The Instigator
Galaxxii
Pro (for)
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)

Man injects a woman with HIV: should he gotten death row

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Galaxxii has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 141 times Debate No: 97088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Galaxxii

Pro

Round 1.) Introduction
Round 2.) Argument
Round 3.) Rebuttal
Round 4.) Conclusion

I believe this man should get death row for his actions because this could cause her to get AIDS which is a deadly incurable disease. So he is slowly killing this innocent woman so he should get put to death because he put her to the same fate.

HIV Definition: Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a chronic, potentially life-threatening condition caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). By damaging your immune system, HIV interferes with your body's ability to fight the organisms that cause disease. HIV is a sexually transmitted infection.

Source: http://www.mayoclinic.org...

A former Lafayette doctor who is 17 years into a 50-year prison sentence for injecting his ex-mistress with the AIDS virus was denied parole at a Thursday hearing in Baton Rouge. Richard J. Schmidt, 66, was convicted of attempted second-degree murder in 1998 in a case that attracted international media attention.A three-member state parole panel voted unanimously Thursday against Schmidt"s bid for release, said Daniel Landry III, first assistant with the 15th Judicial District Attorney"s Office.Schmidt has never admitted wrongdoing, and Landry said the former doctor on Thursday continued to dispute the evidence against him.Schmidt, who is serving his time at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St. Gabriel, is not eligible for early release for good behavior until 2023, Landry said.Schmidt was convicted of injecting nurse Janice Trahan Allen with a tainted shot in 1994 after she ended a long-term extramarital affair with the doctor.Prosecutors said the shot, given under the guise of a B-12 vitamin injection, was filled with blood drawn from two of Schmidt"s patients " one with AIDS and another with hepatitis C.The victim, who has survived, testified against Schmidt"s release at Thursday"s hearing, Landry said.Schmidt exhausted his appeals in state court about 10 years ago and also challenged his conviction for several years in the federal court system, including failed attempts to have the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case, said 15th Judicial District Attorney Keith States, who prosecuted Schmidt in the 1990s while working as assistant district attorney.

Source: http://www.theadvocate.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

I accept this debate with my opponent. I will take a general approach in this instance, and argue for why the death penalty should never be used, and this would include this specific case my opponent has introduced to us.

I'd like to point out that it's not possible to have the debate outlined in the fashion pro stated. There are only 3 rounds, but they say we should have up to round 4.
Debate Round No. 1
Galaxxii

Pro

Yes I am sorry about the whole four round confusion I accidentally did not add the fourth round, and because of that reason we will be skipping the conclusion and will be ending this debate with the rebuttal. Anyway getting back into the topic.

Death Penalty Definition: A death penalty is the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes (serious crimes, especially murder, which are punishable by death). The death penalty, or capital punishment, may be prescribed by Congress or any state legislature for murder and other capital crimes. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury trial in capital crime cases.
Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com...

Using that definition meaning that what u do to one other person u should have done to yourself but in a more humane way. I believe that many things should come back at u almost a karama effect.

In a larger sense, capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and enter in the first place.

There are many victims of a single murder. The criminal gets caught, tried, and convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe. But the person he has killed no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived his family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the murder. It may not end with the murderer"s execution, but the execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal"a feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives on.

Source: http://listverse.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

The main problem about the death penalty is that it is a solution that cannot be undone. In the united states it is estimated, and this is a conservative estimate, that "4.1% [of death row inmates] would be exonerated" [1] if they were on death row indefinitely. In other words, potentially 4.1% of people who are killed because of capital punishment would have been found not guilty at some point later, due to a false conviction in the original trial. We are killing innocent people with capital punishment. I would argue that it is better to let 96 murderers continue to live if we save the lives of 4 innocent people. In addition, the primary reason why we punish murderers is so that they cannot kill anyone else. Life imprisonment does this role quite perfectly, as the murderer will be unable to murder anyone else.

Additionally, it is an archaic way of thinking to believe in the "eye for an eye" rule. A murderer could still be productive in society, and just the fact they murdered someone, it doesn't suddenly make their life worth any less than someone else. Killing them should also be wrong. Now, while I said earlier life imprisonment would satisfy the desire to prevent a murderer from murdering again, there are other means of doing this as well. I don't think tax money should have to go to providing for someone who murdered someone else, while they provide nothing for society in return which is what happens with life imprisonment. Rather, they should still be in society, but since they murdered someone, they give up other rights, such as a right to privacy. The government or police force can constantly monitor the person, perhaps it can be required that they have a chip on them at all times to monitor where they are, as well as a camera. It can be made illegal for this person to purchase anything that can be used as a weapon, and they must give up anything in their possession already that can be used as a weapon. In addition, perhaps it should be required that they improve the lives of others through community service hours that they have to provide for the rest of their life. In this situation, if the person is later to be found innocent, then all of these punishments can be stopped, whereas for capital punishment, that can't be undone.

Sources:
[1] http://www.pnas.org...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
@Capitalistslave "perhaps it should be required that they improve the lives of others through community service hours that they have to provide for the rest of their life." What if they see the community service as a hobby so that it doesn't feel like a punishment? All you did was give them a hobby for murdering someone. Also, what if they refuse to do the work?

"for capital punishment, that can't be undone." Tough luck. We are over populated anyway. Better to let a couple innocent people to die along with all the evil people than to become so over populated that the entire world dies of starvation. Now our entire species has to die cause you don't have the heart to pull the lever.
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
@Capitalistslave "The main problem about the death penalty is that it is a solution that cannot be undone." Neither can murder. So why does the innocent person not get to live anymore but the evil person does?

"I would argue that it is better to let 96 murderers continue to live if we save the lives of 4 innocent people." The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The 96 murderers need to die. Tough luck for the 4 innocent people. Life can't be fair to everyone.

"In addition, the primary reason why we punish murderers is so that they cannot kill anyone else. Life imprisonment does this role quite perfectly, as the murderer will be unable to murder anyone else." And then the public is punished for his crimes by paying to keep him alive. Now he gets a place to live and 3 meals a day that's free to him and we have to pay for it.

"it is an archaic way of thinking to believe in the "eye for an eye" rule." That's subjective.

"A murderer could still be productive in society" Our safety is more important than an evil person's productivity.

"Killing them should also be wrong." That's subjective.

"I don't think tax money should have to go to providing for someone who murdered someone else" Then where will they get the money?

"Rather, they should still be in society" Not an option.

"The government or police force can constantly monitor the person" No, they can't. It would cost more money to pay people to watch every second of the murderer's life than it would to imprison them.

"perhaps it can be required that they have a chip on them at all times to monitor where they are" That doesn't prevent them from committing more crimes. You'll just know WHERE they committed the crimes.

"as well as a camera." That will just show you what crimes they are committing, not prevent them.

"It can be made illegal for this person to purchase anything that can be used as a weapon" They can still choke you to death.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.