8E: 8th Amendment- Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Yes it should be allowed
Side Score: 36
|
 |
No, it should not
Side Score: 34
|
|
|
|
|
Our fourth point is that it's far more likely that the criminal is guilty. 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. http://akorra.com/2010/03/04/ If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and enter in the first place. 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. http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
There are still too many cases in where they killed an innocent person. Do you find this okay? Jesse Tafero: Jesse Tafero was executed by electric chair in 1990 for murdering two Florida police officers, Phillip Black and Donald Irwin. The murders occurred on Feb. 20, 1976, when Black and Irwin approached a parked car at a rest stop and found Tafero, his partner Sonia “Sunny” Jacobs, her two children and Walter Rhodes asleep inside. They were ordered to get out of the car when the officers saw a gun lying on the floor inside the car and, according to Rhodes, Tafero proceeded to shoot both officers and took off in their police car. They disposed of the police car and stole a man’s car, but were arrested after being caught in a roadblock. The gun was found in Tafero’s waistband, although it was legally registered to Jacobs. Tafero had been convicted of robbery and had served seven years of a 25-year sentence before being convicted for murder. Tafero and Jacobs claimed that Rhodes was the lone shooter, but Rhodes testified against them in exchange for a lighter sentence. Rhodes later admitted that he was responsible for the killings, but Tafero was still sentenced to death. http:// This is completely unfair. Side: No, it should not
Capital punishment goes against almost every religion. Although isolated passages of the Bible have been quoted in support of the death penalty, almost all religious groups in the United States regard executions as immoral. Families of murder victims undergo severe trauma and loss which no one should minimize. However, executions do not help these people heal nor do they end their pain; the extended process prior to executions prolongs the agony of the family. Families of murder victims would benefit far more if the funds now being used for the costly process of executions were diverted to counseling and other assistance. OVerall this is a terrible thing to do t people, After all, why do we kill people, who kill people, to show that killing people is wrong? We are the “State.” When the “State” kills, we are participants. Would you choose to be the person that pulls the switch that snuffs out a human life? Also, Capital punishment does not deter crime. Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime. Around our country, states without the death penalty have a lower murder rate than neighboring states with the death penalty. info from: http://deathpenalty.procon.org/ Mentally ill people are executed. One out of every ten who has been executed in the United States since 1977 is mentally ill, according to Amnesty International and the National Association on Mental Illness. Many mentally ill defendants are unable to participate in their trials in any meaningful way and appear unengaged, cold, and unfeeling before the jury. Some have been forcibly medicated in order to make them competent to be executed. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has decreed that people with “mental retardation” may not be executed, Oregon has not yet passed a law banning the execution of the mentally ill. Side: No, it should not
All guilty people deserve to be punished, only guilty people deserve to be punished, guilty people deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime This argument states that real justice requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing, and to suffer in a way appropriate for the crime. Each criminal should get what their crime deserves and in the case of a murderer what their crime deserves is death. It is undeniable that those who are executed cannot commit further crimes. It is often argued that the death penalty provides closure for victims' families. Incentive to help police The argument goes that the death penalty reinforces the belief that bad things happen to those who deserve it. This reinforces the contrary belief; that good things will happen to those who are 'good'. Side: Yes it should be allowed
By now, we hope you understood why the death penalty does not violate the 8th Amendment. As we do agree with your argument, we strongly believe that the death penalty gives justice to the victims and is essential for a safe society in today’s world. Without these sinful criminals in our community, the world can be a better place without them and their influence. The death penalty gets rid of these people and is essential for a fair and secure society. Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
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. Side: Yes it should be allowed
Our first point would be that executing a criminal is not humane whatsoever. It is the exact same thing as executing humans. In fact, you make criminals seem different than humans, while they are not. Is it humane to kill a human? It is not humane to kill anyone. So what is your point? Side: No, it should not
0
points
0
points
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. Side: Yes it should be allowed
This is false information: there is no evidence that posits the use of the death penalty as being causal to a reduction in crime. According to the NC Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, the murder rate for the state of North Carolina actually declined following a halt in utilizing execution as a form of punishment. The coalition also points out that, “…most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness. They represent a group that is highly unlikely to make rational decisions based on a fear of future consequences for their actions.” as also proved on these charts http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ info from-- http://nccadp.org/issues/deterrence/ Side: No, it should not
