The Death Penalty- Right or Wrong?

[Guest Lottie]

The Death Penalty- Right or Wrong?

Does society have the right to kill a person who has committed henious crimes to others and society?

Looking for 2 participants to take part. If you have any questions feel free to contact Disinterested or myself.

Edited April 29, 2005 by Lottie

[Kryso]

I hope you will not think I am over doing it? I am evolved in 2 debates at the moment - Human Intelligence-Are We Our Worst Enemy? Along with Imagin, and Should we allow Plastic Surgery? along with Snuffy. But these 2 debates are coming to there end now! And I have just requested to be allowed to participate in the new debate: Criminal Behaviour- Nature vs. Nurtured? But if it is okay I would like to participate in this debate as well?

I would like to debate that The Death Penalty is right! But I will understand if you think I am stretching myself a little too far.

[Guest Lottie]

Hey Kryso,

I do not see any problem with this. The two debates you are in are reaching a conclusion and you have shown a consistency with your posting so its all good!

Thankyou for participating.

So.... Kryso will be debating that the death penalty is Right.

Looking for one more person to debate against Kryso who feels that the death penalty is Wrong.

Edited April 29, 2005 by Lottie

[TheBloom]

I would like to debate that the death penalty is wrong.

I want to make it clear that this would be my first debate....I don't want to be stomped on just because I've never done it before, okay?

I'm not used to them but I'll do my best.

[Guest Lottie]

Don't worry hun, there will be no stomping on Plus for a first debate you are lucky... Kryso is a real gentleman. Any questions or problems you come up against do not hesitate to contact Disinterested or myself.

Thankyou for participating.

So here we go... This should be a good debate!

Kryso will be debating that the death penalty is Right.

DukeofNoodleness will be debating the death penalty is wrong.

The debate will consist of an introduction, 5 bodily posts showing countering of the opponent, good style, persuasive arguments and information relevant to the topic, and a conclusion .

Remember to quote your sources, no flaming or offensive langauage.

Please try try to keep to the time limits of the rules which are 7 days per post otherwise points will start being deducted, see here: Rules

If for any reason this is not possible during the course of the debate please let myself or Disinterested know and that way no-one loses out.

Most importantly have fun!

Any question we are just a PM away. Good luck!

Edited April 29, 2005 by Lottie

[Kryso]

Hi DukeofNoodleness… I look forward to having this debate with you. Normally I would say ladies first, but if it’s okay I’ll go first so it gives you a little longer to decide what your first post will consist of?

So here we go. I am debating that Capital Punishment – the death penalty – is justified.

This is taken from Capital Punishment; The Death Penalty And this gives an overview of exactly what the death Penalty is:

The word "capital" in "capital punishment" refers to a person's head. In the past, people were often executed by severing their head from their body. Today, in the U.S., most prisoners are executed by lethal injection.

The United States is one of the very few industrialized countries in the world which continues to execute criminals. Further, it is one of a handful of countries in the world which executes mentally ill persons, persons with very low IQ, and child murderers (i.e. persons who were under 18 at the time of their crime).

It is mainly the Southern states which continue to execute people. During 2002:

61 of the 71 executions were in Southern states.

Outside the South, only three States (California, Ohio and Missouri) executed anyone.

From 1976, when executions were resumed, until 2003-JAN-1, there have been 820 executions in the US. This includes 66 during 2001 and 71 in 2002. About two out of three executions are conducted in only five states: Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. Texas leads the other states in number of killings. In late 2002, there were about 3,697 prisoners sentenced to death in 37 state death rows, and 31 being held by the U.S. government and military. About 1.5% are women. 102 have been exonerated and freed since 1973, largely after having been proven innocent by DNA evidence.

Here are some more statistics taken from the Bureau of justice Statistics Website

•  In 2003, 65 persons in 11 States and the Federal system were executed -- 24 in Texas; 14 in Oklahoma, 7 in North Carolina; 3 each in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio; 2 each in Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia; and 1 each in Arkansas and the Federal system.

