The Instigator
Franchie
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
EXOPrimal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,342 times Debate No: 98117
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Franchie

Con

Life is sacred. This is an ideal that the majority of people can agree upon to a certain extent. For this reason, taking the life of another has always been considered the most deplorable of crimes, one worthy of the harshest available punishment. Thus arises one of the great moral dilemmas of our time. Should taking the life of one who has taken the life of others be considered an available punishment? Is a murderer's life any less sacred than the victim's is? Can capital punishment, the death penalty, execution, legal murder, or whatever a society wishes to call it, be morally justifiable? The underlying question in this issue is if any kind of killing, regardless of reason, can be accepted. Jake Bird, Ted Bundy, Anna Marie Hahn are some of the many that have been killed from the death penalty. They all deserved to be punished for their serial killings but does that gives us the right to do so? Many people have researched both sides of this controversy, but the need to abolish the death penalty is the stronger argument. It needs to be abolish because of the expenses of the death penalty, second the risk that comes along with it and, lastly the ineffectiveness and the question of human rights.
EXOPrimal

Pro

C1: The Death Penalty Deters Crime

A. A study by Emory University has found that every execution deters 18 murders(1). If we were to nationalise the death penalty than the number of murders would decrease, there are also many other peer reviewed studies that also reaffirm Emory University's findings(1)(2).

B. Studies may show us proof of the death penalty acting as deterrent, but so does common sense, the cost of speeding is ticket, who's price will never go above $1,000, and robbery may lead to jail time. As a result there have been many more cases of people speeding than there have been of people stealing from stores.

C. There have been accounts of assault that could have executed for murder if the offender was not afraid of getting the death penalty such as Margaret Daly, Orelius Steward, and Paul Brusseau(3). Criminals are still humans and can process information and can judge what they are willing to go through.

D. The Prevention of further murders should be our number one priority when homicide occurs, the methods that we use to punish wrongdoers should be an example to the rest of the population of what happens to someone that takes away a life. The nationalisation of the death penalty could help deter crime by implanting a sense of what would happen if someone commits such a atrocious act as taking another humans life this Deterrent effect is much more important that the punishment of the criminal.

C2: Non death penalty states are more susceptible to murders

A. This is the main reason why I am arguing for the nationalization of the death penalty, the state that have banned the use of the death penalty are more vulnerable to murders because the killers have to play a lesser price for there extreme misdoing. We cannot have inconsistency inside our criminal justice system.

B. Most states without the death penalty has demonstrated an increase of murders since 1996, whereas the states that upheld the death penalty have demonstrated a average decline in murder rates(4). Living in states without the death penalty is more dangerous that states without it and the number one priority for a federal government is to protect it's people

C. Criminals also grasp the relative lenience of non-death penalty states. Dmitry Smirnov, a deranged lover, killed his ex-girlfriend he met online in the state of Illinois only after finding that Illinois had abolished the death penalty(3). After turning him self in he said that he would probably be getting life in prison because he couldn't receive the death penalty.

C3: Some criminals the world is better off without

A. This will highlights the issues and problems with putting serial killers in jail, and the extreme brutality of of some criminals that should render their inalienable rights useless. Some murders are because of psychological reasons, but some are plain cruel, disgusting, and sadistic.

B. If a murder is so atrocious and gruesome the killer must be put to death, it has always been seem that way. This point can be seen in the case of Lisa Coleman. Lisa murdered a 9 year old child in cold blood. The child died of malnutrition and it had been observed that the young child had suffered over 250 distinct injuries including cigarette burns(5).

C. There is also an off chance that the murderer could escape, this is seen in the case of John Modie, who murdered a 29 year old girl. He escaped from prison, luckily law enforcement caught his soon after but this mishap may have cost the life of another innocent person(6). There have been other cases of murderers escaping and killing once again such as the case of Robert Crissman who murdered a 55 year old women in her home after breaking out of prison(7).

D. The serial killers inside the are also a danger to their fellow inmates and prison guards. A serial killer by the name of Graham Young who killer his own step mother, by administering her poison, when he was 15 was put into a high security prison soon after. There a fellow inmate died of cyanide poisoning and many drinks were found tampered with. After Young got released he proceeded to kill 2 more people and experimented with poison on over 70 of his colleagues(8).