Our second point is the justice for the victim and his/her family. The death penalty is an important way for a safe and fair society. If a victim has died, then the only way for a fair society is to kill the criminal. It is not fair for the victim if the criminal is still alive and is able to make up for his fatal mistake. If a criminal is released from prison, then why can't he make the same mistake again under alcohol or drug influence? The death penalty makes sure of the victim's justice and that the criminal can't make the same mistake again. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
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. Side: Yes it should be allowed
This is extremely unfair and leaves out everyone. If losing an innocent loved one is cruel, then why do you support the death penalty. The "loved one's family" would at least know that the "loved one" in alive in prison, facing the consequences of their wrong doings. Would you like to know that your loved one has done something bad and is forced to die, or would you like to know that you may still be able to visit them? You are saying that losing a loved one is bad, so why do you support the death penalty? Side: No, it should not
0
points
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/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
Are you agreeing with our cause by stating that execution costs more? All of these people who have done wrong should be punished. But how do you think killing someone involuntarily , draining the blood out of their body, or suffocating them until there is no air in their brain humane? The death penalty is cruelty, it hurts people physically and mentally. Thinking, tomorrow, i am going to die, but instead the time they spend in prison can be nice, they can think about why their action is wrong and why they are sufferring the consequences, and when they die (naturally) they wont blame the government and be at peace knowing that they suffered the consequences of their actions and lived a full life, considering their families can still visit them in prison, rather, in the case they died,they would never see their familes. Side: No, it should not
1
point
0
points
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/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
Don't you think that this millions of dollars our people spend on executing people would much rather be spent on giving the criminal proper security so that they cannot do as you stated above. In 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year. It costs far more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. A 2011 study found that California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978 and that death penalty trials are 20 times more expensive than trials seeking a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. California currently spends $184 million on the death penalty each year and is on track to spend $1 billion in the next five years. -http://www.philforhumanity.com/ And people also don’t like this, as said by Helen Prejean “Government ... can’t be trusted to control its own bureaucrats or collect taxes equitably or fill a pothole, much less decide which of its citizens to kill.” – Helen Prejean, author of the book “Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States.” Side: No, it should not
0
points
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/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
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. Side: Yes it should be allowed
Our 7th point is that the death penalty can make sure no one else can make the same mistake again. If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and enter in the first place. http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
|
Enforcement of the death penalty denies the opportunity for rehabilitation. As mentioned previously, many individuals who are charged with crimes that can entail capital punishment are mentally and/or emotionally unstable. Murders occur often in a moment of passion, in conjunction with a psychological disability, or due to substance abuse. These characteristics call for a movement toward rehabilitation rather than execution. Rehabilitation efforts not only help convicted criminals, they help society in understanding the motivations behind criminal actions and can prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future. – Helen Prejean, author of the book “Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States.” Side: No, it should not
0
points
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/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
Our 3rd point is- there is a better way to help the families of murder victims. Families of murder victims undergo severe trauma and loss which no one should minimize. However, executions do not help these people heal nor do they end their pain; the extended process prior to executions prolongs the agony of the family. Families of murder victims would benefit far more if the funds now being used for the costly process of executions were diverted to counseling and other assistance. OVerall this is a terrible thing to do t people, After all, why do we kill people, who kill people, to show that killing people is wrong? Side: No, it should not
1
point
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." Side: Yes it should be allowed