•    Of persons executed in 2003:

-- 41 were white

-- 20 were black

-- 3 were Hispanic (all white)

-- 1 American Indian

•  Of those executed in 2003:

-- 65 were men

•  Lethal injection accounted for 64 of the executions; 1 was carried out by electrocution.

•  Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2003 had capital statutes.

Of persons under sentence of death in 2003:

  -- 1,878 were white

  -- 1,418 were black

  -- 29 were American Indian

  -- 35 were Asian

  -- 14 were of unknown race.

At yearend, the youngest inmate under sentence of death was 19; the oldest was 88.

My argument is this: The Death Penalty has been in place since 1976, and all who are on death row have been placed there by a jury of their peers, and judgement passed by a judge.

I will be arguing that with today’s advances in technology (DNA, among other things) the chances of an innocent person being sentenced to death is very, very remote, if not impossible.

102 have been exonerated and freed since 1973, largely after having been proven innocent by DNA evidence.

(As stated above in the first Quote)

I will also be arguing that: is it not right for a person who has taken the life of another to have his/her life taken in return?

I look forward to your first post on the debate DukeofNoodleness.

Kryso...

[TheBloom]

I will be arguing that Capital Punishement is wrong.

Taken from the same website as Kryso it states:

The United States is one of the very few industrialized countries in the world which continues to execute criminals. Further, it is one of a handful of countries in the world which executes mentally ill persons, persons with very low IQ, and child murderers (i.e. persons who were under 18 at the time of their crime).

Statistics taken from Schitzophrenia Fact and Statistics.

The Prevalance Rate for schizophrenia is approximately 1.1% of the population over the age of 18 (source: NIMH) or, in other words, at any one time as many as 51 million people worldwide suffer from schizophrenia, including;

    * 12 million people in China

    * 8.7 million people in India

    * 2.2 million people in USA

    * 285,000 people in Australia

    * Over 280,000 people in Canada

    * Over 250,000 diagnosed cases in Britain

Rates of schizophrenia are very similar from country to country—about 1 percent of the population.

Statistically the US has have one of the highest Schitzophrenia rates in the world. This making it significantly higher for positive schitzophrenics to commit crimes 'worthy' of the dealth penalty. However, I am only using schitzophrenia as an example. I am using Schitzophrenia as an example for the following reasons:

-There are negative and positive symptoms.

-The person is not always dangerous and can often have control of ones thoughts

I am sure you're generally informed about schitzophrenia but there are some facts which must be taken into account:

Schitzophrenia is a severly debilitating disorder charaterized by 'disturbances of thought, auditory hallucinations and multiple delusions'. At times, people with schitzophrenia have an accurate view of reality and function well in daily life, and at other times, they lose touch with reality, and are not able to care for themselves in even the most basic ways.

As quoted above

The United States is one of a handful of countries in the world which executes mentally ill persons, persons with very low IQ, and child murderers (i.e. persons who were under 18 at the time of their crime).

Surely if a person is mentally ill they are not in touch with reality..and any actions they take are not ones of their own accord...but out of illness. Is it justified to execute a person who has no control over their actions. Surely that's killing an innocent person....not a killer.

Futhermore is the idea that for a human to take a life, they should give their life in return. This is not solving the problem. This is only posponing it.

To take a human life is like ignoring a problem.

Capital Punishement is to stop the spread of killings of a person and to punish them for their deed.

But isnt the only way to reduce murder to understand the murderers. Not kill them?

If we pay more attention to understand the minds of murderers and help them then surely this is more humane than taking their life.

When asked whether they prefer to keep or abolish the death penalty, about 60 to 80% of American adults say that they want to retain capital punishment. Numbers vary depending upon the precise wording of the question asked by the pollsters. When asked whether they would like to see executions continue or have them replaced with a system that guaranteed:

- life imprisonment with no hope for parole, ever;

- that the inmate would work in the prison to earn money;

- that the money would be directed to helping the family of the person(s) that they killed,

60-80% of American Adults said that they would rather retain capital punishment.

