I haven't been on much lately so I decided I would post my own topic. I don't believe this topic has been done recently since I checked the stickied thread with topics. I will state my reasons on why I believe the death penalty should be put in place for all murderers. It is fine if you disagree but let's make this a good and clean debate. Don't just say "You are wrong." Alright, well here I go.
1) I will start off by saying that the death penalty (that is only for mass murderers) was recently stopped because they said the method was too painful. So, someone who brutally murdered one or more people should die besides feeling the same pain? Where is the justice in that? I believe that you should get what you give. If you do good deeds, then you should be rewarded nicely. If you kill someone, you should be killed.
2) The next part I will go into is jail. Oh yes, we make jail seem like the worst place possible. Bed, toilet, workout room, safety, and 3 square meals per day. Now, safety is different in different jails. I know that so it can't exactly be supported. However, why do we give them a workout room or some sort of a place to lift weights? I am curious to this. Okay, so we are making rapists stronger and making it easier for them to rape when they get out. Why do they need 3 square meals per day? I went to a soup kitchen last year and I almost cried at how many homeless walked in because they didn't have anything to eat. We are treating criminals better than people who never harmed anyone. Where is the justice in that? Don't tell me the homeless made bad choices because it can happen to anyone. Also, bad choices? What about the person who chose to kill someone? I think that angers me the most. Really, jail looks like heaven to some people so they hurt someone else.
3) I will go into the issue of money. It costs us around $30,000 per year to take care of ONE convict. Now, I am just supporting the death penalty for murderers. The people who never harmed anyone are taking care of people who killed other people. What is wrong with this picture? We are taking care of them instead of the poor who never hurt people. That money could go to so many good issues like cures and health care. I will say the green movement just for you, Carlie. Anyways, now you will say it costs too much to use the death penalty. I think we should kill the murderer the exact same way the murderer killed someone else. This leads me into my next point.
4) Can you imagine going through the pain of being killed? Let's take it through the victim's point of view. Can you imagine the torture of what happened before you died? The pain would be terrible if the murderer stabbed the victim 100 times. I know the victim would die before that but it shows a point. That is why I believe the murderer should be killed the same way. Let them feel what it is like to go through that. Now, let's take it through the family's point of view. Your relative was just murdered. Now, be honest, what would you like to happen to the person that killed them? You would most likely want them dead which is why the death penalty should be put in place.
5) I know we can't be 100% sure of who the murderer was. However, DNA is 99.99% so very close. Also, why would their DNA even be on the victim or around the scene of the crime? They most likely had something to do with it. That makes them eligible to receive the death penalty. Also, the people we are not sure of can be put in jail. Jails are over filling so criminals are being released earlier then their original sentences. I know this because my aunt was released about a year before her sentence was completely served.
I will state my final words. I want to make it even more clear that the death penalty should only be given to murderers. The other criminals can be put in jail. The murderer should feel the same pain the victim did. Rotting in jail is a bunch of bull. Yes, to some it is crap while it is heaven to others. Why are we paying for murderers to have a life with food and beds? You would want the murderer of your family member dead. You would not just say they can go to jail. DNA is not exact but it is only .01% possibly wrong. That is pretty darn good. You may say two wrongs don't make a right but that makes no sense at all. So, if someone cheats on a test and is given a failing grade for cheating...would you say that then? The same applies to the death penalty. The death penalty is simply a consequence for their actions.
I would love to debate someone on this issue but please read my whole post before posting. It makes the debate more enjoyable if you post your feelings to each of my points and then state your final words. Thanks and also keep it on topic.
I completely agree with you. My whole theory is that we need more of an example of why not to commit crimes such as murder, Jail is making criminals more stronger and desperate.
I agree mainly with this. I do think they should be killed but the same way they killed someone. If the murderer chopped up the victim, then the murderer should be chopped up. Let them feel the same pain the victim did. I bet that would cut down on gruesome murders.
@Graham, that's a bit inhumane, but that's just me.
Now think back, who really created that statement, "eye for an eye?" Himmurabi. And how did his legacy end out?