Our 5th point: A new report by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice has found that the death penalty costs California taxpayers $137 million dollars each year. This is a shameful waste of California's scarce public safety resources -- and our tax dollars. The Commission concluded that replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment would save our state more than $125 million dollars each year. This is money that could be spent on more effective violence prevention programs and other services that would actually make our communities safer, such child abuse prevention programs, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health care, education, and services for victims of crime. The death penalty is failed public policy, let's end the charade. An op-ed by DPF Board Member Nancy Oliveira published in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday explored better uses for our tax dollars. It was accompanied by an excellent chart. Side: No, it should not
Our 6th point is that the death penalty is unfair to specific races. The race of the victim and the race of the defendant in capital cases are major factors in determining who is sentenced to die in this country. In 1990 a report from the General Accounting Office concluded that "in 82 percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." Side: No, it should not
1
point
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. Side: Yes it should be allowed
Our 9th point is: Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, 138 innocent men and women have been released from death row, including some who came within minutes of execution. In Missouri, Texas and Virginia investigations have been opened to determine if those states executed innocent men. To execute an innocent person is morally reprehensible; this is a risk we cannot take. -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/ As stated even by the supreme court justice... Perhaps the bleakest fact of all is that the death penalty is imposed not only in a freakish and discriminatory manner, but also in some cases upon defendants who are actually innocent.” – Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., 1994. Side: No, it should not
Such as these examples: David Spence: David Spence was executed in 1997 for murdering three teenagers in 1982 in Waco. Spence was convicted of raping, torturing and murdering two 17-year-old girls and murdering an 18-year-old boy. As the original allegations go, Spence was hired by convenience store owner Muneer Deeb to kill one girl and he ended up killing these three teens by mistake. Deeb was charged and sentenced to death, but later received a re-trial and was acquitted. Authoritative sources even had serious doubt about Spence’s guilt. Although there was no clear physical evidence to link Spence to the crime, prosecutors used bite marks that were found on one of the girl’s body and matched it to Spence’s teeth. Even jailhousewitnesses were bribed into snitching on Spence. Despite weak evidential support and jail mate testimonies, Spence was executed. Carlos De Luna: Carlos De Luna was executed in 1989 for the 1983 stabbing of Wanda Lopez, a Texas convenience store clerk. There were two eyewitnesses who played a key role in the conviction of De Luna. Before the murder-robbery, George Aguirre was filling up at the gas station where the crime occurred, when he saw a man standing outside the store slide a knife with the blade exposed into his pocket and enter. The man asked Aguirre for a ride to a nightclub, but he refused and went inside the store to warn Lopez about the suspicious man. Aguirre left and Lopez called the police to describe the man. As she was on the phone with a dispatcher, the man came back into the store and robbed her. The second witness, Kevan Baker, pulled into the station and heard bangs on the station’s window and saw a man struggling with a woman. As Baker approached the gas station, the murderer threatened him and took off. When police searched the area, they found De Luna not far from the station. He was shirtless and shoeless in a puddle of water and screamed, “Don’t shoot! You got me!” Both Aguirre and Baker confirmed De Luna was the man at the station. Little to no physical evidence was collected at the crime scene, including blood samples and fingerprints that could have helped De Luna. De Luna maintained his innocence and repeated that Carlos Hernandez was the actual killer. Despite Hernandez’s trouble with the law and repeated confessions to the murder, De Luna was executed. Joseph O’Dell: Joseph O’Dell was executed in 1997 for raping and murdering Helen Schartner. O’Dell was convicted on the basis of blood evidence and a jailhouse snitch. O’Dell represented himself and continued to proclaim his innocence in various unsuccessful appeals to the Virginia Supreme Court, Federal District Court and the Supreme Court. O’Dell requested that the state submit other pieces of evidence for DNA testing, but he was refused. Despite much effort and several appeals, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld his conviction and reinstated his death sentence. After his execution, Lori Urs, an anti-death penalty advocate and former wife to O’Dell, sought to further investigate the case and exonerate O’Dell based on mistaken blood matches, court opinions and refusal of DNA testing. However, the last of the DNA evidence from O’Dell’s case was burned in March 2000 and the appeals were laid to rest. Leo Jones: Leo Jones was executed in 1998 for murdering a police officer in Florida. Although Jones confessed 12 hours after the murder, he said that he was forced to say he did it during hours of intimidating police interrogation, where they threatened his life and made him play Russian roulette. One witness believed that the police department was out to get Jones because he had assaulted an officer once. The same two arresting officers were released from the department shortly after for using violence in other cases. Despite repeated appeals, other potential suspects and witness testimonies in support of Jones’ exoneration, the sentencing stood as is. Jones was also denied another method of execution and was killed by the electric chair. Timothy Evans: Timothy Evans was sentenced to death by hanging for the murder of his daughter in 1949 at their home in Notting Hill, London. Evans maintained his innocence and repeatedly accused his neighbor, John Christie, of murdering his wife and daughter. The police investigation and physical evidence used to convict Evans was weak. After Evans’ trial and execution, Christie was found to be a serial killer who was responsible for murdering several women at his residence. There were massive campaigns to overturn Evans’ conviction and an official inquiry was conducted 16 years later. It was confirmed that Evans’ daughter had been killed by Christie, and Evans was granted a posthumous pardon. This case of injustice had a strong influence in the UK’s decision to abolish capital punishment. ---http:// Side: No, it should not
