The Death Penalty: Legal or not?

so......we should give the victims the death of the offender because we dont know what life is worth and therefore what his actual debt to society is.


reminds me of this scenario:

man runs from a bank with a whole bunch of money.
he stashes the money before being caught.
the exact amount of money he stole is unknown.
the court sentences him to death because they do not know how much he stole and, therefore, what his debt to society is.

 

I support it for murderers and like the whole "eye for an eye" idea.

 

If you murder someone then you should get a Death Penalty. That makes sense also, you took away someones life and now your life will be taken away. I can argue with anyone and win about this.

 

then why dont you argue about it?

you have stated an opinion with nothing to back it up in a topic that contains many many logical and illogical arguments for and against the death penalty. why dont you contribute instead of just claiming you will win.

 

No; it's inhumane and is contradictory to the opinions of law

 

I never said it was so precious you couldn't possibly put a monetary value on it, I'm asking if there is one. Yes it is hard to believe there ever being one, but if there isn't what should the punishment be? Putting someone in prison for say 30 years for killing another human being then you putting the price of 30 years=how much it costs to keep that prisoner in there for that allotted time.

Another question is, if the debt on the person is 30 years, but they die 25 years into their sentence then is that 5 years to be made up in some other way? Most likely not since I'm not entirely sure how they would do this lol, but then you are saying his death pays those 5 years. So not only are you saying the prisoners life is only equal to 5 years, you are also saying his death equals out the rest of his debt, bringing the question why he just wasn't killed in the first place.

It is true that two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy, based on the idea that both scenarios are seen as wrong.
However, the situation i put forth is one is the unlawful killing of another while the other would be lawful. Changing the moral standing of the subject.

 

However, money is a tangible object that can be returned, a life is not. If the amount is unknown then they would be charged with the crime itself not have their time increased by whatever the amount is.

 

Life imprisonment is just that, they are in prison for the rest of their natural lives. It is essentially a death sentence. They will die in prison.

This is why it is called life imprisonment, they are in jail for the rest of their natural lives. You've stated that your desired result is a life for a life, well life imprisonment is still a life for a life; their never going to be released, and as you said we cannot put any value on human life so why be in such a rush to take it?

So really you don't care about the fact of killing being right or wrong, you just support the notion of the law is the law right?
If unlawful killing is wrong.
and
If lawful killing is right.

Then the only difference is the law itself, so essentially your argument is well yes the death penalty is right because its legal...
Lets hypothesize that the death penalty was eradicated; what would your stance be then?

 

Because I have not read the previous posts.

 

yes, since there is no in the middle, i picked yes, there is not one case of a wrongfully executed person, if they were wrong on their decesion, they were pardoned.

i live in maryland.
my source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

 

I can't find where on the site it says that, could you please link me directly?

The state holds that a criminal must be convicted beyond all reasonable doubt. Given that there are sooooo many exonerations yearly, and given that DNA evidence has only been around for the past maybe 30 years? Given also that the death penalty has been around for hundreds of years ADD to that the fact that most exonerations are from DNA testing, how can you possibly tell me that not one person has been wrongfully executed?

Even if you are so determined to believe that, why the hell would a lawyer waste his time over dead man? Their time would be better used trying to save innocent people on death row, rather than proving a dead man to be innocent.

Even if you still want to believe I'm wrong you are only limiting your data to America. The Death Penalty is used in dozens of countries worldwide, with an arguably worse legal system than that of the US.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/joe-arridy-receives-posthumous-pardon-73-years-after-execution/

 

No, and here's why. If someone commits a crime that deserves the death penalty,(murder, treason, whatever it may be) they would most likely rather die than be put in prison for life. So why give them what they want? As the great philosopher/rapper 50 Cent once said, "Death gotta be easy, cuz life is hard". Death is the easy way out. No guilt, no worrying about redemption, no wasting away of life. In addition, far too many innocent men and women have been given the death sentence when they did not deserve it. If the death penalty was illegal, they would at least have a chance at a second trial. While keeping all potential death row prisoners alive in jail for life would be costly, more so than killing them, it is a better punishment for their crimes. No human should have the right to decide the time of death of another person intentionally. If people in jail want to die, they can do it themselves.

 

Many people would prefer life imprisonment over death. MANY people on death row prefer this.

 

Seems like a lot of the arguments for and against capital punishment are flawed which is why this is a tricky subject. The reason I am against it is because that the decision is up to the jury. Who says the jury isn't full of racists? Or say all the jury members knew a family member who has been murdered? It is a very biased and therefor flawed.

Now I have never been to jail, or even a maximum security prison, but I believe in harsher corporal punishment. Make jail a living hell so people REALLY don't want to go. Make them think twice about the consequences before they commit a crime, and make what happens publicly known, no matter how brutal. Call it unethical or inhumane, but it just might work.

