Yes their are people in the world who exit that are sexually assaulting people, and or murdering with out a care in the world, and they deserve death, but if that person is a mentally impaired person who can change, shouldn't they be allowed the chance to change and be fixed. Many have gone through a mentally traumatizing moment, or are mentally impaired and do not fully know what they are doing, and can not fully control their actions, and even not fully understand what their actions are to begin with. Over the course of this argument I will bring up multiple court cases in which a mentally impaired person has committed an act of the most heinous standards and is either punished accordingly, or given an unfair punishment.
Yes people should feel safe and protected in the public, but shouldn't the mentally impaired person as well? shouldn't they be given the chance of being helped, or at least protected, due to their lack of control. To me what it really comes down to is who are the people not doing their job, finding and helping these people.
just for the record I do not favor the use of the death penalty in any circumstance including for genocide. For the purposes of this debate question let me cite what the law is concerning the execution of mentally ill persons
Basically the person to be executed must be aware of the fact he or she is to be executed and have a minimal awareness of how and why. That very minimal level of competence is the least which should be required for an execution of mentally ill person to occur. Anything less than that and it is hard to get less than that is simply unreasonable
Implicit in the question is the assumption the death penalty should be used but asks whether it should be used against all murderers, rapists etc or limited to just some of them.
The real question is which is more fair. One which bases application of the penalty on the crime only without any regard to who the defendant is. The second while not ignoring the crime puts greater weight on the present and past circumstances of the defendant.
The problem with the second is it is applied inconsistently-- what matters what is a disqualifying mental conditions varies widely from case to case and from person. The first by requiring death penalty in all cases where the crime qualifies avoids the discrepancies based on subjective factors
If a 13 year old girl stands before the judge facing sentencing for murdering her parents, a crime she committed because she said they were abusing her the judge's duty is to send her to the gas chamber (or lethal injection). If that bothers people and it should-- the answer is not to tinker with but to abolish capital punishment in all cases.
The Instigator has once again forfeited a round. Which is too bad in a way because Con in this case should have a lot to say in support of Con's position on the subject under debate. Things that by forfeiting were not said.