E. Some killers like John Miller and Jimmy Lee Gray got some mercy from the criminal justice system and were legally freed from jail. These people didn't embrace their chance to live but instead used it and killed again(9). If we had not given these people their last minute reprieve and had instead been executed their second wave of killings could have been stopped.

C4:The Family of Victims

A. The Families of murder victims are thrown into the turmoil and suffer for a very long time. This near hellish state makes the families of the victims suffer more than the actual murderer himself. Its a horrible thing that happens and it must be stopped.

B. Some relatives consider the death penalty a form of justice such as Fred Romano who still suffers from the death of his sister. "It's justice," Fred Romano said. "It's not revenge."(10)

C. Some families complain about the death penalty, but never about the righteousness of it, but because of the long tedious process that it takes. The death penalty needs to be fixed and the murderers shouldn't be able to stall as long as they can as it puts stress on the family when they need it most.

In Conclusion

The death penalty deters crime and saves lives. The death penalty should be instituted as a national law that spreads across the country, for the sake of the families involved and for the sake of the people. Murderers are dangerous and nothing shy of it, and its about time we view them as such. For these reasons I belive that the capital punishment should be allowed. A government's job, above all else, is to protect it's people, and it's about time we do so.

For these reasons I urge you to vote Pro, over to Con

Citations
1.http://www.usnews.com......
2.http://www.nytimes.com......
3.https://apps.bostonglobe.com......
4.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......
5.http://www.dailymail.co.uk......
6.http://www.dispatch.com......
7.http://www.cnn.com......
8.http://www.biography.com......
9.http://lists.monstersandcritics.com......
10.http://www.baltimoresun.com......
Debate Round No. 1
Franchie

Con

First, this death penalty is expensive. Why? According to Richard C. Dieter, the Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, almost all death penalty cases cannot afford their own lawyer (Dieter). The state has to provide them. The expenses in a death penalty case include legal costs, pre-trial costs, jury selection, trial, incarceration, and appeal costs. For example, between 1982 and 1997, counties spent a shocking 1.6 billion on capital crime trials, according to Katherine Baicker in her article titled "The Budgetary Repercussions of Capital Convictions." Therefore, all of the murderers who can afford a great attorney usually get off with their crime. For example, Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson, both had great lawyers and both got off with their crime. So for the poor and the minorities, they usually get the death penalty because they cannot afford a good lawyer. Simply meaning, it"s unfair.
Second there is the risk of killing the innocent. There was a story in the news a couple of years about a man named Troy Davis who was put to death who was still fighting to prove his innocence. Seven of the nine witnesses that stated they saw Davis kill a police officer in 1991 recanted their original testimony. The appeal to the Supreme Court was denied and he was put to death on September 21, 2011 (CNN). According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 156 people in 26 states have been exonerated from death row since 1976 with proof of their innocence (DPIC). This proves that before the advances in technology such as DNA testing, the justice system was and still is very capable of making mistakes. There is no way to tell if the some of the 1,434 people executed since 1976 were innocent but there have been multiple cases where new evidence has emerged after the defendant has already been executed.
Many Americans will tell you why they are in favor of the death penalty. It is what they deserve. It prevents them from ever murdering again. It removes the burden from taxpayers. We all live in a society with the same basic rights and guarantees. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with equal opportunities. This is the basis for our society. It is the foundation on which everything else is built upon. When someone willfully and deliberately attacks this foundation by murdering another, robbing them of all they are, and all they will ever be, then that person can no longer be a part of this society. The only method that completely separates cold blooded murderers from our society is the death penalty.
Another is its ineffectiveness as a preventive to murder. Supporters of the death penalty say that the death penalty makes a person think twice before killing. So let"s think about this. They"re crazy enough to take someone else"s life; do you honestly think they would think twice about having their own life taken away from them? Don"t most murderers commit suicide after committing their crime, so wouldn"t the death penalty be an incentive to kill? Statistics show in a current issues article titled "Capital Punishment," from the years 1990-2009 states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than the states without the death penalty. The death penalty encourages violence. In eighty percent of the United States, murder rates actually increase after executions take place. California has the largest death row in the United States with 743 inmates and Florida has the second largest death row in the United States with 396 inmates (DPIC) Executions lead to a brutalization effect, a climate of violence and killing to avenge grievances.
Also, supporters say that the death penalty gives justice to the family of the victim. But no matter what happens to the killer, the victim is still gone, they"re not going to be brought back to life. The family still has to live with that loss forever. And who ever thinks about the killer"s family? Don"t you think they have feelings too? It doesn"t, it doesn"t change what the killer did but since when do we have the right to treat people as if they weren"t humans?
Lastly, the question of our rights. Does the government actually have the right to take someone"s life? Wouldn"t the death penalty be going against our eighth amendment right of cruel and unusual punishment? There is a pattern of racial bias in sentencing that clearly is unconstitutional. Also, this sends the wrong message. We are going to kill someone for killing. It doesn"t make sense and it contradicts the whole idea. "
"An eye for an eye," is what some Americans would say concerning the death penalty. Supporters of the death penalty ask the question, "Why should I, an honest hardworking taxpayer, have to pay to support a murderer for the rest of their natural life? Why not execute them and save society the cost of their keep?" Many Americans believe that the death penalty is wrong. However, it seems obvious to some Americans that the death penalty is a just and proper way to handle convicted murderers.
Capital punishment is immoral and a violation of natural rights. It is wrong for everyone involved: the prosecuted innocent, criminals, victims" families, and our nation. The government needs to replace the death penalty and capital punishment with life without parole, a safer and more inexpensive option. The death penalty does not guarantee safety for innocent victims, it does not follow the goals and promises of our nation, it does not effectively prevent crime, and it does not give closure to victims" families. Nothing good comes of hate, and nothing good can ever come from capital punishment. It cannot continue to be accepted by a nation that claims to have liberty and justice for all. The death penalty is murder on the sly and its dead wrong.
In conclusion, the first was about the costliness of the death penalty, second the risk that comes along with it and lastly its ineffectiveness and the question of our rights. So is the death penalty really helping the nation or making it worse. Thirty-six states still have the death penalty including Texas; states without the death penalty have lower murder rates. So which one makes more sense.

