Okay guys, I'm writing a paper for a college class, and I chose the death penalty or capital punishment as my subject.

I have to present my argument and also address or prove wrong the counterarguments in my paper.

I'm not sure which side to write about.

Post some of your arguments/counterarguments and help me out?

But please don't fight, I'm just trying to to extend my research for my paper. I've found some information supporting a ban on the death penalty and some that says the death penalty should not be banned...


Try to use facts and statistics, but also maybe some emotional things if you want, I've not decided which angle I will go from yet.


Thanks in advance for your help!

Your school or public library should have a nifty little book (part of a series called Opposing Viewpoints) on capital punishment. Half of the book gives pros, and half cons. The series publisher is Greenwood Press. Others have to do with abortion, drugs, gun control, civil rights, etc.

*I've seen dead man walking, it doesn't really present and facts though..

Thanks wondergirl, I will look for it. :)

Like, I'm not sure if I should go at it emotionally, for which I'm all for the capital punishment, the victim's suffering on the behalf of the murderer (which is the least crime the penalty is given for in all states today) constitutes the punishment, it's deserved, but factually, I'm against it... it is not only racist but innocent people are occasionally put to death. Most people support the death penalty but I think it's an emotional/restitution/revenge/eye for an eye/ thing, which is supposed to be wrong but feels right?

I don't know. Anyone got any facts that might help?

For the death penalty:, if they get back into the public and god knows it won't be as long as the judge says, they'll thinkthey got away with it and won't be afraid of doing it again

I agree, there needs to be more life without ANY CHANCE of parole (unless the charges are overturned based on new evidence) sentences if they don't want to use the death penalty, but I think that a murder, just like a rapist or child molestor, can not be rehabilitated and deserves capital punishment.

I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone, just stating my opinion.

I am for it because I feel in my heart that heinous crimes need to be punished severely, and they took away or ruined someone's life so justice has to be served.

I am against it in the facts area because of the racism issue and the fact that some innocent people are put to death, but I feel that killing a murderer is killing a murderer, not killing your neighbor.

I'm all for the capital punishment, the victim's suffering on the behalf of the murderer . Anyone got any facts that might help?Hello charlotte:

Not ALL people killed by the state are murderers. Nope, they even kill drug dealers.

excon

Hello charlotte:

Not ALL people killed by the state are murderers. Nope, they even kill drug dealers.

excon
That's a good thing

thats a good thingHello allbear:

Capital punishment is barbaric. Killing someone because of an ECONOMIC crime is beyond barbarism, it's insanity.

excon

... and the fact that some innocent people are put to death...

I'm against it for that reason... Judges and Jurys are human too, and they (often) make mistakes... there's no way of overturning a death penalty!

I find it amazing that a Christian country like America can still happily have States that have the death penalty... surely to God there's some sort of Commandment against this sort of thing?

J

I wish they had the death penalty here, it would greatly reduce major crimes

i wish they had the death penalty here, it would greatly reduce major crimes

What makes you think that then?

Generally because people don't want to die

I've done research actually, on the people who were killed by the death penalty, and there are 2 states who have laws stating they can execute peopl e for drug trafficking (major drugs) and those states are Florida (drugs coming from cuba?) and Missouri, however, no one is currently on death row for drug trafficking.

Death Penalty for Offenses Other Than Murder (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2347)


Either way, someone drug trafficking enough drugs to institute them receiving the death penalty are selling and involved in huge drug trades that cause the deaths and ruin the lives of many people, so I can see why it's acceptable in some cases, although not any of these people are currently on death row.

Generally because people don't want to die


No one wants to be murdered either, but the killer takes their life away.

(Note, if you make an argument, I'm going to argue against, I need both sides for my paper so thank you all, I'm not trying to be rude.)

I wish they had the death penalty here, it would greatly reduce major crimes


There is no evidence that shows the death penalty deters crime, it seems to not have an effect on murders and major crimes punishable by the detah penalty, mostly I'm guessing because people don't care if they're involved in these crimes or they don't think of the consequences.

Either way, someone drug trafficking enough drugs to institute them receiving the death penalty are selling and involved in huge drug trades that cause the deaths and ruin the lives of many peopleHello again, charlotte:

You make a lot of assumptions, most of them wrong. There is a federal death penalty. It covers ALL the states. IF someone brought in a lot of pot, which, of course, never killed anybody nor has it ruined anybody’s lives, he can still be put to death for it.

