"A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment." Do you agree or disagree?

Question

This is for my debate class, I praticipate in Lincoln Douglas style of debate, and just brainstorming basic ideas such as "people who ae innocent" "its to expensicve' the more logically arguements but i was just wondering, if any one has more ideas about it when im sure they do. If at all possible could you also tell me the source for i can provide te tangible evidence. Thanks for all the help

Answer 1

The death penalty should be used because tax payers shouldn't have pay to keep someone alive after they have murdered someone. The person gave up their life by taking a life, they should be put to death, so they are no longer a burden or threat to society.

Answer 2

Disagree, a just society must remove the worst of the worst permanently from society. But I believe that we need to go to every extreme to make sure that they are indeed guilty. Having said that, taking twenty years for the sentence to be carried out is just plain wrong, at many levels.

Answer 3

To the contrary.  A just society does use the death penalty.  There are crimes for which the only fitting punishment is death.

Answer 4

I disagree.  I have a great source that I hope you will carefully read in its entirely (linked below).  So I won't go into too much detail here.  Just to prepare you for the reading though, the question is really one about determining the proper goal of punishment.  The article that I linked proposes three rationales given for punishment:  restitution, deterrence and rehabilitation.  The writer goes on to argue that restitution is the only goal that is not arbitrary or barbaric.

The question of punishment (capital or otherwise) lies between the person convicted of the crime and those injured by the crime (including next of kin).

I hope that you enjoy the read!

Addition:  I read the other comments that were written while I searched for my link and drafted my response.  A common complaint is the danger of executing an innocent person.  I agree that this is a risk and is the reason why the U.S. justice system has traditionally adopted the philosophy of "innocence until proven guilty".  That mistakes are made even in the best system and that our system seems to be drifting toward more innocent convictions (a by-product of a monopoly on justice) are separate issues.  They do not change the philosophical basis for my response.  However, these factors should certainly be considered when sentencing.

Answer 5

Agreed, it is barbaric, and is sometimes applied when it is not called for, or the person is innocent.

Answer 6

Don't agree. How would you feel if it was a member of your family who was murdered? I would want the person responsible to be put to death. The biggest flaw in the system is that they take too long to do it!!

Answer 7

If you get the "pro death" side, you should dig up the details about that guy in florida that raped that little girl and buried her alive, and talk about would the world be better if he is allowed to live.

Also there are times it really is necessary, like with Sadamm Husein.  If he was in prison, there might be a war to free him.

No prisoners have ever escaped, after they've been executed.

Answer 8

Skippy quote J Edgar Hoover about why we should have death penalty.

“Have you ever thought about how many criminals escape

punishment, and yet, the victims never have a chance to do that?

Skippy say we dont use death penalty enough

Answer 9

I am for the death penalty as it exists at present for those who commit willful and horrendous acts that involve the purposeful killing of others. This will prevent repetition and act as a deterrent.

Answer 10

I agree.

Two wrongs don't make a right

Answer 11

Winning a debate with a Weenie can never be done -- because many people can't admit they've lost an argument. And that's mostly a Liberal's make-up... they just scream, and call the opposing viewpoint names, like 'stupid' or in-bred, etc. etc. (and can't see reality if it was painted across their heads).

For all of history -- society has known how to deal with a killer. Our society think its giving him cable-TV, and causing grief for jail-employees and murdering AGAIN in jail, etc. etc. (something your opposition will never talk about, because out of sight is 'out of mind'). Some people are simply evil -- some crimes are so deprived that the person should be eliminated as soon as possible.

Find a few, and ask them if Life in jail, is enough? What should happen, is that this world should be rid of a person who'd do the extent of harm, and pre-meditate a torture or killing, etc. -- upon another human being.

Answer 12

I don't think we should use the death penalty but not because I disagree with killing certain criminals. I think certain ones should be put to death. The problem is that there are too many examples of convicted death row inmates being proven not guilty after further evidence was found and examined such as DNA evidence. certain criminals are beyond rehabilitation and their crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty. Rape and murder of a child should get the death penalty. Treason, serial murder and a few other crimes should also get the death penalty. If we're going to have the death penalty though the burden of proof should be greater than just beyond a reasonable doubt. They should have to definitively prove beyond any doubt that the person is guilty and it couldn't have been anybody else. It is bad enough when society sentences the wrong person for a crime to a jail term. When society sentences the wrong person to death it is murder.

Answer 13

I think it  ought to be extended to cover a lot more crimes.  KILL "EM ALL !

