Death Penalty

[opaltiger]

We must pay the price of keeping the streets safe.

No. No no no. People who think this way terrify me; nothing should justify the death of an innocent person at the hands of the state. It is a very slippery slope from there.

 

[ultraviolet]

Well, it's directed at Ultraviolet...

'ultraviolet' is lowercase, if you please c:

...claiming that we should change the principle of popular sovereignty just because it has always been that way.

that's not at all what I'm claming; I'm saying that you can't possibly use 'that's the way it's always been!' as an argument for human rights. if you use this logic that if something's 'always been that way, it shouldn't be changed', then you're also advocating slavery, sexism, racism and all kinds of things that 'always were'. I assume that you don't support any of those things - but you can't use that argument to support the death penalty but not slavery.

also, sources about death penalty being a crap deterrant: one two three

 

[#1 bro]

edit: ninja'd, this was in reply to opal

Right, which is why the very next line said

Of course, Pwnemon is wrong

Sorry if I was unclear.

(of course, it is possible that the fact that my name wasn't attached to it meant that you were just using it as an example in general. if so, i am sorry for raising a fuss)

 

[nyuu]

Well, it's directed at Ultraviolet claiming that we should change the principle of popular sovereignty just because it has always been that way.

how nice. please answer the question.

are you going to continue to argue that changing the constitution and the government is inherently bad

or are you going to stop using that in your arguments

I don't see why this is hard

(as it stands you have explicitly said that change is not inherently bad in one post, and then claimed that it was inherently bad in another. your arguments seem to hinge on this, so you need to pick one)

 

[Pwnemon]

I can't even take a break from this forum anymore D:~.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting ultraviolet, it's just when you brought it up when I was talking about popular sovereignty that's what I assumed you meant.

I don't really believe that "We pay that price for keeping the streets clean," for heaven's sakes I'm the one arguing against the government having hardly much power at all. But honestly, if we've put one innocent person on death row, that's a fault of our legal system and the only thing that could stop condemning the innocent is the invention of a truth serum or the discontinuation of criminal justice. The fact of death versus life in prison is all that you seem to care about here, but I see two specific times in which "A life in prison is hardly different from death" (Where you still haven't responded to my claim that it's actually fifteen or forty years) and that "The average time on death row is 12-14 years." You can't argue those two points and then turn around and say that an Incorrect sentence for life in prison is so much worse than one for death.

I could also say you can't condemn the Tea Party for a few nutcases on display and turn around and say not to condemn Muslims for a few nutcases on display but that is fo a different thread.

Whoopsie NWT to answer the question change g the constitution =\= bad but trampling on it = bad.

 

[Aisling]

I don't really believe that "We pay that price for keeping the streets clean," for heaven's sakes I'm the one arguing against the government having hardly much power at all. But honestly, if we've put one innocent person on death row, that's a fault of our legal system and the only thing that could stop condemning the innocent is the invention of a truth serum or the discontinuation of criminal justice.

Or how about we just get rid of the death penalty because it is a waste of money

The fact of death versus life in prison is all that you seem to care about here, but I see two specific times in which "A life in prison is hardly different from death" (Where you still haven't responded to my claim that it's actually fifteen or forty years) and that "The average time on death row is 12-14 years." You can't argue those two points and then turn around and say that an Incorrect sentence for life in prison is so much worse than one for death.

Sources have been cited to you that death row is not a good deterrent, anyway, so let's just call the "life in prison is hardly different from death" argument off because mileage varies on that one. As for the average time on death row, that was used to demonstrate how expensive twelve years on death row is compared to twelve years on life sentence. There is a very big difference.

I could also say you can't condemn the Tea Party for a few nutcases on display and turn around and say not to condemn Muslims for a few nutcases on display but that is for a different thread.

You can't condemn all Muslims for a few nutcases, and there's better reasons to condemn the Tea Party than a few nutcases, so I agree that people shouldn't be using those nutcases alone. Not wanting to get into this in this thread but just letting you know.

Whoopsie NWT to answer the question change g the constitution =\= bad but trampling on it = bad.

Define trampling on it. I was under the impression that "trampling on it" to you was the same as changing it or wanting it to be changed because some parts of it are outdated.

 

[#1 bro]

(Where you still haven't responded to my claim that it's actually fifteen or forty years) and that "The average time on death row is 12-14 years."

Criminals definitely get sentenced to jail for life without parole in the U.S. (for example, the Unabomber is currently doing so). "Life sentence" might be a euphemism for a shorter time period, but there are also actual life sentences.

