Man injects a woman with HIV: should he gotten death row
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.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||4 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||205 times||Debate No:||97088|
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.