Debate Thread V: The Death Penalty

[Tollwutig]

I see Theory? is once again being slack at opening a new debate thread. So here it goes, and I want a good clean debate, no insults, no flames, and if you are not signed up no posts. I will heavily moderate this one, and will not hesitate to delete, and or lock it if you guys get unruly. The only reason I am using this topic is the last debates lack of interest. Also people, post facts, and references not just opinion.

And yes, I may or may not have put you on the opposite side of this debate that you have expressed opinions on.


For the Death Penalty (Hang'em or Fry'em now and Let God Them Out Red)
Anjin-San
John
thefremen
BetaSword
dagrak
wxDiva
Cecil475
godofyouall


Against the Death Penalty (Rehabilitate Those We Can and Throw Away the Key on Those We Can't Blue)
nightwng2000
ZimmyDSMlee
Silver_Derstin
cyn1c42
Ohma
Hank the Tank
pixelante_ninja
Ace_ofspade


For Historical purposes I left the original teams showing in gray, and shrunk the font. Please see my post about the change up, later in the thread.


Now your team may or may not change and I am going to copy this into the initial post as well. All previous posts will remain standing, so you may end up debating yourself.

Also no more fictional Characters... use of real examples is fine.


For the Death Penalty (Red)
Anjin-San
John
thefremen
wxDiva
Cecil475
godofyouall
Silver_Derstin
Ack
Hank the Tank



Against the Death Penalty ( Blue)
nightwng2000
ZimmyDSMlee
BetaSword
dagrak
cyn1c42
Ohma
pixelante_ninja
Ace_ofspade

[Theory?]

Oops. Theory? is a dumbass.

I'll forgive you this time, but no secks for you tonight.

[nightwng2000]

The Death Penalty is the ultimate form of Human Logic:

Killing Humans is wrong, so because you killed someone, we're gonna kill you in hopes of deterring other Humans from killing other Humans.

Kinda reminds me of that old "Here's Your Sign" bit. Kid hauls off and hits the neighbor's kid. Daddy of first kid smacks his kid and exclaims "we don't hit!"

Here's your sign.

[wxDiva]

I don't think the logic goes in that manner. When you're dead, you're dead. You can't do anything else. It's the main thing people fear and dread, so it's fitting that it be the ultimate punishment. When people say that death isn't a fitting punishment because they are getting removed from the consequences of their lives, they fail to realize that prisoners live a life better than most people on this planet. They get three meals a day, a place to sleep, and some of them can have jobs and earn college degrees. Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people, even had a tv in his cell. I find it sadly ironic that the man who met his end not even five miles from where I'm currently typing this had a better quality of life than a fair portion of the people in this city.

[nightwng2000]

Not every criminal can be rehabilitated. And, certainly, there is a case by case determination as to what each offender should be subject to. Certainly luxuries are not welcome as part of one's punishment. I wouldn't argue "cruel and unusual punishment" just because they aren't allowed to bulk up in a gym, watch TV, read a newspaper, or socialize with others. Frankly, a great many could and should be crammed into a serious form of solitary confinement for the rest of their natural lives.

A number of multiple killers more than likely had the thought after their first act "no turning back now, they're gonna take me out anyway, and I can only die once, so make as well take as many as I can before I go".

Justice isn't swift, and many do spend a great amount of time on death row. Whether someone is on death row for a crime they didn't commit, a single murder they commited, for whatever reason, or multiple murders, there is still the single punishment, death. And one thing that does draw it out is that time between conviction and the actual sentence. And there are times even then that one person will get "swift justice" and another will be made to suffer for a long period in prison. Even though the crime itself may differ.

Even after 5, 10, even 15 years of waiting on death row, the execution will end the punishment. If the inmate actually commited the crime, a lifetime (20, 30, 40, even 50 years in prison) is far more an assured punishment than hoping that the inmate gets their just desserts in the speculated afterlife. After all, if there is no afterlife, then their suffering punishment is over at death. Family members of the victims will last far longer.

[John]

For the love of!

For the next few seconds, I guess I'm a Republican...ewwewweww!

Criminals are criminals. End of story. If you take a life, your life will be take in return. It's called fair exchange.

That's...all I can come up with. I'm kinda apathetic towards the death penalty.
Then use this as an opportunity to learn how to debate for the opposite side, thus in when you counter this debate in the future you will know the best arguments for the death penalty before they are used, and will know how to counter them. -Toll

[Hank the Tank]

In a civilized society, there should be no need for a death penalty. As long as we are able to sufficiently keep a person away from society and the possibility of killing other people, there is no reason to kill them.

