long time or brain dead and is alive by machines. It is different from killing people and taking the right to live. Right to live is a universal human right.
The opposition might say that the lethal drug will eliminate the cruel and unusual punishment as it makes them die peacefully. I, in the other hand want to declare that it is false as it has many flaws such as drug failure or vein failure which will make it painful and cruel. Other forms of execution such as electrocution chair is inhumane as it tortures the victim to death.
This might not be effective as the people won't think about ideas.
They might not be able to stop it, but they can move to other planets.
We aren't talking about speed of light. They are talking about the travel rather than time travel.
Debt is invalid if the earth is destroyed. Money is just a piece of paper that has value in the present not in the future.
Governments 500 years ago spent incredible amount of money to find sea routes to America. If they thought to spend it in something in the country, how do you think the world will be now?
Human personality is to explore new things. When everything in earth is done exploring, we go into space to learn new things.
People went to the moon 50 years ago. How is this valid in the modern day space exploration?
Going to the moon happened 50 years ago so this is invalid. Going to mars is used to find a new habitat for human beings.
Don't use slang in a debate as I believe this is a formal argument
US isn't leading these explorations, but using more of other countries funds.
Our earth is being affected by global warming and pollution. This will make earth impossible to live. Do you believe space is not a easy solution with earth not recoverable?
Like I said in Dany's, the technologies we learnt to go into space is used in everyday lives. For example, our tvs use LED, which came from space exploration.
According to NASA, these are the technology from the space exploration. LED was made from space exploration.
Space exploration is worth it as the technology is used in many places, not only in space exploration. Second of all, earth will in future would be uninhabitable and will need to move on to other places in space.