our 12th point is that current prison conditions have continually reflected racial and socioeconomic biases which make prisoners of lesser privilege more likely to be sentenced with the death penalty than those of wealthy upbringings and substantial careers. Bryan A. Stevenson, founder and Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative, and professor at the New York University School of Law, visited The Daily Show with John Stewart in October 2014 to discuss the discord between morality and America’s criminal justice system. Stevenson noted that the current criminal justice system operates in a way that is kinder to people who are wealthy and guilty than those who are poor and innocent. Race and place determine who lives and who dies. Those who kill whites are more likely to be sentenced to die than those who kill African-Americans. In Oregon, prosecutors from some counties are more likely to pursue the death penalty than others are. As stated in this quote by The U.S. General Accounting Office, “[R]ace of victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found to be more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks. This finding was remarkably consistent across data sets, states, data collection methods, and analytic techniques.” – The U.S. General Accounting Office, “Death Penalty Sentencing: Research Indicates Pattern of Racial Disparities ...” (Feb. 1990). Side: No, it should not
Our 13th argument is: The death penalty is applied at random. The death penalty is a lethal lottery: of the 15,000 to 17,000 homicides committed every year in the United States, approximately 120 people are sentenced to death, less than 1%. The USA is keeping company with notorious human rights abusers. The vast majority of countries in Western Europe, North America and South America — more than 117 nations worldwide — have abandoned capital punishment in law or in practice. The United States remains in the same company as Iraq, Iran and China as one of the major advocates and users of capital punishment. here is alink to show the death sentence rates around the world http://www.theguardian. Side: No, it should not
Opening statement:The death penalty today is being enforced in our society. Many people are being killed due to things that they have done without being given a chance to live. Instead of death, serving a long time in prison would be more effective on the person because they would have to suffer the consequences for their wrong doing. A more cruel yet more humane punishment would be for a life in prison or lifelong parole. Dying is usually fast but having to stay in a prison knowing that you can't get out would be a worse punishment.The death penalty should not be enforced in our society. It does not teach people what’s right, in fact the murder rate in non death penalty states have remained consistently lower than states with pro death penalty. The death penalty is unfair, and does not give anyone a chance to change the way they act or make up for what they have done. Something worse, is that: since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States, more people have been sentenced to death and released later on. sometimes even last minute. The death penalty is irreversible so if you kill someone you can never get them back while if you put them in prison someone can always prove their cause and they can get out of prison. Why do we kill people, who kill people, to show that killing people is wrong?-anonymous. Side: No, it should not
In your opening statement, you said that instead of death penalty, the criminals should be put in life imprisonment. Doesn't that mean you support harsh and cruel punishments? Life imprisonment is far more cruel than death penalty as death penalty doesn't last their whole life. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
So what you are basically saying is that the criminals should be put to death instead of suffering the consequences of their wrong-doings? Like we said in our opening statement, suffering a long time in prison would be more effective on the wrong-doer because they would then learn from their mistakes and other people would know the consequences as well so there would be less murders or wrong doings in our world. If the death penalty is enforced, the criminal would not have to suffer at all, they would just have to face death, which is not a punishment that someone could learn from. Side: No, it should not
a 2014 Pew Research Center analysis found that the population as a whole has been less favorable toward executions than ever, and state institutions have also declined overall in their use of the death penalty. This decline has been congruent with an overall drop in violent crime rates throughout the U.S. How detrimental can a lack of financial resources truly be to a person facing prosecution? An article fordeathpenalty.org cited that many lawyers who were assigned by the state to poor defendants were often inadequately trained, later suspended and/or disbarred, and that there were even cases where “…appointed attorneys…slept through parts of the trial, or arrived at the court under the influence of alcohol.”