I doubt that a person who has committed crimes so grave that they were given a life sentence or death penalty can be rehabilitated. But if it is possible, we should at least give it a try for some special cases. Many times, the death penalty is actually MORE expensive than a life sentence because of extra court costs. People on death row appeal more often then those that have a life sentence. There is always the possibility that a person has been wrongfully convicted. You can make your own conclusions to why this is a problem.

[Cecil475]

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" Exodus 21:23-27
Also A life for a life.

- Warren Lewis

edit: I misspelled my own name!

[nightwng2000]

Warren,
That would work in a society based on vengence, not justice.
While our society has problems with real justice and lacks a decent legal system, if we focused on vengence as a way of dealing with the accused in our legal system, there would be a far greater incidence of the innocent being punished for crimes that they didn't commit.

Many in society want a bias either for the victim or for the accused rather than a fair, intelligent justice system. But there are times when a vengence attitude of "as long as SOMEONE is held accountable, then we're satisfied. Doesn't matter whether they really commited the act or not".

A number of crimes have been dealt with in this manner. Not just murder. And at times the attitude has been "we got someone, we punished them, let's not put the victims/victim's families through the ordeal again" or "we'll keep punishing people til we get the right one".

A vengence system is more harmful to society because more innocent people are punished just to satisfy someone else's taste for vengence.

[Dagrak]

1) Society doesn't want to actually work towards solving a problem, so it makes it all so much easier just to eliminate the individual without thought of their rights, their families or as to what is actually achieved.
2)Dead people don't cost anything to the state.
3)People always want revenge and what is greater then killing?
4)This method at least removes the concern of re-offending.

EDIT: Removed original comment...was feeling overly hostile about being put on this side.

I will reiterate what I put into John's post. Use this as a learning opportunity, on how to debate. Being able to effectively debate a position which you do not personally believe makes you a much stronger debater when it comes to defending your own position, because you'll learn to not only use your emotions towards the argument but logic as well. The debate thread's are not here to support a particular agenda as much as to be an exercise in effective arguing without resulting to flamewars.

[pixelante_ninja]

A life sentance is often better punishment, if you really want to call it that it also seems to be better revenge, though we certainly shouldn't base our legal system around that, I mean really, what's worse, sitting in prison for 20 years and then getting pricked with a needle, or living in prison for 40-50 years with a guy named Bubba?

[Thefremen]

In reference to criminals: Yes they deserve to die, and I hope they burn in hell. At any rate, when criminals can never be re-habilitated I don't see any logical choice other than the death penalty. Criminals like Emperor Palpetine simply cannot be rehabilitated because the dark side is far too strong with them.

[nightwng2000]

Well, if we're going down the road of fictional characters, how about Darth Vader or Hugh of Borg?

One cannot prove that another individual is not capable of being rehabilitated until one tries and fails.

[Thefremen]

Well, if we're going down the road of fictional characters, how about Darth Vader or Hugh of Borg?

One cannot prove that another individual is not capable of being rehabilitated until one tries and fails.


They tried and failed? They tried and died. Hugh of Borg was under a kind of mass hypnosis and his example is why we shouldn't apply the death penalty unilaterally but instead use the court system to decide if criminals could be rehabilitated or not. I would never defend the "eye for an eye" method since I'd rather live in a reasonably just society.

Just imagine how much better off we'd be if Hannibal Lector had been killed before he was able to escape and eat people's brains.

[Anjin-San]

As someone who opposes the death penalty, I can't think of a reason I'd approve of the death penalty...but, that may be because I've never known anyone whose had something...well...that terrible, that'd I'd wish death on another. So, I'll say that in terms of fluidity, I'd approve because while I value life, I wouldn't value the life of someone who has done something that heinous to my loved ones, redemption notwithstanding. (Even then, it'd be a hard sell.)

[Hank the Tank]

Wow... this debate thread kinda sucks...

Then help it along and debate instead of complaining.
I DID, but now we've gone down the road of discussing the death penalty for fictional characters and the death penalty defenders aren't exactly defending their topic. But fine.


The actual act of killing a person can have horrendous effect on the actual people doing the killings. Even if the person being executed raped babies or some other horrible crime, it isn't easy for non-psychopaths to take the life of another human being. This can even be seen throughout history with attempts at making executioners less and less involved in the killings. I can remember one execution device that involved the executioner only having to push a button and several rifles would go off and kill the criminal.

