8B: 8th Amendment- Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Yes it should be allowed
Side Score: 31
|
 |
No, it should not
Side Score: 51
|
|
|
|
|
Science have been growing especially DNA, making it easier to say if the person is guilty or innocent. Side: Yes it should be allowed
Do you believe that there could be any missed evidence that led to an innocent to die legally? For example Paul House was accused of murder and rape of Carolyn Muncey. Near Death of Innocence If you believe you are innocent and are wrongfully judged of a crime by death, then you have been and innocent killed. Imagine once new evidence has appeared in the case after the death has occurred, then the judge and others “legally” killed an innocent. But this should not legal if it goes against amendments (8 & 5). For example Paul House was convicted of the rape and murder of his neighbor Carolyn Muncey in 1986 and spent 23 years with chronic disabilities in prison waiting for the death sentence given to him at trial but he was released after new evidence and lack of evidence against him. he spent 23 years waiting for his death knowing that nothing would save him. This is mental abuse… another form of cruel and unusual punishment. This is why the death penalty should not be allowed under the 8th amendment. There is physical abuse but in cases mental abuse can be the worst kind of abuse. http://www.innocenceproject.org/
As Jed S. Rakoff the US District Judge in the Southern District of New York Argued how the death penalty should not be allowed on July 1, 2002 "To this Court, the unacceptably high rate at which innocent persons are convicted of capital crimes, when coupled with the frequently prolonged delays before such errors are detected (and then often only fortuitously or by application of newly-developed techniques), compels the conclusion that execution under the Federal Death Penalty Act, by cutting off the opportunity for exoneration, denies due process and, indeed, is tantamount to foreseeable, state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings." US v. Quinones, decision written by Judge Rakoff, July 1, 2002 In conclusion he speaks about how you could be an innocent but if sentenced to the death penalty then you are practically being murdered and this is the murder of innocent human beings. http://deathpenalty.procon.org/ Side: No, it should not
Criminals in prison another opportunity to kill again. http://theproscons.com/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
Criminals in prison another opportunity to kill again. Side: Yes it should be allowed
When a state executes a murder there is a decrease of murders at average of 14. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
There is a decrease, of course there will be but there are still some out there and if you put them in jail and ruin their life they may feel bad and never again, in addition you aren't killing people. As said by Vijai P. Sharma, Ph.D "Words Can Hurt More Than Sticks And Stones" Sticks and stones can create death and if you hurt them from the inside it will create more damage here is a site proving it http://www.huffingtonpost. Side: No, it should not
Life in prison is worse, so life in should go under the cruel and unusual punishment. Also putting someone in prison for life is the death penalty. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/29/the-death-penalty-saves-lives-by-deterring-crime Studies by Emory University shows for each execution there was 18 fewer murders in 1977 through 1996. http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/ Ernest van den Haag (Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University) said that “people are afraid of death than anything else.” Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
-1
points
Common sense andreas, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will stop 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. Side: Yes it should be allowed
What is common sense in your opinion. Is there a proper justice system for your comment sense or does it go as you like it to. A criminal can be stopped from attempting any more murders or kidnaps but not by the fear of death but being taught a lesson in prison and teaching the accused to see life as everyone is equal A life sentence can be canceled with a patrol option. All deserve to live. If you kill the accused, you are no better. Side: No, it should not
0
points
Side: Yes it should be allowed
Is this an opinion. Do you have any evidence or that people who have killed deserve to be killed? Are you sure this is the ultimate crime... to murder, kidnap and genocide or is the ultimate crime legally murdering 4% of innocents that were wrongfully sentenced to death. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ Side: No, it should not
0
points
-2
points
You wanna talk about humans fine.. You are human, I am human and believe it or not criminals are human too. Its part of life to make mistakes, some people make bigger mistakes than others and it's not fair that people like you and me should pay such a big price for mistakes that everyone makes. Troy Davis was convicted of murdering a Georgia police officer in 1991. One simple mistake had led to his life coming to an end as 20 years later he was executed. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/ Side: No, it should not
-1
points
Side: Yes it should be allowed
-2
points
|
Today we will be discussing how the death penalty should not be allowed under the 8th amendment. The opposing team will tell all of you how the accused deserve to be sentenced to the death penalty and they will try to show you the brutal side of their crimes to convince you that they are right.. but think. If you sentence someone to death then you are the murder. Everyone deserved a second chance and if you imprison someone with a patrol option then you are teaching the person a lesson. Maybe in a scenario the murder is someone who was being mentally harassed and decided to end their misery by murdering the person who was abusing them. In a way this is self defense. We are humans, not masters of being human. No one should judge another unless fully experienced and allowed by the law. Sending the accused murderer to prison or a psych ward is a place for them to learn right from wrong. The death penalty is violating the 8th amendment by cruel and unusual punishment. The methods of death penalty over the 20-21st century there has been hanging, gas chambers, firing squad, lethal injection and others. Those are all cruel and unusual punishments in my opinion. If it violates the 8th amendment, why not remove the death penalty as a whole and find new ways to improve humanity instead of killing. we hope you will side with the the right side. no not the right side the true side. Side: No, it should not