This quote taken from Christian Statistics clearly states that the USA has the highest Christianity rate.

Top 10 Largest National Christian Populations

Rank  Nation          Number    Percent

1      USA      224,457,000  85%

2      Brazil        139,000,000  93%

3      Mexico      86,120,000          99%

4      Russia      80,000,000          60%

5      China      70,000,000          5.7%

6      Germany  67,000,000      83%

7      Philippines    63,470,000        93%

8      UK              51,060,000  88%

9      Italy      47,690,000  90%

10    France    44,150,000        98%

11    Nigeria    38,180,000        45%

The Bible clearly states that you should not kill another human fo rany reason. As 85% of the US is Christain and also 80% of Americans voted to keep Capital Punishment...does this not only go against Christian religion which is an insult and dissrespect to a religion which the US takes pride in...but it's also a contradiction in terms.

My argument is yes, you are correct in that modern DNA and tests will mean that the likelyhood of an innocent person being executed is next to nil however, how can you justify killing a human life without understanding the true nature of the crime and the killer. Not only this, but I feel that taking a life for a life does not bring justice.

Whether a person is guilty or innocent plays no part...the fact is the number of factors related are ignored.

I'm arguing that not only does the dealth penalty not bring justice but it's an insult to each and every religion. No matter what the DNA results you are still taking a human life.

Sorry if this introduction was too long or if it's a big scetchy. This is my first debate and it's 4am in the morning. I'm great with speach debates....but when it comes to the computer I realise how different it is not saying it.

[Kryso]

Post One.

Schizophrenia is a severely debilitating disorder characterized by 'disturbances of thought, auditory hallucinations and multiple delusions'. At times, people with schizophrenia have an accurate view of reality and function well in daily life, and at other times, they lose touch with reality, and are not able to care for themselves in even the most basic ways.

But surely a jury would have weighted all the pros and cons, and have all the information about the individual who has committed the crime of taking another’s life?

Here’s one example of a classic case: Howard Unruh (evaluation). What did he do? Can a person who calmly killed so many people, and then ran home after hearing the police sirens, be called schizophrenic?

Also a lot of people use schizophrenia as an excuse for their actions. Here’s just one example. Pattison accused of faking schizophrenia

As I said above, taking a life, by placing a person on Death Row, is a very controlled and regulated sequence of events: first the district attorney, then a jury, then a judge decide this course of action.

Furthermore is the idea that for a human to take a life, they should give their life in return. This is not solving the problem. This is only postponing it.

If a person is found guilty of murder in the first degree, what should we do with them? Place them in prison? Why keep a killer alive?The cost to keep inmates!

In Florida it’s about 50 dollars a day! And say the person is in prison for 25 years, that’s 420,000 dollars, to keep a person alive who is no help to society, and who has proven they are capable of murder!

If we pay more attention to understand the minds of murderers and help them then surely this is more humane than taking their life.

Vast amounts of study has already been, and is being done with regards studying killers.

From the sweaty walls of a Brazilian jail to a bleak, fortress like, century-old prison near the Mississippi River, Morrison has logged thousands of hours interviewing and studying some of the most terrifying criminals.

Doctor hunts for motive in brain of a serial killer

But why keep them all alive? Thousands have already been studied and are being studied. There’s no reason to keep them all alive!

The Bible clearly states that you should not kill another human for any reason. As 85% of the US is Christian and also 80% of Americans voted to keep Capital Punishment...does this not only go against Christian religion which is an insult and disrespect to a religion which the US takes pride in...but it's also a contradiction in terms.

The first commandment does say Exodus 20:13 “you shall not murder.”

But it also says: Numbers 35:16 “‘If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.”

Numbers 35:17 “Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.”

Numbers 35:18 “Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.”

Numbers 35:30 “‘Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

The first mention of capital punishment as a penalty for murder is in Genesis 9:6:

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (KJV)

This passage regards the killing of a human as an offense against God because humans were made in the image of God, both male and female. Unlike the previous passage which required that the murderer be merely exiled, this verse required the murderer to be killed.