[Dagrak]

Well, if we're going down the road of fictional characters, how about Darth Vader or Hugh of Borg?

One cannot prove that another individual is not capable of being rehabilitated until one tries and fails.


Ah but if Obi Wan had killed Anakin there and then instead of leaving in the hopes that he would simply die or be forgotten he would have saved countless lives, several Imperial officers and removed the Emperor's most powerful ally. Besides Vader wasn't rehabilitated, he simply chose to pursue his own interests at the last minute rather stand up for the Rebellion or to fight for what was "right".

[Tollwutig]

Hank is right you guys need to do better... the idea behind debate is to be able to defend ANY position in a debate. So here's the deal, I'm mixing up the teams and adding Ack into the mix mid-debate.

Now your team may or may not change and I am going to copy this into the initial post as well. All previous posts will remain standing, so you may end up debating yourself.

Also no more fictional Characters... use of real examples is fine.


For the Death Penalty (Red)
Anjin-San
John
thefremen
wxDiva
Cecil475
godofyouall
Silver_Derstin
Ack
Hank the Tank



Against the Death Penalty ( Blue)
nightwng2000
ZimmyDSMlee
BetaSword
dagrak
cyn1c42
Ohma
pixelante_ninja
Ace_ofspade


Also as a note if participation doesn't go up on real world topics I'm going back to the inane debates such as Cake v. Pie.

[Cecil475]

A life sentance is often better punishment, if you really want to call it that it also seems to be better revenge, though we certainly shouldn't base our legal system around that, I mean really, what's worse, sitting in prison for 20 years and then getting pricked with a needle, or living in prison for 40-50 years with a guy named Bubba?

Not everyone gets Bubba as a roomate.

- Warren Lewis

[Dagrak]

"in 1977, just 16 countries had abolished capital punishment for all crimes. Today the figure stands at 88." Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng)

The Death Penalty has been abolished in almost all European countries, with membership to the European council being denied to those who still practice it. As it stands Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and the U.S. are the only fully developed and democratic nations that have the death penalty.

Every human being deserves the basic dignity of life. As a society we have the rights to take away the ability to cause harm or to be a danger to others but we have no right over the basic right to live. The problem with the death penalty argument is that people forget that these are real people, like you and me, whose existence is being decided by other people. We're horrified when we hear of someone being shot or innocents being murdered but we seem perfectly happy with someones death if its been decided by a court of law. The death penalty simply shows how little the government values human life, casting it aside as if it were a bad dog.

The problem with the death penalty is that it is irrevocable and final. Theres no going back to an earlier save, its over for the individual concerned. People seem to imagine that this is a flawless process, unfortunately this is not the case. People have been executed for crimes they did not commit sometimes with the truth not coming out many years later. There are undoubtedly a fair number who have been executed injustly but for whom the truth has been forgotten or ignored:

In 1999, eight people were freed and declared innocent of their crimes, bringing the total of those exonerated from death row to eighty-four since 1973, or about one-seventh of all those executed. These inmates had spent an average of 7.5 years on death row before winning release because evidence of their innocence emerged--an eloquent testament to the dangers of quicker executions

Even before the sentence the convicted has to wait an excrutiatingly long time, knowing that their fate gets closer and closer. Thats psychological torture:

"Everybody I have known on death row always had the same nightmare: `They're coming for me, they're dragging me out of my cell, they're bringing me to the execution chamber, I'm fighting, I'm screaming, No, no! And then I wake up and I'm in a sweat. And then I realize, oh, no, it's not my time yet.'" -Sister Helen Prejean

Its not always a quick and easy death either:

In 1997, Pedro Medina's head caught fire while he was being electrocuted in Florida. State Attorney General Bob Butterworth commented, "People who wish to commit murder, they better not do it in the state of Florida, because we may have a problem with our electric chair."

Although the electric chair is rarely used these days gas chambers have been shown to be both painful and horrifying ways to die.

Another problem with the death penalty is the uneven way in which its carried out. Two people can commit the same crime but depending on location, race, gender and other factors one can be given life and the other sentenced to death.

"A 1998 University of Iowa study of sentencing in Philadelphia showed that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly 3.9 times greater if the defendant is black.