You can't argue those two points and then turn around and say that an Incorrect sentence for life in prison is so much worse than one for death.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase this?

 

[surskitty]

The thing about people in life imprisonment is that if something comes up and they're innocent, they're able to get out. Their lives are mostly ruined, but they still have something of a chance.

 

[Pwnemon]

Trampling on it = making laws that ignore the constitution or reshaping it through judicial diktat without going through the correct amendment process outlined in article 8.

That was half the point of my argument; that you'll most likely still have twelve to fourteen years for new evidence to surface. If it doesn't by then, chances are it won't.

Zeta, what I pretty much mean is what I just told James combined with what you said that life imprisonment is hardly different from death.

 

[Aisling]

That was half the point of my argument; that you'll most likely still have twelve to fourteen years for new evidence to surface. If it doesn't by then, chances are it won't.

So pretty much you are saying here is that it's a shorter version of a life sentence that is even more expensive per year, with an added topping of hypocrisy, and a case where evidence found in the prisoner's favor is irrelevant if it doesn't happen to be found within 12-14 years. This is bad in every way I can think of.
As I stated in another thread, improbable does not mean the same thing as impossible. What if evidence does turn up? Too bad, they're dead, and cost taxpayers a lot more money too.

 

[Autumn]

it's worth noting that the constitution was originally designed to allow for changes as need be. if abraham lincoln had thought "oh but that's the way it's always been we shouldn't change it" slavery would never have been abolished. later on, women would never have been given the right to vote.

saying "that's the way it's always been" is a ridiculously poor argument. societies change; people change; the usa is one hell of a lot different than it was back when the original constitution was written.

nowadays it could be argued that the death penalty counts as "cruel and unusual punishment". which, as we all know, is FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION

 

[nyuu]

HEY ALRAUNE I CRACKED THE CODE
As far as I can tell, Pwnemon's argument is thus:

PREMISE #1: in the past, evidence has turned up decades later that has gotten people out of both life sentences and death sentences
PREMISE #2: on a per-year basis, keeping people on life sentences is much cheaper than keeping them on death row

CLAIM: because evidence is unlikely to turn up, a few government-executed innocents is a-okay

 

[Superbird]

...I am so going to win this debate. Anyway, thanks for all the responses to my one little question. It's really helped my research.

 

[Michi]

OKAY, so now I'm ready.

I support the death penalty/capital punishment.

Apparently the major argument here is that the death penalty condemns the innocent to die.
This is not true.
There have been about 16,000 total executions in the United States, 1,224 since it's reinstatement and there are 3,275 death row inmates. In the US, 15 people have been proclaimed as inocent and then released from death row. Only 8 people have been possibly wrongfully executed, according to the Supreme Court. So a total of 0.5% of death row inmates and executed prisoners since 1976 actually have a chance of being innocent, and only 0.3% have been declared innocent. Personally I think this is too low for the massive concern it causes. Only 8 people are even "executed but possibly innocent" out of 5,000 executed in the past 80 years in the US alone.
While I agree that it is not acceptable for an innocent human to die, it is far, far worse to alow tens of thousands of murderers to live and have a chance to kill again. We are allowing even more innocent lives to be lost by paroling these murderers.

The following are qotes from an online source that supports my argument:

ARGUMENT(S) A: The death penalty is racist. Or; The death penalty punishes the poor.
These are basically the same argument. What it boils down to is "the death penalty is not applied fairly." This cannot be an argument against the death penalty. If it were, then it would be an argument against all punishments. To argue that the death penalty is to be abolished because it is not fairly imposed is to admit that if it were imposed fairly it would be okay. This is not an argument against the death penalty but an argument to improve the justice system. Is the system unfair? Fix it. What is unfair is not that the black and poor prisoners get what they deserve. What is unfair is that the rich and white prisoners do not.

June 6, 2001- Justice Department finds that there is no bias in application of death penalty.

ARGUMENT B: The death penalty is not a deterrent against violent crime.
The death penalty as a deterrent to crime is not the issue. Capital punishment is, pardon the redundancy, a punishment for crime. As a punishment, the death penalty is 100% effective--every time it is used, the prisoner dies.