Religioustolerance.org

I'm arguing that not only does the death penalty not bring justice but it's an insult to each and every religion. No matter what the DNA results you are still taking a human life.

I believe a lot of people who commit violent crimes have no chance of rehabilitation. A person who can rape a child and dismember her body can never be a functioning member of society. There is no point in sending them to prison for life; that would be a waste of space, time and money. In situations such as these, I feel the death penalty is suitable. Why release people back into society where they can repeat their crimes?

[TheBloom]

Post One

Furthermore is the idea that for a human to take a life, they should give their life in return. This is not solving the problem. This is only postponing it.

If a person is found guilty of murder in the first degree, what should we do with them? Place them in prison? Why keep a killer alive?The cost to keep inmates!

In Florida it’s about 50 dollars a day! And say the person is in prison for 25 years, that’s 420,000 dollars, to keep a person alive who is no help to society, and who has proven they are capable of murder!

I agree. It costs a lot of money. But what's money compared to taking a human life?

I am quite poor.....yet I am giving as much as I possibly can to someone who is having a liver transplant because they cannot pay for it.

Although a different situation I am stating the fact that I am paying for someones life....Why not make prisoners WORK for money...and the money they work for...goes to the prison. To pay for themselfs.

This way we wouldn't have to kill a human.

If we pay more attention to understand the minds of murderers and help them then surely this is more humane than taking their life.

Vast amounts of study has already been, and is being done with regards studying killers.

From the sweaty walls of a Brazilian jail to a bleak, fortress like, century-old prison near the Mississippi River, Morrison has logged thousands of hours interviewing and studying some of the most terrifying criminals.

Doctor hunts for motive in brain of a serial killer

But why keep them all alive? Thousands have already been studied and are being studied. There’s no reason to keep them all alive!

It's not that you should keep someone alive becuase they are being studied....It's that people still brandish murderers as evil, blastphemous people. Is no thought being put into the idea of WHY murderers do it? There are lots of different reasons however, trauma at childhood is a very common reason.

Quote taken from Serial Killer Characteristics

*A majority of serial killers have a history of sexual and physical abuse during childhood.

*In half of the serial killers families, the biological father had left before the child was 12 years old. In the cases where the father didn't leave, he was domineering and abusive.

*Delinquent acts such as pyromania, theft, and cruelty to animals were present in the childhoods of most serial killers.

I admit that for the people who are already traumatized there is not much that can be done...However, preventing children from trauma's like this could try to be reduced. Somehow.

The Bible clearly states that you should not kill another human for any reason. As 85% of the US is Christian and also 80% of Americans voted to keep Capital Punishment...does this not only go against Christian religion which is an insult and disrespect to a religion which the US takes pride in...but it's also a contradiction in terms.

The first commandment does say Exodus 20:13 “you shall not murder.”

But it also says: Numbers 35:16 “‘If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.”

Numbers 35:17 “Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.”

Numbers 35:18 “Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.”

Numbers 35:30 “‘Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

The first mention of capital punishment as a penalty for murder is in Genesis 9:6:

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (KJV)

This passage regards the killing of a human as an offense against God because humans were made in the image of God, both male and female. Unlike the previous passage which required that the murderer be merely exiled, this verse required the murderer to be killed.

Religioustolerance.org

I stand corrected. However, you raise an argument in me.

It's understandable about murderers giving their life in return....but what about

-executioners

-soldiers

Army soldiers are trained in how to kill someone. Should they be executed for killing another human being?

You can raise the argument that they are defending their country....but so are the opposition. Just because it may be your country that is fighting doesn't mean they are the right ones...or have leniency to kill.

Executioners are the ones who kill murderers.....yet they are murderers themselves.

No matter what cause they are killing for, they are still murderers.

I'm arguing that not only does the death penalty not bring justice but it's an insult to each and every religion. No matter what the DNA results you are still taking a human life.

