2-Is the death penalty effective?
Introduction:
The use of capital punishment in the United States is a controversial issue, and disputes about the practice have ranged from the morality of the practice, wrongful convictions, racial bias, and more recently controversy over the pharmaceuticals used in executions and the companies that produce them. Relatively little attention – and debate – is given to the theoretical underpinnings and academic evidence on whether the death penalty is an effective means for reducing murder in our society.
For the purpose of this debate, you are to focus on criminological evidence and theoretical arguments in order to respond to the following proposition: The death penalty is an effective means for reducing murder in the United States.
Yes, it is.
Side Score: 21
|
 |
No, it is not.
Side Score: 29
|
|
|
|
|
I am of the opinion that the death penalty helps to reduce the likelihood of murder within an act of criminality. By that I mean those criminals who plot a felony which could involve violence would try to plan their scheme in a way to eliminate, or at least minimize the risk of murdering someone, as such an event could, and probably would lead to their own execution. I'm sure the thought of oneself being administered a lethal injection would be a great deterrent to a lot of criminals and deter many more from perpetrating crimes of violence. The fact that the 'witches brew' of lethal chemicals may not always act as rapidly nor effectively as desired may in itself add to the deterrent value of the death penalty as the mental image of oneself writhing and convulsing in agony would tend to be a further disincentive to commit a crime with involves the potential of murder. Side: Yes, it is.
0
points
It is 100% effective in that the killer will never ever kill again, whether it be in prison for life where he could still kill guards and other inmates. He has nothing to lose when he has a life without parole sentence. It is turly sickening listening to phoney Liberals who fight for the right of life of mass murderer's, but say NOTING when the Democrat Party supports no restriction abortions of viable late term babies for any reason up to birth. I mean....COME ON!!!!! Get some priorities in life you mindless hypocritical fools. Side: Yes, it is.
2
points
It is turly sickening listening to you who claimed God was right to abort babies as they were " evil " you also accepted and embraced the fact that your god said handicapped children were not fit for his company and you applaud and cheer like a giddy schoolgirl your gods " morality " YOURE A RAGING HYPOCRITE..........IGNORE Side: No, it is not.
|
The death penalty is a ridiculous concept and has no place in a so called civilised society ; it's only used because dimwitted legislators never seem to realise that a death penalty may be preferable to many prisoners who face a life behind bars ; I think officials realise this which is why they leave such prisioners lingering on death row for so long so as to get just to make sure they get their share of suffering . I know which I would prefer if faced with 25 -30 years in jail as it would be a merciful release Side: No, it is not.
0
points
ROFLOL, this hypocrite supports killing our most defenseless innocent viable special needs babies, and is on this debate trying to protect mass murderers. He has the nerve to speak about what a civilized society would do towards the right of life of mass murderers, but his kind of civilized society is just fine when sentencing viable late term babies to death for any reason. You can't make this stuff up! It's deranged and truly shows mankind's depravity. YOU MINDLESS INHUMAN HYPOCRITICAL FOOL! Side: Yes, it is.
Well you're not ROFLOL as you're yet again very upset that the whole world does not agree with your tyrannical world view . A thousand people could attempt to beat with hammers into your stupid antediluvian cranium what I'm actually saying and you would still get it wrong ; what I actually consistently state is ABORTION IS A WOMANS CHOICE AND HERS ALONE NO MATTER WHAT YOU I OR ANYONE ELSE THINKS A fetus is not a baby , a fetus is not a person , a fetus has no rights and any imagined rights do not top those of the woman Now hypocrite how come you support your god aborting at will in the bible ? Because you said and agree the babies were " evil " you two faced hypocritical dog ; you ban everyone on your debate like a typical hand wringing "Christian " who never stops attacking women over their life choices life a Victorian tyrant who uses women as a slave . You protest several times a day about abortion whys that guilt ? Bet you talked your wife into having an abortion back in the 70,s after knocking her up down a seedy alleyway and now you and her are burning up with guilt .... your an abortionist and you're ridden with guilt Side: No, it is not.
3
points
It's absolutely not! Yes, it works as a deterent but many people who commit terrible crimes are mentally ill. I guess it makes more sense if the person had no mental illnesses but if they do then they may have no control over what they do, and 9/10 times that is the case. Also, if somebody wrecks a person's car, their punishment is not to have their car wrecked too. If they steal something, they don't have something taken in return. So why should it be that if you kill, you also get killed??? Side: No, it is not.
I think if someone cannot prevent themselves from killing due to a mental ilness etc, this is exactly when the punishment makes the most sense, as you cannot deter someone from doing something they have no control over. So in these "9/10...case[s]", the only option left is to forcibly prevent them from murdering people, which could be acheived either through lifetime imprisonment or execution. In the case of lifetime imprisonment, the money used could easily contribute to paying hospital bills of many innocent people suffering from ilnesses such as upper tooth infections or cancer, which could be lethal if not treated. For example, the average yearly cost of a prisoner is ~$31,286 (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/ Also, the goal of punishment is to prevent a crime from being committed again. Theives do not have something taken in return because it is not the most effective countermeasure: they might attempt to steal it back for example creating another crime instance. People who wreck cars do not have their car wrecked because it can create a sense of normality of wrecking cars. However in both cases, there is justal intervention to prevent the crime in an effective and efficient manner. So, if the most effective measure to save many innocent people is to kill one, how is it not the best option avaliable? Side: Yes, it is.
2
points
@E271 I Don't think so, no. Basically you want to kill off mentally ill people to make money. I think it's worse if they are sane because then they have no excuse for the atrocity. Mentally ill people can, over time, recover and may be horrified at the crime they comitted during their illness. If they are permanently ill then, unfortunately, they go to 'special hospitals' where they are not going to be able to kill people and are under the best care for their condition. Unlike you, I value life over profit. Also, killing people is not the best way because of things like false conviction, government power and, (seeing as you care so much about the economy), loss of money. Prisoners contribute to the economy and do work nobody else wants to do while they are in prison. Finally, all people are meant to get the same care and healthcare, innocent or not, and healthworkers is not allowed to discriminate against patients and the government can't try to save money through killing. Taking anyone's life is a disgusting thing to do, and it's not fair to allow the government to kill, but nobody else. When they are teaching people not to do something, they shouldn't teach them by doing it themselves. Side: No, it is not.
1
point
According to a 2013 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), between 2005 and 2012, the average homicide rate in the U.S. was 4.9 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to the average rate globally, which was 6.2. However, the U.S. had much higher murder rates compared to other countries identified in the report as "developed", which all had average homicide rates of 0.8 per 100,000.[45] In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany and Italy (0.9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrimeintheUnitedStates#Violent_crime So clearly, no, it isn't effective. Side: No, it is not.
0
points
You say.........European countries are doing their best to erradicate special needs babies from their nations........ Who told you that ? As usual you resort to lying whilst at the same time totally supporting unrestricted abortions depending on who's doing it . A fetus isn't a " baby " you idiot nor is it " viable " which is why you totally support abortion as you've admitted once god is doing it according to your bible ; you also agree that special needs kids are not fit to be in gods company ..... you're a hypocrite IGNORE Side: No, it is not.
|