Side: No, it should not
No civilian’s job description should include killing another person. Corrections personnel involved in executions, like our military, frequently suffer PTSD from having to kill. Perhaps there is a reason to have a defensive military, but prisoners pose no threat to the well-being of our citizens. There is no reason to place the mental health of our corrections workers at risk simply to pursue vengeance. The death penalty is cruel to an and all people no matter their race or age as stated by Clarence Darrow “Do I need to argue to Your Honor that cruelty only breeds cruelty? That hatred only causes hatred; that if there is any way to soften this human heart which is hard enough at its best, if there is any way to kill evil and hatred and all that goes with it, it is not through evil and hatred and cruelty; it is through charity, and love, and understanding?” [...] “I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all. I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love. “I know the future is on my side.” ― Clarence Darrow, from his closing argument in the 1924 Leopold and Loeb ‘thrill murder’ case. Side: No, it should not
Closing statement: After all of the points we have stated I hope you understand the importance of saving one's life and that this is an irreversible action that is cruel as well as inhumane, by going con death penalty you choose to save someone, some human's life. After all, we all make mistakes, some big, some small, but in the end we all make mistakes whether these mistakes are caused by psychological problems or if we do it intentionally.. Mistakes are wrong but none are so wrong that you should take a humans life involuntarily. Side: No, it should not
Our second point would be that the death penalty has been placed on many innocent people these past years. Judges are being unfair without knowing that their point is certain. In this link, the "criminal" is put to the death penalty for something that he has not done. If Claude had not been put to the death penalty, he would have more time to explain. Don't you think this is unfair? To kill an innocent person? this happens too often, and it wouldn't if the death penalty was not enforced. http:// Claude Jones: Claude Jones was executed in 2000 for the murder of liquor store owner Allen Hilzendager, in San Jacinto County in 1989. On Nov. 14, 1989, Jones and another man were seen pulling into a liquor store in Point Blank, Texas. One stayed in the car while the other went inside and shot the owner. Witnesses who were standing across the road couldn’t see the killer, but Jones and two other men, Kerry Dixon and Timothy Jordan, were all linked to the murder. Although Jones said he never entered the store, Dixon and Jordan testified that Jones was in fact the shooter and they were both spared the death penalty. The deciding factor and only admissible evidence in Jones’ conviction came down to a strand of hair that was found at the scene of the crime. A forensic expert testified that the hair appeared to have come from Jones, and he was sentenced to death. Forensic technology was underdeveloped during the 1990 trial and it wasn’t able to match Jones’ DNA with the hair sample. Therefore, before his 2000 execution, Jones’attorneys filed petitions for a stay of execution with a district court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and requested that the hair be submitted for DNA testing that was now possible, but all courts and former Texas Governor George W. Bush denied Jones and he was executed. In an attempt to prove that Texas executed an innocent man, the Innocence Project and the Texas Observer filed a lawsuit in 2007 to obtain the strand of hair and submitted it for DNA testing, which was determined to be the hair of the victim. Side: No, it should not
1
point
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. Side: Yes it should be allowed
I agree with Janna and here is our 5a) point: Don't you think that this millions of dollars our people spend on executing people would much rather be spent on giving the criminal proper security so that they cannot do as you stated above. In 2000 a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state and counties equal $9 million per year. It costs far more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. A 2011 study found that California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978 and that death penalty trials are 20 times more expensive than trials seeking a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. California currently spends $184 million on the death penalty each year and is on track to spend $1 billion in the next five years. -http://www.philforhumanity.com/ And people also don’t like this, as said by Helen Prejean “Government ... can’t be trusted to control its own bureaucrats or collect taxes equitably or fill a pothole, much less decide which of its citizens to kill.” – Helen Prejean, author of the book “Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States.” Side: No, it should not
|