I believe a lot of people who commit violent crimes have no chance of rehabilitation. A person who can rape a child and dismember her body can never be a functioning member of society. There is no point in sending them to prison for life; that would be a waste of space, time and money. In situations such as these, I feel the death penalty is suitable. Why release people back into society where they can repeat their crimes?

616578[/snapback]

Good point. However, I did not say they should be released back into the community where they can repeat their crimes. But I still don't think taking your brother or sisters life is acceptable.

I have lost my source for this however, I will edit this post when I find it again...It's actually more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison....

Edited May 18, 2005 by DukeofNoodleness

[Kryso]

Post 2

I agree. It costs a lot of money. But what's money compared to taking a human life?

Very true, when it comes to saving a sick person, or giving them what they need to survive. But we are talking about convicted killers, who have taken other innocent peoples lives in sometimes unbelievably violent ways!

Why not make prisoners WORK for money...and the money they work for...goes to the prison. To pay for themselves.

This is being done with convicts who are in for life and have a chance of parole.

Currently more than 90,000 state and federal convicts work in a variety of public and private enterprises while serving time. The majority are employed in state-owned enterprises such as making license plates or furniture for government offices. Increasingly, though, private businesses have contracted with at least 25 states to set up businesses inside prison walls to take advantage of state-supplied facilities and low-wage nonunion workers.

(Link) Prison Legal News

But those on death row have been convicted of murder in the first. Why keep someone who has no contribution to society alive with hard paying people’s money. As I have already shown but the statistics, it cost a lot to keep a convict in prison (up to 50 dollars a day). A lot of people don’t even earn that much working hard for a living – how would a convicted convict make that much a day? The average convict in prison earns about 250 dollars a month!

A few hundred convicts make about $100 a month working for State or private industrial enterprises, and a very few earn up to about $500 doing specialized skilled, or hazardous jobs.

Link

It's not that you should keep someone alive becuase they are being studied....It's that people still brandish murderers as evil, blastphemous people.

I would say they were evil, in the sence that evil means:

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.

3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.

4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.

5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

(Link) Dictionary.com

And a person convicted of murder would certainly come under that title!

Is no thought being put into the idea of WHY murderers do it? There are lots of different reasons however, trauma at childhood is a very common reason.

A lot of study is being done, as I stated. And as I stated, why keep thousands of murders alive, when lots of research is being done already? And that should also go some way into helping people stop becoming what they have, with guidance and support. But they have already committed the crime, and a judge and jury have already decided that there is no obvious way to rehabilitate them.

It's understandable about murderers giving their life in return....but what about

-executioners

-soldiers

Army soldiers are trained in how to kill someone. Should they be executed for killing another human being?

You can raise the argument that they are defending their country....but so are the opposition. Just because it may be your country that is fighting doesn't mean they are the right ones...or have leniency to kill.

Executioners are the ones who kill murderers.....yet they are murderers themselves.

No matter what cause they are killing for, they are still murderers.

Someone has to be the one to end the death row person’s life! But if a person pushes the button (for say the electric chair), could that be classed as maliciously killing another out of anger, cruelty and malevolence?

And talking about soldiers killing another constitutes them deserving to die, is a little of the beaten-track. And this could be a good suggestion for future debate, one which I would happily be evolved in.

But I still don't think taking your brother or sisters life is acceptable.

It’s only a shame that those on death row don’t hold the same sense of right and wrong as you, because they wouldn’t be there in the first place if they did. And I mean that in no way to be disrespectful.

I have lost my source for this however, I will edit this post when I find it again...It's actually more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison....

Every major cost study has shown capital punishment to be more expensive than an alternative system where life-imprisonment is the maximum sentence. To see why, note that only a small fraction of the cases that start out as capital trials actually result in a death sentence, and only about 10% of those death sentences result in an execution. The 784 inmates executed (as of June 26th, 2002) since 1976 are only a fraction of the roughly 7,000 death sentences in that time, which sprang from an even larger number of trials.

