- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
I am so very sorry but do you not realize what you have just typed. Majority of deaths were not innocent facing the law but the 4% of humans die from being wrongfully sentenced to death. There is no justice besides clearing a dead man/women name. And i repeat, death. The justice system is legally murdering people who have committed crimes but if you are so called justice than why is it legal? If you kill a non-innocent then you instantly become a non-innocent for the death you have caused. If you send an innocent to their death then you are just as bad as a serial killer. You are killing again and again and 4% of 100 dies from being wrongfully accused. The death penalty ruins.. kills peoples lives and if an innocent is dead from a wrongful accusal than the legal kill is no better than an illegal kill. Therefore the 8th amendment should be removed as a whole and those who have committed a crime do deserve punishment but death allows you to have punishment.
I hope i have made my point.
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.
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.
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.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!