 

It would be great if prison/jail really was this way. Doesn't anybody here ever read or watch T.V? Most convicts prefer imprisonment over even free life. Why everybody seems to think they all hate it and it's terrible I don't know. Wishful thinking? Just because it's not exactly easy doesn't mean they don't see it as, basically, a haven.

 

Which arguments are flawed?

The Jury? Let me get this straight.

The Lawyers are in it to win it.
The Judge is in it to make sure all goes according to law.

The Jury is in it purely for justice, the Jury is made up of a random selection representing all boards of society.
It is not flawed at all, their are background checks before they choose jury members, you do know that lawyers get to choose who they want on their jury from a selection of random jury members right?

You do realize that the punishment does not deter the original act itself? So just because you make the punishment harder doesn't mean you'll make criminals less likely to commit offenses.
Thats like saying if you make food unhealthier people would be less likely to eat it o wait obesity in America has gone up.

 

Sorry XD was gona for a few days.

Ah but that brings up an entire different area of the issue. I agree life without parole could meet the equivalence standard of a life=life situation but then you have to take all the other problems with it into consideration.
The cost issue is definitely one of them, (when i speak of the death penalty cost I'm not taking into account the many appeals they receive which i do not agree with.)

Murder requires someone to take another life, because as i said noone can give me a monetary value of a life then it is only logical that the only equivalent would be another life.
Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, when the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and other possessions in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the criminal pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, a subject you mentioned before, which is guided by a different motive.

Hm, not quite. I use it as a form of separation to show you how the two situations are different.
The law decides whats just and unjust and even with that society follows.

I wouldn't say thats my entire argument, I am using the fact that the death penalty is legal to show the separation between the two situations.
If the death penalty was eradicated I would still be here defending it with every other form of argument I have just short one of the legality of it. While this is a strong argument to lose, it isn't the only.


Here let me as you a question personally.
I'm not aware of you family status so I apologize if I misrepresent it or am wrong in any way.
Say you were outside your house with a gun and another man was just on the other side of your property line with a gun as well. He says that he will kill you then go into your house and rape your wife and child and kill them as well. He starts to advance toward you.
Would you shoot?
(For arguments sake were going to say you have a shotgun so any shot you deliver will be a killing blow)

 

The jury is hand selected by the two sides so it's there decision who gets on the case.
So obviously the defending side is not going to choose someone with a family murder in their past or someone who is racist (seemingly racist, yes they can hide this I know. But, up to the maximum amount of knowledge they can recieve they try to deter racists)

Even so, if the evidence is so overwhelming that they can prove they actually committed the crime, why would it matter if the jury was racist or had a past experiece with a death?
Should a black person be let off on an easier sentence just because a white person found some way to? I'll give you it's unfair but that doesn't lessen the severity of his crime.

 

The few points I have seen made pro death penalty are: cheaper than incarceration, the "eye for an eye" principle, and frees up our jails. I have seen links posted on here that say incarceration is not technically more expensive than the death penalty. The eye for and eye principle should not be what the death penalty is based on. And we can find better ways to free up our jail system than killing off murderers.

I do realize this, but regardless, the decision is made by a group of people. There is not a definite yes or no answer for most trials, which is why the whole process is a giant grey area. Before the interview process they are told what the case is about. What deters the interviewee from lieing about his/her past to curve the juries sensitivity on the issue? And where do we draw the line on who gets life in jail, and who gets put to death? Do we put to death all murderers? Or just ones that kill their family? Or just ones who kill with a certain weapon? Like I said, the grey area is too large to have a death penalty.

You are making an assumption, you have no idea what actually would happen. I am talking about making jail so inhospitably and inhumane that every day that murderer lives in misery.

Every time I see a McDonald's commercial, all I see are fit, happy children/adults running around. The food is already unhealthy, but how do they promote that? Yes, sure, they have the facts sheets. But the people who actually read them don't care or choose to not eat the food. Some people are too poor to afford healthier food. Cheap, fast food is their only option. You cannot compare obesity to the living conditions in jail. Post billboards showing how murderers live the rest of their lives out in jail. There are abortion billboards showing how brutal abortions are, so why not do the same for a bloody and broken man living behind bars? If people knew what misfortunes would happen to them if they went to jail, they would think twice.

The fact is not whether or not they committed the crime, it's if they receive the death penalty, or spend the rest of their lives in jail. And that's where the bias comes in.

 

In my eyes, if you take someone life, you need a punishment suitable for the crime. Your life in return for theirs seems like a fair trade. The same goes for sex offenders, pedophiles etc. A person who sexually abuses a child, well anyone for that matter, deserves to die.