I see the death penalty as something that needs to be enforced, but it shouldn't be given to a one-time murderer. I think only one that should get that penalty is a mass killer, or someone who has done something just as worse, or more.
And there is such thing as the lethal pill! We don't need to shoot, or shock anybody. That pill will have the same affect.
@TR
1) Yes, a murderer does deserve it, but morally, it isn't right just to, "get back," at somebody. (To me.) It isn't all about justice. What are you gaining from killing him/her? Putting him/her in jail will keep him/her from continuing any harm.
2) Most people have somewhat better morals. I would love to give a murderer a taste, but I wouldn't do that because no justice is getting served. What am I gaining? Nothing. Now for criminals AFTER they get out is a different story. I believe criminals should be under intense supervision after their release, so they can't repeat what they've done before.
3) It sure does cost alot of money to keep an inmate, but I think it is better than just giving them nothing, and letting them go. Now some poor people have caused it onthemselves, but some haven't. Now think about this. What would be the first thing a homeless man will do with money? We can't give every homeless person alot of money, so let's say 1,000 dollars. There's not a good chance that just that much will help him much. After it's gone, it's gone.
4) You are all about getting "eye for an eye." It just does not help at all. It isn't saving the person that died, it isn't helping the victim's friends and family. Now the death pill, is my choice. No pain, but death in minutes.
1) It isn't about getting back at someone. It is about punishment should fit the crime. What are you gaining from putting them in jail? Actually, you are losing from putting them in jail. Also, in jail, they can still harm other prisoners who maybe did not commit the same kind of crime.
2) How would justice not be being served if they are killed? The same thing they did is happening to them. I believe that is the most fair way possible. If you want to kill someone, you should face the same death you gave the victim. Putting them under supervision solves nothing either. First, it just costs the country more money for the criminals. Also, who is to say that they don't commit suicide or hurt one of these "supervisors"?
3) Show me where I said give the money to the homeless. I just said I think it is pathetic we take better care of prisoners then the homeless. I never said give them the money. I said it should go to something more beneficial than a person who killed someone.
4) Does jail help the victim or their family? No, this is not about getting back at the murderer. It is about the punishment fitting the crime. Why should someone be able to kill and possibly live a better life than what they were living before?
Total, maybe a little too vicious. I agree with the death penalty. I don't think the government should keep people in jail convicted for heinous crimes if they're sentence is life, then why not the death penalty?
But what if the court get's it wrong and an innocent person dies. That wouldn't be pretty. And that is happening all of the time. Old cases are being re-evaluated with new technology available. People have been released from jail who have done hard time. And I don't think the government wants innocent blood on it's hands.
This conversation is quite funny because I was just thinking about this before I saw the thread.
___
Oh and forgot this.
We need to eliminate people from becoming criminals in the first place. It is not their fault as to why they are criminals. Lifes got them hard. They were once the same value as you, but through living another life experience, their brains got messed up.
Now that they are messed up though, we don't need them. Execution. I mean really Estel. What are they good for now? We either let them on the streets or waste money feeding them.
Justice- judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments [url]http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=justice[/url]
Now you're saying that the punishment should fit the crime. Now aren't punishment meant to make the wrong-doer learn from his/her mistakes? Well there won't be any learning once you're dead!
Puting them in jail isn't for gain, it's preserving a life.
I said it should go to something more beneficial than a person who killed someone.
But what if the court get's it wrong and an innocent person dies. That wouldn't be pretty. And that is happening all of the time. Old cases are being re-evaluated with new technology available. People have been released from jail who have done hard time. And I don't think the government wants innocent blood on it's hands.
DNA is 99.99% correct. Yes, maybe an innocent person would die but there would be many guilty people who deserve that punishment. Also, like I said, they can put those people in jail who they are not sure of. Then, in the future, those cases can be re-evaluated with even better technology to check if they are guilty or innocent.
At Drace, It's easy to say we can leave them in there until their cases are re-evaluated, but prison kind of sucks. Especially if you're innocent and no-one listens.
