8H: 8th Amendment- Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Yes it should be allowed
Side Score: 67
|
 |
No, it should not
Side Score: 70
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
People have a natural fear of death. When we think about it, if every criminal who murdered someone died instantly, the murder rate would be very low, which is because nobody would want to die. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
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. Side: No, it should not
1
point
Death penalty is still the ultimate warning to the society to not make the mistakes others did. http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
Death penalty has kept the worst criminals from re-doing the crimes they have done. Sure you can put the accused in prison, but prisons all over the world suffer from overpopulation of inmates, affected the space and resources inside the prison. When you eliminate the death penalty you let highly dangerous criminals walk around overcrowding the prison, and as I said before what is stopping these highly dangerous criminals for committing a crime inside prison walls? Also death penalty helps protect people from more killing, if we let out the accused on parole. Not only can the prisoner commit a crime on parole but if the delinquent escapes. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
It provides closure for the people who were close to the murdered victim. The families and friends would already be suffering enough with the tragic and unnecessary loss of their loved one, and knowing for sure that the murderer is dead is the least the government can do for the society. http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/ It’s the ultimate way for the deprived family and friends of the victim to feel safe again. They already are suffering so much from their loss. Most people would rather have the murderer of their loved one dead instead of feeling sorry for the murderer. http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/ The poor families deserve the closure they surely will get after the murderer of their loved one is sentenced to death. People want the vengeance. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ As said by the victim’s mother, Joann Brandon, it would bring her closure for the juvenile to die. She thinks no justice is being done for her dead daughter, and when the juvenile was finally sentenced to death, she replied by saying that he should have died a long time ago. Miriam Thimm Kelle who lost a brother to murder said, "I lost another brother to a car accident. It was quick — you bury them and you grieve," she said. "With this, you have to re-grieve all the time. It's like picking off scabs continually." Therefore, juveniles should be killed as they make such a big impact on innocent people’s lives with such a small decision. Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
1,163,146 violent crimes ensued as a result of the termination of the death penalty in 2013. Today, every 107 seconds another american is sexually assaulted, an average of 1 out of 6 American women have been raped in their lifetime.Soon you will become a statistic on the news. We believe that the death penalty must be enforced with care and certainty. Therefore, we would like to highlight the following points; death penalty deters future criminals, indeed the fact that the government can permit a doctor to sentence their sick patient to death, and abort an innocent baby is furthermore a reason to permit the rightful punishment to an inhuman delinquent. Side: Yes it should be allowed
How does killing a fetus relate to the cruel and unusual punishment? A fetus is an argument which is not part of this debate. Also, scientists have not confirmed that a fetus is classified as a human. The debate is still going on in the moral and science community. Side: No, it should not
1
point
How is killing a fetus a BABY who will become a human just like you, who hasn't ever seen his mother before not classified as cruel and unusual. It is inhumane. Indeed the sates, who do have strong restrictions on abortion have to be aware of this “you can’t reconcile being pro-life on abortion and pro-death on the death penalty.” Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
1
point
0
points
1
point
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. Side: No, it should not
1
point
I understand your point. However, these criminals deserve death punishment, as they took the right to live from another person. It's only fair and logical that they are the ones we're rid of. http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
-1
points
0
points
According to this source, the death penalty is cheaper for the government than having to feed them for their entire life, when it’s obvious that the person deserves death punishment. For example, California could reduce their expenses by 1 billion US dollars in the next five years if they accept capital punishment and commute death row sentences to life imprisonment without parole. Side: Yes it should be allowed
Many people do not realize that carrying out a single death sentence for a criminal costs 2 to 5 times more than that putting that same criminal in prison for the rest of his or her life, This is due to the costs, which include but are not limited to, investigation costs, cost of processing evidence, substantial lawyer fees, amount of trials, number of extensive appeals, substantial security costs, and incarceration costs. Side: No, it should not
0
points
As we stated, 1,163,146 violent crimes ensued as a result of the termination of the death penalty in 2013. Today, every 107 seconds another American is sexually assaulted, an average of 1 out of 6 American women have been raped in their lifetime. Soon, you will become a statistic on the news. We believe that the death penalty must be enforced with care and certainty. Therefore, we would like to highlight the following points; death penalty deters future criminals, indeed the fact that the government can permit a doctor to sentence their sick patient to death, and abort an innocent baby is furthermore a reason to permit the rightful punishment to an inhuman delinquent. This is all because the punishment for juveniles isn't strict and logical enough. Side: Yes it should be allowed
|
2
points
I believe the death penalty should not be under the 8th amendment because the death penalty is cruel as some innocent people get executed. 151 people have been released from the death row. It is worse as it can be their life taken away rather than spending years in prison. Side: No, it should not
2
points
1
point
0
points
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. Side: No, it should not
2
points
This quote by John McAdams from Marquette University, clearly states, "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." Side: Yes it should be allowed
3
points
I do not agree to this point as it is not proven to deter any crime, shown by the murder rate. Side: No, it should not
There is no John McAdams in this link Thuraya. Meaning your post is a false statement No John McAdams in this link Side: No, it should not
1
point
2
points