Yet, all of these cases were more expensive from the beginning, regardless of their final outcome, because they began as capital trials. Death penalty trials are more expensive than ordinary murder trials. They entail more pre-trial preparation time, more attorneys, longer jury selections, more expert witnesses, and a heightened level of due process. They are 3 to 5 times longer, and the defendant is less likely to simply plead guilty to avoid a trial if there is a chance of being executed.

(Link) The Cost of Capital Punishment

This maybe true, but would you say the same if the person got off. Would the expense be warranted if they got away with the murder? Would you justify the cost because they lived?

In my next post I will show the different levels of the criminal law, and how only a certain type of persons are on death row, not low risk, but very high risk killers and mass murders.

[TheBloom]

- Sorry Lottie. I had some trouble accessing the forum from time to time.

- For some reason my quotes are not working.

Post Two

Very true, when it comes to saving a sick person, or giving them what they need to survive. But we are talking about convicted killers, who have taken other innocent peoples lives in sometimes unbelievably violent ways!

Are you saying that a killer is no longer a human being with the same needs as everone else. For some killers.....all they wanted was love...and never got it. Often what turned them out this way.

Why not make prisoners WORK for money...and the money they work for...goes to the prison. To pay for themselves.

This is being done with convicts who are in for life and have a chance of parole.

Currently more than 90,000 state and federal convicts work in a variety of public and private enterprises while serving time. The majority are employed in state-owned enterprises such as making license plates or furniture for government offices. Increasingly, though, private businesses have contracted with at least 25 states to set up businesses inside prison walls to take advantage of state-supplied facilities and low-wage nonunion workers.

(Link) Prison Legal News

But those on death row have been convicted of murder in the first. Why keep someone who has no contribution to society alive with hard paying people’s money. As I have already shown but the statistics, it cost a lot to keep a convict in prison (up to 50 dollars a day). A lot of people don’t even earn that much working hard for a living – how would a convicted convict make that much a day? The average convict in prison earns about 250 dollars a month!

A few hundred convicts make about $100 a month working for State or private industrial enterprises, and a very few earn up to about $500 doing specialized skilled, or hazardous jobs.

Link

$250 a month would do a lot to help the prison....Just because it's not the full price to keep someone in prison...it's still a big help. It would bring down the cost of keeping them...and would also be a lower cost than capital punishment.

It's not that you should keep someone alive becuase they are being studied....It's that people still brandish murderers as evil, blastphemous people.

I would say they were evil, in the sence that evil means:

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.

3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.

4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.

5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

(Link) Dictionary.com

And a person convicted of murder would certainly come under that title!

I think you know that I did not mean evil in this sense. I would say a lot of people consider evil as 'no longer human'. This is what I was refering to.

It's understandable about murderers giving their life in return....but what about

-executioners

-soldiers

Army soldiers are trained in how to kill someone. Should they be executed for killing another human being?

You can raise the argument that they are defending their country....but so are the opposition. Just because it may be your country that is fighting doesn't mean they are the right ones...or have leniency to kill.

Executioners are the ones who kill murderers.....yet they are murderers themselves.

No matter what cause they are killing for, they are still murderers.

Someone has to be the one to end the death row person’s life! But if a person pushes the button (for say the electric chair), could that be classed as maliciously killing another out of anger, cruelty and malevolence?

no, however....This is not why murderers are executed. They are executed for the base fact of taking someone elses life. What force or reason they had doesn't usually make that much difference give or take a few cases.

And talking about soldiers killing another constitutes them deserving to die, is a little of the beaten-track. And this could be a good suggestion for future debate, one which I would happily be evolved in.

It is not off track at all. They kill others. For whatever reason, they kill others. Why is killing others for 'the good of your country' commendable? You are still killing other human beings. You are taking a human life...Therefore murder. How would you justify that. It was a perfectly valid question, certainly not off track and I'm fond to see it answered.

But I still don't think taking your brother or sisters life is acceptable.

It’s only a shame that those on death row don’t hold the same sense of right and wrong as you, because they wouldn’t be there in the first place if they did. And I mean that in no way to be disrespectful.

