Death penelty

What do you guys think about it? If you want you can show what the Bible says about it. I rather use the Bible but w/e.

I think it's wrong. If someone is wrongly proven guilty and sentenced to death, they don't stand a chance. If evidence comes out later to prove the convicted was actually innocent than it's too late. Howveer if someone is just given jailtime they can be released later if new evidence proves they are guilty.

Also I feel sentencing someone to death is an easy way out, that way they don't suffer; but on the other hand I feel no one should ever have their life taken from them. I can't decide which one I'm for.

It may be wrong in some peoples eyes, but its better for sociaty for them to be dead. If they stay alive then they are just sitting in a prison cell using the publics money. But killing isnt wrong, just why u do it. Even the bible says that there is a time for war and a time for peace. If it would be benificial to society or just better for them to be dead, then go ahead. Its something that has been going on since the beggining of time. You cant stop it, and if you manage to make it illegal people will only start taking it into thier own hands to extract what they see as just punishment.

For the sake of the debate, what crime(s) do you think should earn someone the death penalty?

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

For the sake of the debate, what crime(s) do you think should earn someone the death penalty?

Im shouldnt be the one to decide, but i think that if someone is continously a threat to others, then that i could understand. I personally would rather ship them all off to some remote island and give them a chance to live. But since they wont do that death penalty is the way to go.

Originally Posted by lord_eliwood

Im shouldnt be the one to decide, but i think that if someone is continously a threat to others, then that i could understand. I personally would rather ship them all off to some remote island and give them a chance to live. But since they wont do that death penalty is the way to go.

They have that already, it's called Guantanamo Bay. It's in Cuba I think?
If I remember correctly they're allowed to detain people there without evidence, which brings up the problem of if the person is innocent and has been wrongly charged they don't have much hope of getting out.

I'd rather they rot deep in a dungeon, but I really have no problem with it. It depends on the situation, really.

Remember that Jesus said Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. If he killed someone, why should we do it to him/her in return? That's eye for an eye and that is something I don't agree with. Jail is a lot harder than some people think, so I say lock him in solitary confinement. They will eventually go nuts!

I just finished a debate about the death penalty in my AP English class. I'll sum up my views with my following essay that I used in the debate.

Capital punishment: what a surprising euphemism to its meaning of the death penalty. Capital punishment is the ultimate form of revenge when it comes down to murder. Killing the criminals for the justice of the victims is just as wrong the ones who committed the crime. No one deserves to be executed for his or her crimes. Today, the United States holds the position of the number one country with the most executions, and the state of Texas consisting of most of those executions, being called the “Murder Capital of the World.” It is argued that capital punishment is cheaper for criminals. This is not true. The death penalty is far more expensive than giving the criminal a life sentence in jail. It offers no room for criminals to realize their mistakes, and instead seems to imply that the criminals are too inhumane to be left alive. The death penalty does not, no matter how much a person wants to believe it, give comfort to the family of the murder victim, it can cause the innocent to be put on death penalty for crimes they did not commit, and crime rates in states with the death penalty ironically are higher than states without.

Giving someone the death penalty does not ease the pain of the family of the victim as one may think. The families need to feel like they are expressing their anger by watching the accused die. Yet, they forget, that the accused killer, too, has a family that loves him or her. The process of capital punishment takes years for the person to actually face execution. Since these families have a sense of wanting to see justice served by killing the murderer, they will live with this wait until the scheduled execution date, never taking time to mourn their loss. New Hampshire state representative Robert Cushing, after his father had been murdered, stated, "As one victim, as a colleague, I stand before you to ask that you vote to abolish the death penalty, not so much because I want murderers to live but because if the state kills them, that forever forecloses the possibility that those of us who are victims might be able to figure out how to forgive. We've lost enough already. Don't take that option for healing away, please." Corretta Scott King said, "As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder." The loved ones of the victims will only worry about seeking their revenge and in doing so cause themselves more suffering. If the accused was sentenced to life in prison, however, the family of the murdered victim can trust the system to keep the murderer in jail. In this case, they then can forget their anger and mourn their loss. At times, a quick death may even kill an innocent person.