Additionally, the death penalty is actually 100% effective as a deterrent to crime: the murderer will never commit another crime once he has been executed. While there is no proof that any innocents have been executed in this century, there is an abundance of evidence that prisoners who either escaped or were released early murdered innocent victims again. Professor Paul Cassell points out that:

"Out of a sample of 164 paroled Georgia murderers, eight committed subsequent murders within seven years of release. A study of twenty Oregon murderers released on parole in 1979 found that one (i.e., five percent) had committed a subsequent homicide within five years of release. Another study found that of 11,404 persons originally convicted of "willful homicide" and released during 1965 and 1974, 34 were returned to prison for commission of a subsequent criminal homicide during the first year alone.
Even those who are not released but still serve life terms murder again. Cassell further notes that, "At least five federal prison officers have been killed since December 1982, and the inmates in at least three of the incidents were already serving life sentences for murder." Had these prisoners been executed, innocent lives would have been saved. The death penalty is, without question, a deterrent to murder."

(Seven recent studies make it clear that executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums.)

ARGUMENT C: The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.
The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. The framers of the Constitution supported the death penalty, and in fact constructed laws in order to carry it out, so it is ridiculous to claim that cruel and unusual punishment refers to the death penalty. Justice Antonin Scalia observed,
"The Fifth Amendment provides that '[n]o persons shall be held to answer for a capital...crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of life...without the due process of law.' This clearly permits the death penalty to be imposed, and establishes beyond doubt that the death penalty is not one of the 'cruel and unusual punishments' prohibited by the Eighth Amendment."
The American draftsmen were primarily concerned with proscribing "tortures" and other "barbarous" methods of punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Gregg v. Georgia that
"In the earliest cases raising Eighth Amendment claims, the Court focused on particular methods of execution to determine whether they were too cruel to pass constitutional muster. The constitutionality of the sentence of death itself was not at issue... (emphasis mine)."
The Senate Judiciary Committee once noted,
"[m]urder does not simply differ in magnitude from extortion or burglary or property destruction offenses; it differs in kind. Its punishment ought to also differ in kind. It must acknowledge the inviolability and dignity of innocent human life. It must, in short, be proportionate."
The very notion that one could be cruel while punishing a guilty murderer for murdering an innocent victim is laughable.

I may be Atheist, but IF there is anyone who is opposed to capital punishment based on Christianity's views:

Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
Exodus 21:12: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."
Acts 25:11: "For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar."
Romans 13:1-4: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

 

[Aisling]

You don't address the fact that a person on death row costs the government much more money than a person just on a life sentence... At least according to Pwnemon's uncited 90k quote, anyway. Surely you considered that? A person with a life sentence gets kind of close to a person who's been on death row for 12 years... after 40 years.

edit: If you missed it or something, it's right here. If this is incorrect I'd much rather somebody correct me on it than just ignore it or say it "distracts from the point". I think this is actually a really big point. That money could be spent towards all sorts of things that would better society more than killing somebody off would.

 

[Michi]

Oh sure, it's more expensive. Of course, we could let some murderer get a life sentence and live for forty or more years in jail to rack up the same cost or even more. And from what I see, these things don't actually mean that you stay in prison until your death. Oh, and if they get paroled, they could just go off and rob, kill, rape, assault, or kidnap a few more people. I honestly don't see what cost matters; sure, the American people pay for the execution, but I think many, if not most, would prefer to have a murderer removed from the life that I would consider to be a blessing, had I killed someone.

 

[surskitty]

If they get paroled and they killed someone, they probably aren't likely to kill someone again. I would be very surprised if it was easy for murderers to get parole.

 

[Michi]

Another study found that of 11,404 persons originally convicted of "willful homicide" and released during 1965 and 1974, 34 were returned to prison for commission of a subsequent criminal homicide during the first year alone.

Actually, it seems to be fairly easy to get out of jail when you murder; 11,404 murderers were released in a span of 9 years alone.

 

[Aisling]

I honestly don't see what cost matters; sure, the American people pay for the execution

No, that's not the problem I have with the cost. I meant:

That money could be spent towards all sorts of things that would better society more than killing somebody off would

like... health care, medical advancements (cancer research? I'm lucky my sister happened to have one of the most researched forms of leukemia, or she might have died like her hospital friends with the slightly less common forms! just an example from my personal experience), trying to get out of a hole of debt, or something that actually directly helps people. Spending around one million dollars on one person who might kill someone else isn't a very efficient way of trying to help everyone.

 

[Michi]

But it is someone who already has killed someone, not just someone who might kill.
And this money isn't a waste; executions are proven by studies to deter crimes such as murder, as stated above. There is already a lot of money going into medical advancements. While I'm not entirely heartless and I DO care about people such as your sister, I feel that murderers are much more serious morally than cancer or disease.
Also, it's midnight here. More debating tomorrow. :P