I understand what you are saying but death penalty creates a form of crime deterrent, crime would be off the charts if there wasn’t the law to deter people from committing these acts. I understand that prison does deter criminals from committing more crimes, but some criminals need more than being imprisoned. There is a chance that the accused can commit a crime inside of the prison walls to other inmates. What is the government going to do, sentence the criminal to a longer time? You can take away the delinquents prison rights but will that make a big difference? Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Killing the person who committed the crime will not undo the crime that has taken place. Side: No, it should not
1
point
The court is very organized and strict with who deserves death penalty and who does not. The death penalty for a murder may only happen is all evidence to find the accused guilty is presented. The accused can only be death sentenced if the murder was planned and the accused did the actual killing. Death penalty is not something the government does without having evidence against the accused, now a days we use DNA testing to prove the accused guilty. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
2
points
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/ Side: No, it should not
0
points
With who deserves it? There is also a racial bias. http://www.ncadp.org/pages/racial-bias Side: No, it should not
The death penalty has been ruled out as unconstitutional in the case Furman v. Georgia. Once in US history, execution has been ruled unconstitutional in the eye of the law. Second, the progress of the death penalty has been also ruled as unconstitutional as it takes almost 18 years for each death row inmate to get executed. Side: No, it should not
2
points
People do believe that death penalty is wrong and that we are killing too many people who can just be put in jail, but around 306 million people kill and a rate of 15,200 per annum homicides occur. That is less than 0.4% of the population that commit homicides in a year. So no the death penalty does not kill a lot of our population because you forget that 99.6% are not killers. Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
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. Side: No, it should not
3095 people in the United States currently are under a death sentence. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 1369 men, women, children, and mentally ill people have been shot, hanged, lethally injected, and electrocuted by States and the federal government. For every 10 people, 1 innocent person is sentenced to the death row. What makes you think that all this is normal? Side: No, it should not
Poor defense of trial; One of the most frequent causes of reversals in death penalty cases is ineffective assistance of counsel. A study at Columbia University found that 68% of all death penalty cases were reversed on appeal, with inadequate defense as one of the main reasons requiring reversal. Side: No, it should not
2
points
The government is very organized and strict with who deserves penalty and who does not. The death penalty for a murder may only happen is all evidence to find the accused guilty is presented. The accused can only be death sentenced if the murder was planned and the accused did the actual killing. Someone who didn't intend on killing the victim or did not go the actual killing is not sentenced to death. The death penalty for kidnapping or rape is prohibited if the action did not intended to kill the victim or the victim did not actually die during the rape. The death penalty is not a choice if the defendant is insane, even if the defendant was sane at the time of the crime. Minors can not be imposed of the death penalty. Like I said now a days we use DNA testing to prove the accused guilty. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
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. Side: No, it should not
1
point
-1
points
It happened once, and it doesn't matter of the quantity, but what happened to one person. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/29/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
1
point
Kyle Janek, MD, anesthesiologist and former Texas State Senator, in his Feb. 1, 2004 article "Attack on Texas' Lethal Injections is Bogus," published in the Houston Chronicle, wrote: "In what amounts to practicing medicine without a license, those critics have started to attack the inclusion of pancuronium bromide as one of the medications used in the lethal injection process. They claim its use is 'cruel and unusual...' As any other anesthesiologist will tell you, this argument involving pancuronium bromide is bogus... The current argument against executions seems to hinge on the supposition that the second and 3rd drugs in this regimen would be cruel to someone who could feel them... Yet for that argument to be valid in any way, you must ignore the 1st drug in the process - sodium pentothal - that (1) renders the inmate to be completely unconscious, (2) has been used for decades to induce anesthesia in surgical patients and (3) is given in doses far exceeding what is needed to keep the inmate from being aware or feeling anything." http://deathpenalty.procon.org/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
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/ Side: No, it should not
1
point
You're arguing about the cruelty and physical pain of the killings of criminals. Killing a criminal is exactly what he/she did in the first place. Again, it’s only fair and makes the most sense. It’s the most stable choice of punishment. Death should be punished with death. http://listverse.com/2013/06/01/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
0
points
The amendment itself does not allow uncivilized punishments such as cutting of the ears of a man, whipping someone, beheading, public dissecting, burning someone alive just because they feel that the accused deserves it. The amendment does not tolerate torture. The death penalty is used when the court knows the accused is found guilty and has committed a crime worthy of death penalty. The delinquent is unconscious when given the lethal drug. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ Side: Yes it should be allowed
2
points
Apparently some drugs have a more painful effect on people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ One of them didn't work as well. Side: No, it should not
2
points
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? Side: No, it should not
2
points
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/ Side: No, it should not
1
point
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. Side: No, it should not
The death penalty violates the right to life which happens to be the most basic of all human rights. It also violates the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, violating the 8th amendment Side: No, it should not
1
point
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. Side: No, it should not
1
point
Like I said, I believe the death penalty should not be under the 8th amendment because the death penalty is cruel as some innocent people get executed. Some go through hours of pain. Some get tortured and put in prison instead. This is cruel and unusual punishment. Side: No, it should not
|