"An Eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind".

Works Cited:
"About DPIC." DPIC. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2016.
Feingold, Russ. "Capital Punishment Should Be Temporarily Suspended." Capital Punishment. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "testimony before the United States Senate." 2002. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Nov. 2016.
"Death Penalty Fast Facts." CNN Wire 24 Oct. 2016. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Nov. 2016.
Evans, Kim Masters. "Death Penalty Laws: State, Federal, and U.S. Military." Capital Punishment: Cruel and Unusual? 2012 ed. Detroit: Gale, 2012. Information Plus Reference Series. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Nov. 2016.
"Here's Why the Death Penalty Is Doomed in America." Time. Time, n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2016.
Meyer, Russell. "END THE DEATH PENALTY." Tampa Bay Times [St. Petersburg, FL] 19 Oct. 2016: 5. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Nov. 2016.
"Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD - Death Penalty - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2016.
"The Budgetary Repercussions of Capital Convictions." By Katherine Baicker. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2016.
"The Case Against the Death Penalty." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2016.
EXOPrimal

Pro

C1:Crime deterrence

A. Death penalty abolitionists claim that the death penalty does not deter crime. If this I will prove how it does deter crime, and why that is blatantly obvious. A majority of death penalty abolitionists warp their data to try to support their cause.

B. You cannot measure the number of murders per Capita as an argument due to many unstable populations in death penalty states, such as the African American population of California, and the Hispanic population of Texas. These populations are very unstable,and result in high amounts of violence in Chicago and new Orleans. These unstable places and populations leave murder counts significantly skewed. You can measure the change in murder rates to prove deterrence, but more specifically you can see the change in murder rates after an execution.

C. Since 1997 the crime rate of death penalty states has decreased by almost 2 murders per Capita(1.9 specifically) meanwhile non death penalty states have decreased by a measly .87 per Capita(1).

D.Only 7 states have executed someone in 2015 or 16, and only 3 have executed more than 5, and Texas has executed more than 20(2). Texas, as a result has been able to keep it's murder rates blow five, which is lower than non-death penalty states like Alaska and Maryland(5). Maryland, on the other hand, abolished the death penalty in in 2013, and it is seen that it's murder rates have sprung from 6.4 to 8.6(3).