A defendant's odds of receiving a death sentence are 4.8 times higher if the victim was white than if the victim was black in similarly aggravated cases. In Illinois, the multiplier is 4, in Oklahoma, it is 4.3, in North Carolina, 4.4, and in Mississippi, it is 5.5.... The state of Kentucky presents a particularly outrageous example of race-of-victim discrimination: Despite the fact that 1,000 African Americans have been murdered there since the 1975 reinstitution of the death penalty in that state, as of spring 1999, all of the state's thirty-nine death row inmates were sentenced for murdering a white victim; none were there for murdering a black victim." reports the Death Penalty Information Center

It should be clear by now, what with the recent school shootings etc, that death is no real deterant for a criminal. To some its even seen as some kind of goal or reward, where they can be given the glorious cinematic finale. Its not the same if they have to rot away in prison. The Columbine killers wanted to go down in a hail of bullets and no doubt had they been caught before dying they would have hoped for the death penalty so that they could be given their dramatic send off. This means they get to die holding on to their crimes like trophies, whereas those who languish in prison, such as Myra Hindley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_Hindley) are left to reflect on what they have done. From a religious point of view this gives them a chance to repent for what they have done, from a non-religious view it shows that given time people can acknowledge the consequences of their actions. Whether you believe she was sincere or not at least avoiding death gave her the chance to reform. People deserve that chance, its immoral of ourselves to deny them that.

I could add even more to this list but I'll save some more for later. Think on this though:

What gives you the right to determine the value of someone elses life and how is state sanctioned murder any better then criminal murder?

[pixelante_ninja]

Not everyone gets Bubba as a roomate.

- Warren Lewis
But everyone has many chances to drop the soap ;P

[Dagrak]

I'd approve because while I value life, I wouldn't value the life of someone who has done something that heinous to my loved ones, redemption notwithstanding. (Even then, it'd be a hard sell.)

The problem with this argument, the one that underpins the Death Penalty debate, is that you are bringing vengeance into the justice system. Vengeance is fueled by anger which in turn has been shown (as my original post demonstrated) to reduce your ability to think clearly and without prejudice. Justice is based on balance and therefore fairness, if vengeance becomes part of the argument then it becomes imbalanced and thusly unfair. An unfair legal system, particuarly when a life is involved, is innadequate and immoral and of no use to a democratic society.

[Anjin-San]

Vengeance is fueled by anger which in turn has been shown (as my original post demonstrated) to reduce your ability to think clearly and without prejudice.

When someone whose innocent gets the wrap because of anger, then yes...I'll concede on that. But let's go ahead and say it's clear cut. They've handled the case with all the style and cleverness of an episode of CSI. It's clear the guy did the heinous crime. The anger and intolerance towards a person who did such a terrible thing...may be...dare I say...justified? If we're going to throw around words like justice and vengance, you've got to acknowledge the fact they're very subjective terms not fenced in by mere Batman-logic.

[Dagrak]

When someone whose innocent gets the wrap because of anger, then yes...I'll concede on that. But let's go ahead and say it's clear cut. They've handled the case with all the style and cleverness of an episode of CSI. It's clear the guy did the heinous crime. The anger and intolerance towards a person who did such a terrible thing...may be...dare I say...justified? If we're going to throw around words like justice and vengance, you've got to acknowledge the fact they're very subjective terms not fenced in by mere Batman-logic.


But a court has to remain impartial in order to guarantee fair justice and in turn a fair trial. If you have anger towards an individual, no matter how "justified" you may feel, you cannot act with the proper amount of impartiality and are therefore acting unfairly and irresponsibly. The accused ends up looking less then human and is subjected on a very shallow level. There may be many causes to why they may have carried out this crime, abusive past history, mental impairement and they themselves may have wanted revenge but this is all ignored in favour of a "justified solution". The big question is how you can determine that it is ever justified to terminate someones life based on your feelings or the desires/pressure or the victims family. People generally want a quick and swift solution and in doing so forget basic due process. There is a man who sits on Death Row at the moment for a crime he may very well have not commited because the prosecution council was so determined to get a swift resolution for the family that they terrified the convicted's strongest witness into not showing as they threatened to implicate them on the same murder charge if they took part. So the desire for quick anger influenced justice already has prohibited a fair trial.

[Tollwutig]

Yay, we're not getting some Debate, now if we can get more participation.

-Toll

[Cecil475]

As someone who opposes the death penalty, I can't think of a reason I'd approve of the death penalty...but, that may be because I've never known anyone whose had something...well...that terrible, that'd I'd wish death on another. So, I'll say that in terms of fluidity, I'd approve because while I value life, I wouldn't value the life of someone who has done something that heinous to my loved ones, redemption notwithstanding. (Even then, it'd be a hard sell.)

I would have to agree. If someone brought death to my family or friends I would demand their death. Yes it's vengence. But it's also the fact that that person cannot harm anyone ever again.