Answer 14

If we 'were' a 'just' society the death penalty would not be riddled with appeals forever. Once a jury convicted some one of a crime that received the death penalty, that person should be put to death within a week. And to make it better they should pre-empt all TV shows and televise it. No one will sit around in prison watching TV, goofing off, eating good food for years and years at taxpayers expense. It is a waste of money. With the advent of DNA testing we should never have to put up with prisoners for more than a week for capital crimes. They will never commit those crimes again. If they are convicted of murder and such and end up getting a parole, very few will end up getting work that is profitable because not many companies will hire them and they will end up committing more crimes. Be convicted and sit around in jail at taxpayers expense for more years. This is just my opinion, but they can't come back from the grave to commit any more crimes.

Answer 15

firing squad is for treason should be in prisons too is more humane than anything else i've seen....

Answer 16

Just is synonimous to fair... according to dictionary.com, and fairness is the equality and balance... free from biased or dishonesty, dictionary.com says... and so a just society is a fair society... balnced... equal... unbiased... an eye for an eye.. a tooth for a tooth... a life for a life... so i diagree... if the society is truly just... in all of the context of just and justice... then a penalty of death should be imposed... if not... the life of a man lost... is not equalled out... not, given due airness... thus... there is biasses formed... thus if the society does not conduct the death penalty it is being unjust... in other words... again... A just society ought to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

Answer 17

i absolutely agree its wrong to take a life so y Murder someone for doing wrong? once u r dead thats punishment but not really b/c u dont even know it.its prob only scary during the countdon to death but if u r in jail and everyday u awake and kno u will Never leave is a horrible punishment. to b in a cell with rapists andmurderers and people who dont have anything to lose. what does God think ?

Answer 18

You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people.

In q and a form (good to have in mind for a debate) here are some facts about the practical aspects of the death penalty system, with sources below.

What about the risk of executing innocent people?

124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.

Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?

DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder?

No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift.  The death penalty is neither.  Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that do not.

So, what are the alternatives?

Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says.   It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process.  When the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs mount up even before trial, continuing through the uniquely complicated trial (actually 2 separate trials, one to decide guilt and the second to decide the punishment) in death penalty cases, and  appeals.  

What about the very worst crimes?

The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers.  When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?

Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?

Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 19

I niehter agree nor disagree. I resent forced choices.

Answer 20

A just society should use the death penalty. I agree with Army Retired Guy.

Answer 21

yes, i highly believe in the death penalty on certain punishments.

Answer 22

I believe a just society should condemn murder, no matter who is doing it.

Answer 23

I am anti-Death Penalty...

If you really want to punish them...keep them alive...

If you really want them to at least make an effort to "redeem" themselves...

They can't do it dead...

The second you kill them...

You've ended their suffering, and made it impossible for them to do anything about their crime...and...you've actually done them a favor by setting them free...

And it doesn't deter...no serial killer or killers in general ever were "detered" by The Death Penalty

And if "The New Testament" wasn't an Anti-Death Penalty story...

I don't know what is...

Answer 24

Good morning Austin... I use to believe in the death penalty years ago, I thought it was necessary when it came to the brutal crimes that some individuals had committed. Now that I have witnessed so many die from the death penalty and years later the  forensic department found evidence of innocence, I have changed my mind on the death penalty all together. There is always that small chance that someone could be innocent. Have a good day!

Answer 25

Be careful.  You are using the word "just".  "Just" means you get what you worked for.  Eye for an eye and such.

Answer 26

i say death and for your debate write you stuff with proper spelling so you dont trip over any words

Answer 27

Canada does not have the death penalty.

Is there more crimes commited per capita in Canada or in countries that have the death penalty?

I think the comparison will tell which works best.

Answer 28

I agree.  It is murder.

Answer 29

actually, studies show that its MORE expensive to use the death penalty than it is to have a man serve 50 years in prison.  Something to do with the appeals process, confinement issues (have to be seperated), etc.

So the cost factor is not an issue.

I can't say that I agree though.  If any of you ever, tragically, have a loved on who is raped, molested or murdered...I think you would change your tune.

Answer 30

i think of Fair when prompted by Just Society... I'll take it way back to the beginning of time " an eye for an eye.."

heinous crimes deserve the same in return as Just punishment.

Just = Fair ... in my opinion

kill and ye be killed

Answer 31

My biggest problem with the death penalty is that it has never been applied equitably.  Poor people, and dark skinned people are more likely to be executed than rich, or white people.

For example, Regardless of whether he did it or not, O.J Simpson would be sitting on death row right now if he were not rich and famous.  He got off, not because he was innocent, and CERTAINLY NOT, be cause he was black.  He got off because he had enough money to afford Johnny Cochran, and F. Lee Bailey.