E.Again Texas has proved the deterrence of crime "A more recent study by Kenneth Land of Duke University and others concluded that, from 1994 through 2005, each execution in Texas was associated with "modest, short-term reductions" in homicides, a decrease of up to 2.5 murders." (4)

F. I how you, as the voter, can see the superiority of my argument, and the foolishness on Con’s. This crime deterrence is the point of the death penalty and is the primary reason why it should be allowed.

C4:Appeals and Stalling

A. Death penalty abolitionists have not successfully banned the death penalty, but they have increased the time it takes for a criminal to be executed. This is where all the problems of the death penalty come from.

B. It takes 15 years for a criminal to be executed(5). This is because of the massive amounts of useless appeals that criminals have. If we are not sure if the inmate is guilty, then they should have appeals. The problem lies with even if we have all the evidence to be 100% sure, as long as the criminal has not pleaded guilty he can still stall. We need to remove this option, this would speed up the time of execution in turn increase deterrence, which leads to more lives saved.

C. Lastly the massive cost of the death penalty also stems from this stalling, and implementing this time saving would drastically reduce the cost of the capital punishment. It is known that a death penalty reform would be much more effective than a complete removal. I hope that you can realise that the death penalty itself is not the problem, but instead it is the appeals.

C5: Morality

A. In this contention I will prove why the death penalty is morally correct. Abolitionists use many moral arguments, and I will refute every one.

B. Murderers have taken the life of an innocent human being, and the right to life in unalienable. By doing this horrible deen they have suspended their own right. We are not lowering anyone, the murderers are lowing themselves. By this murder, the murderers have made themselves less than human. They no longer have their unalienable rights. Murderers are monsters, nothing more, nothing less.

C. Abolitionists also use the argument of hypocrisy, which is, frankly, ridiculous. All the abolitionists say “why do we teach people not to kill by killing” but they do not note the difference between brutal slaughter and justified killing. Have you ever heard an abolitionist say “why do we teach people to kill another human being by enacting justice” have you?

D. Innocent people rarely get the death penalty, and with technology getting better the margin of error has become microscopical, this argument is getting less and less relevant.

Should the killer live? The victim never had a choice

Citations

1.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

2.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

3.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

4.http://www.usnews.com...

5.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...



Debate Round No. 2
Franchie

Con

Recent polls of police chiefs in various areas of the country indicate that a large majority of them believe that the death penalty is no deterrent to violent crime. It ranks last on their lists of how they should go about reducing violent crime, and studies have shown that it is no better at reducing crime than the possibility of life in prison without any chance of parole (Cook, 1999). This is interesting, in the face of the argument that the death penalty reduces the amount of violent crimes that are committed. Studies have also shown that, contrary to the popular opinion that the death penalty brings closure, most people do not feel that watching someone else die helps them to move on in any way (Cassell & Bedau, 2005). Sometimes it seems to profane the name of the lost loved one by associating yet another death with it. The death of the loved one is painful enough without adding to it (Cook, 1999).

Mainly, Opponents of the death penalty argue that (Policy, 2003):

those contemplating criminal activities do not rationally weigh the benefits and costs of their actions,

the costs associated with obtaining a death penalty conviction are larger than the costs associated with providing lifetime imprisonment,

in a world of imperfect information, innocent individuals may be convicted and executed before exonerating information is discovered, and

the death penalty has disproportionately been applied in cases in which the defendant is nonwhite or the victim is white.

There are several effective arguments against the death penalty, including the fact that some people have been executed, and the government has later discovered their innocence. There is not much to be done at that point, and instead of deterring violent crime, it makes the death penalty seem unjust and unfair. It also draws into question once again whether the death penalty is such a good idea, since it can sometimes be used incorrectly and innocent people are made to suffer for the mistakes of the police, prosecutors, and government (Rivkind & Shatz, 2005). It would seem that many criminals would find this more amusing than frightening. They do not take their chances of being caught and subjected to the death penalty seriously enough to be frightened by the penalty like many assume they will be (van den Haag, 2001).

According to some that believe in God and feel that the death penalty is acceptable under the scriptures, make one main point, which is that "This is not an issue that may be measured accurately in terms of statistics. No one can ever know how many potential murderers have refrained from taking human life due to their fear of prosecution, conviction, and ultimate execution" (Jackson, 2003). It is also questioned during this same argument that those who conclude that the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime should also be able to conclude that prison is not a deterrent either, since people seem to keep committing crimes, whether or not they think they will go to jail.