It's shameful.

excon

I'm against it for that reason... Judges and Jurys are human too, and they (often) make mistakes... there's no way of overturning a death penalty!

A total of 69 people have been released from death row since 1973 after evidence of their innocence emerged. Twenty-one condemned inmates have been released since 1993, including seven from the state of Illinois alone. Many of these cases were discovered not because of the normal appeals process, but rather as a result of new scientific techniques, investigations by journalists, and the dedicated work of expert attorneys, not available to the typical death row inmate.


69 sentences overturned, 3,350 people currently on death row, (source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Publications Alphabetical Listing (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#cp))

current executions: (updated sept 28, 2007)

Total since 1976 (including 2007): 1099
Executions in 2007: 42
Executions in 2006: 53

Hello again, charlotte:

You make a lot of assumptions, most of them wrong. There is a federal death penalty. It covers ALL the states. IF someone brought in a lot of pot, which, of course, never killed anybody nor has it ruined anybody’s lives, he can still be put to death for it.


true, but no one is currently on death row for drug crimes, and marijuana is not typically punished as severely as crimes involving other (much more dangerous) narcotics.

There is a federal death penalty

True, also, but only 37 executions have ever taken place on order of "federal death penalty" none for drug crimes.


Source: General Services Administration, October 12, 1993 (with updates by DPIC)

I have to go shower now, but keep posting the arguments/counterarguments, you guys are really helping me out, as I have to consider all sides/arguments pertaining to this issue. =)

generally because people dont want to die


No one wants to be murdered either, but the killer takes their life away.

(Note, if you make an argument, I'm going to argue against, I need both sides for my paper so thank you all, I'm not trying to be rude.)
1. I thought we were talking about the death penalty not about people getting murdered. So that counter argument bit was bull
2. wouldn't it be that because of the introduction of the death penalty people would be more cautious of committing the more serious crimes, because there is a higher risk




(please use the 'quote 'button under our posts, because it makes it easier to read, just a little pointer)

Hello again, Charlotte:

I suppose my thoughts aren't mainstream, but….

Because I oppose the death penalty, doesn't mean that I'm opposed to killing. I'm not. If someone hurt one of my family, I would have no compunction about killing him.

I am, however, opposed to killing in the name of the state.

excon

Hello again, Charlotte:

I suppose my thoughts aren't mainstream, but….

Because I oppose the death penalty, doesn’t mean that I'm opposed to killing. I'm not. If someone hurt one of my family, I would have no compunction about killing him.


excon
Thank you

I see all of your sides of the argument and I'll be involving them in my paper, so thank you all so much again, this thread is very helpful to me.

The thing I was saying is that a murderer doesn't want to be killed as punishment, but their victim didn't want to be murdered either. The death penalty takes away their rights as they took away other rights.

I don't necessarily agree with that but that's the idea behind it I think.



2. wouldn't it be that because of the introduction of the death penalty people would be more cautious of committing the more serious crimes, because there is a higher risk


I would have thought so too but statistics show that crime rates don't decrease because the criminals A) don't care about the consequences, or don't value their life
B) Don't think they will be caught or C) Don't think at all because the crime is committed in the heat of the moment.

I think a lot can be attributed to;


B) Don't think they will be caught

Also, the fact that people are being and have been sentenced to death proves the point that it's not an effective deterrant.

My view is that the world is overpopulated enough. If someone is definitely guilty of murder, child molestation or something along those lines then I say just kill them. We don't want them back in our society anyway and we don't want to pay for them while they're in jail. The major problem with the death penalty is that we don't use it enough and that the prisoners wait too long on death row. Once they are convicted and there is no doubt about their guilt, that should be it. Do it right then and there.

Where I am,
As per Islamic law, murder is treated as a civil crime and is covered by the law of qisas (retaliation), whereby the relatives of the victim decide whether the offender is punished with death by the authorities or made to pay diyah (Weregild - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wergild)) as compensation.

There was a murder in a relatives family and the man who admitted to being responsible was jailed,
But the family did not ask for compensation or death penalty because they felt that the man was not the only one involved and they did not wish to take his life without proper evidence even if he had confessed.

If someone is definately guilty of murder, child molestation or something along those lines...

See, you're been very vague there - "something along those lines"... where do you draw that line?

What about Euthenasia?
What about crimes of passion?
What about someone like Excon who would kill someone if they hurt his family?
What about the mentally ill?
What about people defending their property?
What about self defence?

What about statutory rape in a consensual relationship?