That was personal....and not needed. Whether you ment to be disrespectful or not, that did not need to be said. This debate is not about me...it's about the subject in hand.

I have lost my source for this however, I will edit this post when I find it again...It's actually more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison....

Every major cost study has shown capital punishment to be more expensive than an alternative system where life-imprisonment is the maximum sentence. To see why, note that only a small fraction of the cases that start out as capital trials actually result in a death sentence, and only about 10% of those death sentences result in an execution. The 784 inmates executed (as of June 26th, 2002) since 1976 are only a fraction of the roughly 7,000 death sentences in that time, which sprang from an even larger number of trials.

Yet, all of these cases were more expensive from the beginning, regardless of their final outcome, because they began as capital trials. Death penalty trials are more expensive than ordinary murder trials. They entail more pre-trial preparation time, more attorneys, longer jury selections, more expert witnesses, and a heightened level of due process. They are 3 to 5 times longer, and the defendant is less likely to simply plead guilty to avoid a trial if there is a chance of being executed.

(Link) The Cost of Capital Punishment

This maybe true, but would you say the same if the person got off. Would the expense be warranted if they got away with the murder? Would you justify the cost because they lived?

In my next post I will show the different levels of the criminal law, and how only a certain type of persons are on death row, not low risk, but very high risk killers and mass murders.

636343[/snapback]

If the person had no chance of parole...and no chance of being let out of prison....then why can't an alternative method be used? It would make sense, and save money.

Edited May 30, 2005 by DukeofNoodleness

[Kryso]

Post 3

Are you saying that a killer is no longer a human being with the same needs as everone else. For some killers.....all they wanted was love...and never got it. Often what turned them out this way.

No I’m not suggesting that. What I’m saying is people go out of their way to help others; it’s a human attribute to want to help, to aid another. But what I’m saying is people on Death Row are there because they are extremely violent and have taken the life of another human being – as I’ve already said – in sometimes horrific – sadistic ways.

And yes they may have been in need of love, but killing someone is not an expectable way (in modern society) of expressing that need!

And what about the fact that they have taken away a father, a mother, someone’s son or daughter… they have erased that love from those people’s relatives lives, and replaced it with pain and sadness, and a vast emptiness. Did they stop and think of their victims as human beings before stabbing, shooting, strangling them, or by whatever violent way they ended another humans life?

$250 a month would do a lot to help the prison....Just because it's not the full price to keep someone in prison...it's still a big help. It would bring down the cost of keeping them...and would also be a lower cost than capital punishment.

Yes it would be helpful if they could support the cost of their incarceration. But they are still convicted killers who society, in the shape of a judge and jury has convicted to death because of their actions, under the law of that state.

I think you know that I did not mean evil in this sense. I would say a lot of people consider evil as 'no longer human'. This is what I was refering to.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your words. But when a word is used I take it for what the word means!

no, however....This is not why murderers are executed. They are executed for the base fact of taking someone elses life. What force or reason they had doesn't usually make that much difference give or take a few cases.

The force and reason they have is to take another’s life without thought of that individual, without thought of the pain and suffering of their family and friends. A person who works in the penal system, and who presses the button carries no guilt or wrong in my eyes. A job needs to be done, and that person is the one whose reasonability it is to do that job. It’s no different to a person who makes knives for a living. All because knives are used to kill people, does it make the maker of the knife as guilty as the one who uses it to end another’s life? Like a car manufacturer - cars kills tens of thousands a year, does that make them blood guilty of all those deaths?

And talking about soldiers killing another constitutes them deserving to die, is a little of the beaten-track. And this could be a good suggestion for future debate, one which I would happily be evolved in.

It is not off track at all. They kill others. For whatever reason, they kill others. Why is killing others for 'the good of your country' commendable? You are still killing other human beings. You are taking a human life...Therefore murder. How would you justify that. It was a perfectly valid question, certainly not off track and I'm fond to see it answered.

Personally I don’t see this is connected to convicted killers placed on Death Row, but I will answer your question. Everyone and every country have a right to defend itself. A country that uses their military to attack and take from another is wrong. But a country that uses its soldiers to defend itself and its people, in my eyes is correct.