Another concern over the death penalty and violent crime is the issue of the mentally handicapped (Banner, 2003). They, along with juveniles, also commit violent crimes on occasion. These mentally handicapped individuals, not to be confused with mentally disturbed or insane individuals, often have low IQs and do not realize what they have done. The death penalty in their cases is not any deterrent. They do not even realize what they have done. One mentally handicapped man actually asked the jailers to save his dessert for him so that he could eat it after his execution. It was clear that he did not understand what the execution was about, no more than he understood the crime that he had committed. Executing individuals like this does nothing for society. Many people find it cruel, and even if it is not, it is certainly senseless. There are no important lessons about not committing crimes that are learned by executing someone who is mentally handicapped (Reforms, 2002).

The same is true for juvenile offenders. Some juveniles that are convicted of violent crimes are locked away in prison until such time as they are old enough to be executed, which really does not teach juveniles anything valuable about the death penalty or avoidance of violent crime. More often than not, these juveniles are not executed, and most juveniles know that they will not receive the death penalty, even if they are tried as adults, so they are not deterred by the possibility (Radelet & Akers, 1996).

There are other arguments, but the most effective argument against the death penalty as a deterrent for violent crime appears to be the fact that crime has not gone down simply because the death penalty is out there (Death, 2000). States that have it do not have lower crime rates on average than states that do not have it, and that would indicate that the death penalty in and of itself is not stopping people from committing violent acts (Ikramullah, 2003).
EXOPrimal

Pro

Rebuttals
Con Paragraph 1
The section about police chiefs is a bandwagon fallacy, they are just police chiefs and not criminologists, their opinion should be taken into account but they are not experts and their opinions do not hold as much value. Con also mentions one study that says that death penalty does not deter crime, there are many more studies proving my side.(1)

Con last 3 paragraphs
We do not need to teach the murderers anything, we need to teach other people that murder is not okay. the murderers had their chance.

Citations
http://cjlf.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Franchie

Con

There is no credible proof that the death penalty works as a deterrent. In US states where the death penalty has been abolished, there has been no significant change in the rates for serious criminal offenses, such as murder.

Did You Know?

Japan is the only advanced democratic country, besides the United States, that has the death penalty.
The 5 countries that carry out the most executions in the world are China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the USA.
Since 1976 there have been 273 clemencies granted in the US.
The death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment, where basic standards of human dignity are compromised or undermined.

Retribution is just another word for revenge and simply continues the cycle of violence " it is essentially just a form of the flawed concept that two wrongs can make a right: the pro argument is that killing people is wrong, therefore you should kill people for doing it, which just doesn"t make sense.

The death penalty affects the poorer segments of society and racial minorities disproportionately, in part because they are unable to afford the costs of good legal support. In the USA, although only 13% of the US population are African American, but 50% of death row prisoners are African American.

America"s image would be improved in places like Europe, if the death penalty were abolished. The other places where executions happen regularly include repressive regimes like Iran, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
The justice system is bound to make mistakes. In the case of people who are wrongly imprisoned, they can be released from prison and given compensation, but a wrongful execution can never righted.
When all the practical and legal costs are taken into account, it is clear that the death penalty is more expensive than imprisoning prisoners for life.

A life spent in prison is a worse punishment than an execution.
EXOPrimal

Pro

Note to Voters: Con has copied all her arguments in round 3 from this link:

https://www.ukessays.com...

This link uses the same citations as Con, and Con has not cited this source and has claimed it as his/her own. This is plagiarism, and it merits the loss of the conduct point in voting. It does appear to be the only thing he/she has copied.

C1: Deterrence

I have already presented many credible sources proving the deterrence of the death penalty. The only semi-credible evidence Con has given is a single study, where I have presented over a dozen. Con has resorted to claim “There is no credible proof that the death penalty works as a deterrent.” without citing any sources. My sources and points on this contention are far superior to con’s, and I hope that I have pushed this point through thoroughly.

“In US states where the death penalty has been abolished, there has been no significant change in the rates for serious criminal offenses, such as murder.”

Please see my R2-C1-D, where I explain the massive increase of murders in alaska and maryland after they abolished the death death penalty. Con has no sources that support this claim, and all I present are simple statistics that prove my point.