What about the person who's throwing the switch for electric chair or pumping that lethal fluid into the accused... are they murderers too!

Well it would need to be a case by case basis. Rape by itself - no, I don't think it deserves death (tho I'm sure I'll hear a lot about that comment) Rape and murder - yes. If its your job like in the case of euthanasia or the guy throwing the switch then no its not murder. Self defense is not murder - you have the right to protect yourself. I don't really know how to define it but case by case I could tell you my opinions. Crimes of passion - yes its murder and maybe it does deserve the death penalty but at the same time it is justified. Retaliation for crimes against your family – yes also murder, but also justified. Maybe just those people who are killers, those people who do it because they want to, for no other reason then to kill or rape or just hurt someone else.

But there will always be grey areas, and cases that don't fit into that systematic ideal!

My point is then you're giving that decision to either a judge or jury to decide... and they make mistakes!

I think for someone to send someone else to death for a wrong they have committed is the adult equivalent of whining "Well HE STARTED IT!"

And if you call yourself a Christian and think this is OK, that's even worse in my opinion!

My view is that the world is overpopulated enough. If someone is definately guilty of murder, child molestation or something along those lines then I say just kill them. We don't want them back in our society anyway and we don't want to pay for them while they're in jail. The major problem with the death penalty is that we don't use it enough and that the prisoners wait too long on death row. Once they are convicted and there is no doubt about their guilt, that should be it. Do it right then and there.
Thank you, finally somebody here who I can completely agree with,

Well I definitely don't call myself a christian and yes there will always be grey areas. But no I don't think it's the equivalent of "he started it." When people commit certain acts they should not ever be allowed the chance to come back into society. And instead of giving them life in prison and making the public pay to keep them alive why not just kill them and do everyone a favor?

Well I definately don't call myself a christian and yes there will always be grey areas. But no I don't think its the equivalent of "he started it." When people commit certain acts they should not ever be allowed the chance to come back into society. And instead of giving them life in prison and making the public pay to keep them alive why not just kill them and do everyone a favor?
YES!

Lol!! albear I love your picture

lol!!! albear I love your picture
Lol, it makes me chuckle

When people commit certain acts they should not ever be allowed the chance to come back into society.

So no second chance, no rehabilitation then?

So no second chance, no rehabilitation then?
Notice the word 'certain'

notice the word 'certain'

Yep, which takes me straight back to my previous posts! Lol! :rolleyes:

Well I definately don't call myself a christian and yes there will always be grey areas. But no I don't think its the equivalent of "he started it." When people commit certain acts they should not ever be allowed the chance to come back into society. And instead of giving them life in prison and making the public pay to keep them alive why not just kill them and do everyone a favor?


I've done research that says that the death penalty costs more than keeping the person in prison for life because of the person's endless appeals and legal battles and all the money they cost.

I was shocked too.

So no second chance, no rehabilitation then?



Some people feel that a rapist, murderer, or child molestor cannot be rehabilitated and should be, basically, exterminated.


Thanks for all your help guys, but this is just to help me out, please don't actually fight, no one is judging anyone else I hope and it's just for informative purposes so I know the arguments I will have to address.

See, you're been very vague there - "something along those lines"... where do you draw that line?

What about Euthenasia?
What about crimes of passion?
What about someone like Excon who would kill someone if they hurt his family?
What about the mentally ill?
What about people defending their property?
What about self defence?

What about statutory rape in a consensual relationship?

What about the person who's throwing the switch for electric chair or pumping that lethal fluid into the accused... are they murderers too!

Euthanasia isn't really having anything to do with the death penalty..
Crimes of passion are still crimes of passion.
People who kill for revenge are killing anyway.
The mentally ill need to be medicated and hospitalized/institutionalized, they don't sentence mentally ill people to death.
In my state at least, (THANK GOD) if you are defending yourself or if someone breaks into your home/car/apartment/personal space and you kill that someone, you are not liable.
Statutory rape of girls in consensual relationships is rarely taken to court and when it does, the process takes so long that the girl either becomes an adult in that time, or the parents (who usually press charges) drop the charges, however, I don't see where a jury would give the death penalty for a person who is 18 having sex with a person who is like, 15, 16 or something, usually a lesser sentence is given. I think that the death penalty is not given to people unless they are accused of something really horrible, for the most part.


I don't necessarily agree with all that, but those are counterarguments..