There have been many instances in which an innocent person was sentenced to death for a crime he or she did not commit. For example, Timothy Evans was executed on March 9, 1950 after being accused of killing his wife and child. More than 10 years after his execution, the lawyer representing Evans looked back into the case and realized that there had been a mistake. Evans’ was accused for a crime committed by a man named John Reginald Halliday Christie. Lloyd Eldon Miller was sentenced to death and was on death row for eleven years before being found innocent just one day before his scheduled execution. Freddie Pitts and Wilbert Lee were sentenced to death by electric chair in 1963. Twelve years after their deaths, a federal judge found the evidence that proved them innocent after he was cleaning out his office. Dale Adams, on death row for twelve years, and James Richardson, for twenty-five, were accused of crimes they did not commit, and fortunately were found innocent before their executions. After these people were found to be proven innocent, what does the government have to say about it? Nothing. They let these mistakes go by as if nothing happened, and that they were acting out of good reason. Whether the accused is innocent or guilty capital punishment is not a good reason or way to avenge the death of someone.

It is argued that the death penalty deters crime rates. This is not true. In fact, homicide rates have doubled in the United States in areas with the death penalty than in states without the death penalty. Criminals who face the possibility of the death penalty are more likely to spur up more violence than they would if not faced with the death penalty in order to resist capture, as said in Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence by Columbia Law School Professor Jeffrey Fagan. Fagan also compares the crime rates in the U.S. states of Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia to the crime rates of the other thirty-eight states. These twelve states, including Washington D.C. are the only states without use of capital punishment, and surprisingly also have the lowest crime rates.

The death penalty is not the best way to punish a criminal for murder for a number of reasons. It does not take away the pain and suffering inflicted upon the victim’s families as easily as thought. There are some who are put on death row for crimes they never committed in the first place. Along with that, the use of capital punishment does not deter crime rates in the United States. If we propose to kill murderers to avenge the victims they killed, we might as well rape rapists to avenge the victims they raped. Capital punishment has no answer to grief except more grief, more suffering, and more killing. It is not right by any means to kill another person, either by first-degree murder or by the death penalty.

Good essay, your conclusion needs work. Keep up the good work, I see a 3 on the ap exam. (The reason i say your conclusion needs work is because it's restating what your body paragraphs said. AP judges don't like that!)
Jordan

Originally Posted by jshep2k5

Good essay, your conclusion needs work. Keep up the good work, I see a 3 on the ap exam. (The reason i say your conclusion needs work is because it's restating what your body paragraphs said. AP judges don't like that!)
Jordan

Thank you for the encouragement. I was curious about that and asked my teacher, but he said that since it was a debate and not exactly a real essay, it wouldn't have mattered.

But, in short, I am against the death penalty.

I understand that, I feel you will get at least a 3 on the AP if your writing this well so early on

Originally Posted by jshep2k5

Remember that Jesus said Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

The Bible also says "Eye for an Eye", which Jesus contradicts with "turn the other cheek". Clearly the Bible is not a reliable source for this debate.

Originally Posted by Epyon

The Bible also says "Eye for an Eye", which Jesus contradicts with "turn the other cheek". Clearly the Bible is not a reliable source for this debate.

I agree. I believe in God, but even in the debate I had in English we had decided that religion would not be a good source of information since some people are atheist, and because of what you said.

Someone asked for a biblical referece, so I gave them one.

I believe in the death penalty. In short, there are crimes that are so heinous that the perpatrator deserves to die. I don't believe that if you kill a person you have to recieve the death penalty, I think that it has to be applied case by case, not just as a blanket sentance handed down for a crime.

I beleive in the death penalty. I think the muderers are getting what they deserved, an eye for an eye if you will. Although my state doesnt support it, i do.