You very rarely find a person of Death Row who killed in self defence, unless there are very unusual circumstances!

It’s only a shame that those on death row don’t hold the same sense of right and wrong as you, because they wouldn’t be there in the first place if they did. And I mean that in no way to be disrespectful.

That was personal....and not needed. Whether you ment to be disrespectful or not, that did not need to be said. This debate is not about me...it's about the subject in hand.

As I stated, it wasn’t meant to be personal, I was simply saying that you have good morals and a sense of right and wrong. Whereas those who take another’s life do not care about what they are doing! And once again, as before, I apologise if this sounded rude or inflammatory - it was simply a statement about ethics.

If the person had no chance of parole...and no chance of being let out of prison....then why can't an alternative method be used? It would make sense, and save money.

Most of the money has already been spend, in the initial judgment stage. And it comes down to law. In some states that’s what the law dictates what the sentence for their actions. They took away a living persons life… they get taken there’s in return!

Here is the different degrees of murder.

Murder in the first degree generally is a calculated act of slaying committed with malice aforethought, often requiring aggravated circumstances such as extreme brutality. It receives the severest penalty, often life imprisonment or capital punishment. Second-degree murder is a homicide committed with malice, but without deliberation or premeditation. A homicide committed without malice (as in negligent motor vehicle operation) or in the “heat of passion” (as in a quarrel which escalates to violence) is generally considered manslaughter. In some states, certain crimes that are defined as murder of a lower degree approximate more closely the definition of manslaughter in common law. In some cases, it is difficult to determine whether malice aforethought was present; consequently the governor of a state (or other chief executive) not infrequently uses his power of commutation of sentence to revoke the death penalty, and in some states the appellate courts automatically review all convictions of murder.

Source

So they are on Death Row because they have taken another humans life, with a lot of forethought and planning. And as it states, most of the time it’s using extreme brutality!

So my question is: can a person who has such disregard for another human being; who plans another’s death, and executing that plan with sometimes extreme brutality; have the right to be kept alive using tax payers money? And what of the victims family? Don’t you think they want to see justice done?

[Guest]

Duke, your 3rd body post please.

[TheBloom]

I've been so busy recently...I apologise sincerly but I wont be able to carry on this debate. I have a lot of things on my shoulders right now like moving out of my house and sorting out tax and a whole load of other things.

I'm sorry to let you down but I just do not have the time. Once again, my apologies.

[Guest]

Alrighty.

I'll throw this one to our judges.

[Walken]

Debater 1: Kryso

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 7

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 7

TOTAL: 31

Debater 2: Duke of Noodleness

Relevancy: 7

Countering: 6

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 7

TOTAL: 28

Good debate folks! It's a shame that DoN couldn't finish.

On the side, Kryso - You've been taken on a LOT of debates recently and performing in them all excellently, as well as punctual. Good man!

[Irish]

Debater 1: Kryso, Good job, beware though that your references countered your position a few times.

Relevancy: 8

Countering: 6

Style: 7

Persuasiveness: 7

TOTAL: 28

Debater 2: Duke of Noodleness, Its to bad you did not complete. Your credibility was beginning to increase.

Relevancy: 7

Countering: 6

Style: 6

Persuasiveness: 5

TOTAL: 22

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

My first judging!

Great debate you guys, too bad the Duke couldn't finish.

Debator One: Kryso

Relevancy:8

Countering:7

Style:6

Persausiveness:7

Total:28

Debator Two: Duke of Noodleness

Relevancy:7

Countering:7

Style:6

Persausiveness:6

Total: 26

Great job both of you

Edited June 16, 2005 by UniversalParadox

[Guest]

And here are the scores!

Kryso wins with a final score of 29;

DukeofNoodleness finishes with 25.3, but minus 18 because of the 9 days she failed to post. So that's a total score of 7.

It's a shame we had to close this one early as well. But thanks to our judges for scoring this one.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Guest