EXCEPT the one I said "Thank God" too, if someone breaks into my house they're getting a gut full of lead... XD

Sorry, I think you may have missed my point slighty there. I was trying to point out that if you are going to sentence someone to death for murder or rape that you can't easily categorise these terms, there are massive spectrums and reasons behind every crime!

The Death Penalty doesn't work. I agree with excon. It is barbaric and the fact that there is evidence showing it doesn't work should mean it is outlawed again.

See my post on another thread that quotes an article dealing with the death penalty. You may find it interesting.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/if-you-were-president-had-control-over-billions-spending-142251-12.html#post701031

Recently the European Union pushed the US Federal Governments and States to abolish (or at least reconsider) the death penalty. It feel completely on deaf ears and the EU was told to butt out of American politics and keep their views to themselves. I wonder what would happen if Pakistan told Bush and Rice the same thing recently when she called to tell the Pakistani pres to hurry and hold his elections...

The Death Penalty, Questions and Answers - Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT500102007)

"Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 1996 and 2002, concluded: "... research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis".


If the crime is that heinous/ would otherwise warrant the death penalty:
Life without chance of parole. Hard labor. No TV, no weight room, no internet, no recreation, no conjugal visits. Work and perhaps books.
Just my 2 cents.

Sorry, I think you may have missed my point slighty there. I was trying to point out that if you are going to sentence someone to death for murder or rape that you can't easily categorise these terms, there are massive spectrums and reasons behind every crime!



I suppose but I don't think there's ever an excuse to murder or rape...


Thank you for those articles, I will be reading them!

Life without chance of parole. Hard labor. No TV, no weight room, no internet, no recreation, no conjugal visits. Work and perhaps books.
Just my 2 cents.

But the problem is just that, life without parole isn't given out enough, and these people who commit horrible crimes (rape, murder, child molestation) get out of prison where a lot of them do it again, and a lot of times, the people are better off in prison than they were out in the world, have shelter, food, and they have too many privileges for my taste, but maybe I'm just really strong about punishment being actually a punishment. I'm not 100% about the privileges given but from what I've heard, it's pretty cushy for what is supposed to be a punishment. Maybe someone knows something about the privileges they have? An article or something?

I suppose but I don't think there's ever an excuse to murder or rape... Hello again, charlotte:

I'm not a rapist. I think rape is horrible. However, there have been times in my life where, if I weren't with the girl that I was, I could have been charged with rape.

On a few occasions in my past, I can recall NOT stopping when the girl said I should. No, it wasn't rape. But, could I have been charged with rape?? Certainly. Could I have been found guilty?? I would hope not, but I'm no fool. I certainly could have been.

Should there be a death penalty for that?? Uhhhhh, no!

excon

I'm not a rapist. I think rape is horrible. However, there have been times in my life where, if I weren't with the girl that I was, I could have been charged with rape.

On a few occasions in my past, I can recall NOT stopping when the girl said I should. No, it wasn't rape. But, could I have been charged with rape?? Certainly. Could I have been found guilty?? I would hope not, but I'm no fool. I certainly could have been.

Should there be a death penalty for that?? Uhhhhh, no!



Uhm, I think that when a woman says no, you have to stop, or it is rape. Taking advantage of someone when they are vulnerable is wrong, and no means no, that's why those laws exist. I'm not saying that every rapist should get the death penalty, but there are situations where the rape is so violent, so violating, and so horrible, that it constitutes deserving the death penalty, in my opinion. I don't think that if my boyfriend and I were having sex and I said stop during and he didn't, I would file rape charges, because that's not violent, and I'm not a minor, and he wouldn't be really harming me physically, but that situation is about respect, in a relationship, and a man who doesn't respect your wishes sexually doesn't respect you and you shouldn't be in a relationship with him, but I do think that rape of children, violent or forcible rape, gangrape, premeditated rape, and other more violent kinds of rape do deserve stronger penalties, and if a person think it's okay to rape someone else and seriously hurt them, they deserve the strongest penalty available.

I don't believe there are any people on death row currently for statutory rape within a relationship, though, I think it's mostly just very violent rapists who attacked unsuspecting people.

Hi. I have first hand knowledge of a DR case and how it works - or rather, doesn't work. The whole system is as corrupt as hell and what you see and hear in a courtroom is absolutely beyond belief. The lawyers ask questions they've already decided the answers on and don't hear anything but that, posture like they're on bloody Court TV, and main evidence doesn't get submitted. Prosecutorial Misconduct is a mainstay:(