Hypocrisy?

Con started to hint that the death penalty was hippocratic. The abolitionists don’t seem to understand the difference between brutally murdering another innocent human and lawfully killing someone. There is no hypocrisy in the death penalty, there is a difference between an execution and a murder; that difference is painfully obvious.

Foreign view

There is a massive difference between our criminal justice system and the justice system of oppressive regimes, our justice system is based on solid evidence. In this part of con’s argument is a type of bandwagon appeal, Con says “look at what these countries are doing, we should do it too”.

Racial segregation

African americans have been apprehended for more crimes that other races(1), please note that I do not mean anything racist with this statistic. This may be because of a racist justice system or our society, the racial segregation of crime is not a problem with the death penalty, but instead a problem of society as a whole.

Innocence

It is horrible when an innocent person is executed, but this chance is getting smaller and smaller. The last case of an innocent person being executes was in 1992, more that 20 years ago. With the turn of the century and forensic technology become much more advanced. The chance of a wrongful execution is nearly non-existent.

Cruel or Unusual?

The death penalty is not cruel or unusual. The cruel section of this amendment refers to torture. Though botched execution do happen there are other ways of execution, and this debate is about the death penalty not lethal injection. So is the death penalty unusual? Unusual refers to a price that is too great for the crime. For example, if you got life in prison for stealing a chocolate bar from a store that would be deemed unusual. But the people that get executed have murdered somebody, and their execution in not unusual. Because of this the death penalty cannot be a cruel and unusual punishment. Con also leaves of with a very vague “A life spent in prison is a worse punishment than an execution.”, and if this is true would life in prison be cruel and unusual as well? If you are in prison you can still live and see family members, you can learn and so some thing that you may want to do. Being put to death is a worse punishment that a life in prison.

Citations:
1.http://www.amren.com...


Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by WithAllDueRepsect 1 year ago
WithAllDueRepsect
Interesting debate.

Con says: "The death penalty affects the poorer segments of society and racial minorities disproportionately, in part because they are unable to afford the costs of good legal support. In the USA, although only 13% of the US population are African American, but 50% of death row prisoners are African American."

I am more on the side of Con, but this point is simply not valid against death penalty. Death penalty affects those who committed murder or similarly atrocious acts. Comparing the proportion of African Americans in the country to the African Americans on the death row is meaningless. Let us imagine that 40 % of the murderers country wide are African Americans (i have no idea how much it actually is and knowing the actual value is not necessary to explain my point). Then if death penalties are distributed equally among different ethnic groups we would have 40% of the death penalties assigned to African Americans. That is still way more than 13% and we have an approportionate distribution between ethnic groups. Examining the distribution of death penaltys between different groups is only meaningful if we consider the proportion of those groups in the jurisdiction system, not in the whole country.
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
Sidetrack
EXOPrimal study that implies the death penalty brings down the murder rate do not add up and stinks of psuedo science.

When a person is involved in a situation where they are so emotionally ignited they would kill someone, they are not concerned with anything outside the situation, which means deterrence laws should have very little influence in such a situation.

If a place wanted to bring down murder rate, it makes more sense to create circumstances where there is less stress on peoples lives, make their society more fair.

When someone actually does kill someone, the most logical way to handle them is just to get them away from the rest of society first, because they have proved they are a danger. The second thing is to make their life as comfortable and productive as possible, because they need to be changed from dangerous to safe and they need to work just as everyone else does. They should have to pay for the total cost of their correctional situation and damages they did because of their murder. You cannot do that dead. If after a while they appear to be cured, they may be released.

Draconian deterrence would seem to escalate the degree of a crime when a person is trying not to get caught. Draconian punishment makes a person worse, the opposite of what would make them a productive person in society. This is why prisons are expensive.

A correctional system that didn't punish, but instead emulated normal society (but just had walls) would be self-sustaining and cost the tax payers nothing.

Basically, the belief in punishment is probably really a mental illness. Leadership is what people need that have gone astray, not more disability.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Death penalty is a bias accusation placed against a justice system. The United States Constitution does not support a death penalty. Capital punishment is the greatest basic Separation a convicted criminal can be direct too, by the Constitutional separation process.
No votes have been placed for this debate.