- Warren Lewis

[Thefremen]

Although vengence is the path to the dark side, allowing fleshy pods of evil to continue living is simply wasteful of our resources.

[Dagrak]

I would have to agree. If someone brought death to my family or friends I would demand their death. Yes it's vengence. But it's also the fact that that person cannot harm anyone ever again.

- Warren Lewis

What you propose there is no better then what they did to your loved one. Calling for blood is just as terrible as pulling the trigger yourself.

Although vengence is the path to the dark side, allowing fleshy pods of evil to continue living is simply wasteful of our resources.

Whilst I'm sure your sentence was mean't to be amusing you have to realise that good and evil, dark and light are fictional terms that do not apply to the real world. By classifying them as "fleshy pods" you deny them the same treatment as a normal human, regardless of what crime they may have commited everyone deserves that right. If an alternative choice, such as life imprisonment, remains over death then it is immoral and inhuman to refuse it.

[Thefremen]

Whilst I'm sure your sentence was mean't to be amusing you have to realise that good and evil, dark and light are fictional terms that do not apply to the real world. By classifying them as "fleshy pods" you deny them the same treatment as a normal human, regardless of what crime they may have commited everyone deserves that right. If an alternative choice, such as life imprisonment, remains over death then it is immoral and inhuman to refuse it.

I was summarizing the arguement for vengence being wrong. At any rate, what choice did they give their victims? Saddam Huissein sure as hell didn't give his victims the chance to have life in prison instead of death. Besides, many criminals themselves choose the death penalty. Adolf Hitler, for example.

[nightwng2000]

While we can put forth list upon list on either side, another consideration should be the death penalty that has been used on children. While there are many incidents of children who commit murder, for various reasons, some are more horrible than others. And certainly many of them will test one's resolve on the issue of rehabilitation, such as many of those listed in these articles:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/kids2/index_1.html (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/weird/kids2/index_1.html)
http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/ccorcos/lawhum/childrenkillingparents.htm (http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/ccorcos/lawhum/childrenkillingparents.htm)
http://violentkids.com/violence_facts.html (http://violentkids.com/violence_facts.html)

one must also consider the ramifications of the death penalty being used as a punishment for such acts:
http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9807/executions.html (http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9807/executions.html)
http://web.amnesty.org/wire/February2004/executions (http://web.amnesty.org/wire/February2004/executions)
http://www.bigeye.com/jj060202.htm (http://www.bigeye.com/jj060202.htm)

And despite the FEELINGS we may have towards those who commit such acts, one has to wonder just what will happen to those of us who actually could ACT on those feelings. Anger does not always lead to an act of vengence (whether it ourselves making the act or someone else doing it for us in our name).

Whether the killer is a child or an adult. Whether the killer was "justified" or "insane" or truly innocent of the act they are accused of. I still wonder what it would make us to actually carry out or ask someone else to carry out the act of vengence, as opposed to being angry enough to merely FEEL the desire to end someone else's life.

I also sometimes wonder about such individuals as the Amish, as they have been close in mind over the last month or so. Suppose the killer had not commited suicide. We know they would not have wanted him dead because of their beliefs. But I can't imagine not even being angry. Or so the media has made it appear. I can't even imagine that level of... forgiveness?

[Dagrak]

I was summarizing the arguement for vengence being wrong. At any rate, what choice did they give their victims? Saddam Huissein sure as hell didn't give his victims the chance to have life in prison instead of death. Besides, many criminals themselves choose the death penalty. Adolf Hitler, for example.

Adolf Hitler chose suicide, there is a very distinct difference between chosing to end your own life and chosing to end someone elses. How can you argue about how bad it is that they didn't give their victims any choice but are quite happy to do the same to them? Its this bizarre ideal that people have that if someone commits a crime they should deserve an equal punishment, that just means you end up exactly the same as them except you act with a government stamp instead of a weapon.

If you take away someone elses life it is murder, no matter which way you look at it. The whole point of the justice system is to keep an ordered and thusly better society, if it wants to keep that ideal it needs to start showing that its methods are better then those they condemn.

[Tollwutig]

CLOSED... There wasn't too much debate going on in this thread, so much for controversial topics... I see Theory? despite being the one to come up with this idea has still be slack about stopping and starting a debate. I must say Dagrak owned this thread once he was put on a side he believed in, but he needs to learn to argue for the other side in order to become a stronger debater. Kudos to Hank for pointing out the need of mixing things up mid debate.

[Theory?]

God, I'm awful. This is twice in a row.