What is too far from the law? On 1947 in the court case Frances vs. Resweber the man sentenced to death got the punishment of the electric chair. The electric chair was not lethal enough to kill the accused murdered on the first attempt and gave excruciating pain for the condemned man. From a 5-4 vote the court agreed on giving the condemned man another bolt of electricity through the chair. The four people stating that the accused murderer should not be killed again through the electric chair started to be concerned of his mental stability after the first attempt of torture. This is cruel punishment. If it comes to a vote to legally kill someone for a second attempt after the first attempt felt like torture, than the death penalty isn't just cruel and unusual but torture at moments. This is why the death penalty should not be allowed under the 8th amendment because it isn't always at times death but torture. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ Side: No, it should not
In the eyes of the justice system, if you are accused of a murder or a certain crime and there is evidence to support the accused crime then you could be sentenced to death. For example Cameron Todd Willingham was an accused man of murder. He was an innocent but killed by the law. What happens if evidence is uncovered and an innocent was killed? The answer is murder. The death penalty doesn't just punish someone but once you have been killed as an innocent by the law then you have been legally murdered. Cameron was legally murdered and there is no possibility of being resurrected and therefore no justice is served. The innocent who has died might have a cleared name but what is worth a cleared name without the person alive? This should be illegal murder. This is cruel and unusual punishment and should not be allowed under the 8th amendment because as studies show, about 4% of people that have been sentenced to the death penalty and they end up dead are later on discovered an innocent and wrongfully murdered. http://camerontoddwillingham.com http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ Side: No, it should not
Sanity. How could you kill someone, this isn't a cruel and unusual punishment this is straight on death! The definition of sanity is “the state of being sane; soundness of mind.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ Many people have been charged with the death penalty.. how could we do this. By we I mean humans, we are killing our own kind sure they have killed maybe 1 or thousands people but that does not take away the fact that we are killing them, lots of them. Lots of people who have families too! All I have to say or rather ask is where is your sanity? Side: No, it should not
1
point
hey nicole your trying to save some criminals life what if they murdered someone, what if they raped someone , what if they tortured someone.All this and you want the person to live. And like you said earlier dont pick the right side pick the True side. Im sorry to say this but what if the person was someone you cared about you would agree with us Side: Yes it should be allowed
Some of these criminals have families like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev he has three siblings and two parents well and worried about him.. http://www.biography.com/people/ Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's father said “the family will fight the death sentence he was given yesterday for the Boston Marathon bombings 'until the end'.” Some criminals have families that are normal and care about them it's not fair for them to suffer the pain of watching their loved ones die. Side: No, it should not
But the thing is you are.. Here is a scenario that could easily be a reality. A man kills another man on the street. If the jury decides to give the criminal a death penalty then you could basically say the jury is killing the murder. How is it justice!? A jury can call the criminal a murderer but their one too. Don't think for a second that these death penalties are rare and only happen in america .. some of these death penalties are happening right next to us! for example in Abu Dhabi a twenty five year old man was just charged with death penalty just a few months ago..(january 5, 2015) Side: No, it should not
Then you become the murderer. Even the creator of the lethal injection said it was bad. The man who invented the lethal injection method of execution told The Guardian that miscarriages of justice and botched executions have changed his mind about the death penalty. This is coming from a news site Sola, Katie. "Inventor Of Lethal Injection: 'I Am Ambivalent About The Death Penalty'" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 28 May 2015. Side: No, it should not
Therefore the death penalty should be removed from the 8th amendment because of murder with murder.Please ask for me to clarify if you did not realise that murder with murder meant the so called justice murdering an accused murderer. If the jury allows a death penalty because of a an accused murderer than the jury is just as well the murderer Side: No, it should not
What is accused murder with legal murder? This is when an innocent or the accused murderer is executed from the death penalty but later evidence is discovered and is named an innocent. The problem is the accused is dead and is legally murdered. Isn't murder illegal unless self defence? Cameron Todd Willingham and was held in jail until executed on March 3, 2015. He was forced to die with no choice or possibility to run. Murder with innocence. Who is at fault her? Do you still believe that risking innocent lives for murdering accused criminals is morally correct. I would like youseff to clarify of his previous post on how he said that it is morally incorrect to murder or kidnap, or genocide... What about the legal kill? You are murdering an innocent (4%). Should you be under the death penalty just as well or are you saved because it was an "accident." Do you agree now that the death penalty should be removed under the 8th amendment? What if you were an innocent and was killed by the justice system.... would you want the death penalty removed? Side: No, it should not
Some young criminals are getting the death penalty which is so sad.. young people are confused and don't know what they're doing this is not acceptable for someone so young to be charged with such a cruel punishment. The youngest person to be charged with death penalty was George Stinney Jr. He was just 14 when he got charged with the death penalty. I have to say his crime, killing two women was a bit much but that doesn't mean this little boy should die for his mistake. Side: No, it should not
what about equality does that not matter anymore .. the definition is “the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity,degree, value, rank, or ability: “ How come people have the right to kill someone if “everyone is equal” you're saying just because they made a mistake their life should come to an end there is no sanity in that. Side: No, it should not
|
