Should the death penalty be allowed under the 8th amendment?
Yes it should
Side Score: 25
|
No it shouldn't
Side Score: 38
|
|
|
|
Crime rate has increased over the years, and to keep the citizens safe and well the government should enforce the law in many ways. Crime rates have increased 15% and have become more dangerous for the civilians of the USA. 40% of ex convicts are known to land back in jail after their release. This signifies that the criminals do not recognize their crimes, especially those who have injured and murdered many. People are continued to be injured, murdered, raped, assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed, would you feel safe in this type of environment? Read article below. http://http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ Side: Yes it should
3
points
2
points
2
points
3
points
2
points
The enforcement of the law, the “uncruel” method of execution, and the safety of the innocent people should be promoted by allowing the death penalty of the 8th Amendment. The 8th Amendment states that no cruel and unusual punishments should take place, but execution is done under painless conditions. The death penalty is not to be taken easily, and does not happen frequently compared to the population of the whole country. It takes several years and even decades to prove the criminal’s wrongdoings and makes sure that the criminal is not innocent. Side: Yes it should
0
points
With the painless condition, the death penalty should not be considered “cruel” as prisoners are severely depressed in their cells. Many of the prisoners’ rights are already lost. Within prison, especially when facing a life long sentence, many of one’s rights are lost, therefore losing the right to life should not be frowned upon over every other pernicious action. The debate question asks whether or not the death penalty should be allowed under the 8th amendment. The 8th amendment states that “cruel” punishments are not to be inflicted upon prisoners. Therefore the syllogism suggests the answer to the debate question to be yes. Side: Yes it should
1
point
0
points
Life in jail you get to see your family every once in a while if they come to visit you. You still get to see your relatives and have a moment of hapiness. Having moments of hapiness is atleast way better than being executed. It's very cruel if you murder someone because everyone deserves to live. Killing someone that killed another doesn't help anyone. A lot of victim's family oppose death penalty and instead they want the criminal to have a life sentence. Side: No it shouldn't
1
point
Seeing your relatives is not considered a right in the United States. Many criminals prefer death over a life sentence because of jail's harsh conditions. Weak or small prisoners are harassed and raped within prison, is this really worse than execution that is not painful? You have avoided the debate question once again and simply going back to having sympathy with the criminals rather than wanting to serve justice. Side: Yes it should
In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world. This can also prove that many innocent citizens are being harmed as well. The end to many murderous criminals will decrease the overall crime rate in America, and this can also enforce the law. Frank Carrington states: No one will know if execution is suitable for the crime, but common sense claims that if the threat of the death penalty increases, the homicide rate will decrease. Today, the US is 5% of the World population and has 25% of world prisoners. Would you also feel save in these kind of environments? Side: Yes it should
3
points
The removal of the people who "kill" can clearly show the large population that killing is wrong. The "kill" in this situation where the government executes the criminals are not as violent as the criminals who have committed numerous crimes and killed a large mass of people. Side: Yes it should
|
2
points
2
points
Giving one specific example for a cruel punishment provides little to no context when considering that the united states holds 25% of the worlds prisoners. We have a lot of evidence suggesting most executions are considered not cruel by jury's dictation.
Supporting Evidence:
http://edition.cnn.
Side: Yes it should
1
point
0
points
0
points
1
point
0
points
1 in every 7 people on death row have been found innocent after being executed. These are irrevocable mistakes. 87 people have been freed from death row because they were proven innocent. This shows that mistakes are made but with longterm impreiment you can free the prisoner, you can not free a dead person. Side: No it shouldn't
0
points
1
point
this is the link http://deathpenalty.procon.org/ "that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at a cost of $1 million for 50 years." this is the part i used Side: No it shouldn't
0
points
0
points
0
points
These punishments should exist in order for the people to get warned to not commit murderous crimes. If the criminal committed murder in an answer to the victim's right to life, then why can't the government do the same? Without this capital punishment, it can be argued that the government does not have a suitable punishment that fits the most severe crime, which will not provide justice for the victim. Side: Yes it should
0
points
0
points
|