Death Penalty
Pro
Side Score: 17
|
 |
Con
Side Score: 23
|
|
|
|
|
4
points
Where suspects have been found guilty by the due process of law of certain categories of murder, then the death penalty should be imposed. The law in this regard is unambiguous and places the burden of proof onto the prosecutor to prove ''beyond any reasonable doubt'' that the accused is guilty and that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts presented as evidence. One more piece of filth off the streets without being an expense to the taxpayers. Side: Pro
2
points
The death penalty actually costs significantly more to tax payers than just letting the person rot in jail. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Here are a few snippets in case you don't want to read the whole thing. "Researchers found that the average trial and incarceration costs of an Oregon murder case that results in a death penalty are almost double those in a murder case that results in a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of years." "...each death penalty prosecution cost Nebraska's taxpayers about $1.5 million more than a life without parole prosecution." "...Pennsylvania has spent an estimated $272 million per execution since the Commonwealth reinstated its death penalty in 1978. Using data from a 2008 study by the Urban Institute, the Eagle calculated that cost of sentencing 408 people to death was an estimated $816 million higher than the cost of life without parole." Side: Con
1
point
There is a tendency, the stricter the penalties, the higher the murder rates. Countries with the low crimerates, such as Norway, have the leanest punishments. A criminal can receive a maximum of 21 years in prison, and that is the highest punishment you can receive. The norwegian prison system is based on the principle of rehabilitation, not revenge or justice. Furthermore they have the leanest prisons. Criminals are offered education and therapy, most times criminals are free to wander in and outside the prisons, they are not literally ''locked up'' Even in their maximum security facility, the inmates have keys to their cells, and the guards don't carry guns. The famous norwegian serial killer, Breivik, he got 10 to 21 years, and last year it turned out that they had kept him in isolation for longer than legally possible. He sued the state, and the state had to pay him around 50,000 USD for illegal incarceration. It should be noted that isolation is allowed if the inmate poses as a threat. Seems pretty sick to me, but still I can't ignore the fact that the US has one of the highest recidivism rates in the world. Nearly 80% of prisoners are rearrested within five years. Norway has one of the lowest at 20% Do you think that it would be better for the society, do you think it would be safer for our children on the streets if we rehabilitated criminals instead of killing and torturing them? Side: Con
2
points
Deterrence research actually finds mixed results, and most research is strictly correlative. This tends to be treated as a matter in which we have conclusive evidence, but that isn't really the case. I'm inclined to think it is not the most effective option, based on general human psychology, but I don't think I could back that with actual data. Can you? Comparing one nation to another can yield superficially interesting results, as in Norway versus the US, but this ignores the numerous ways in which the nations in question differ in their circumstances. Demographics, socio-economic disparity, general happiness, education, population density, urban geography, etc. make the comparison less useful than it appears at first blush. Again, I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion but I don't find the comparison particularly compelling. I think rehabilitation makes considerably more sense as a general practice. The question remains, though, whether the death penalty might not still be something we want on the table for more incredible circumstances... such as serial killers, say, where rehabilitation is extraordinarily unlikely. I'm not convinced we do, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to go from a generalization about the preferability of rehabilitation to preclude a particular where it may not be the best option; in short, I think context matters. Side: Con
I believe it could really help save a lot of money spent on housing those who will never return to society as a contributing citizen. But that being said, most sit on death row for years, even decades and nothing happens which seems silly because if you were planning on doing it, why not just get it over with? Side: Pro
They sit on death row for years because that is the only way to ensure due process. They still retain legal rights to appeal, etc. which if not granted would undermine the overall legal system and increase the possibility of executing wrongfully convicted persons. At any rate, I'm not sure financial cost should be a significant motivation for how we structure our criminal legal system. If we prioritized that, then we should just do away with due process altogether; it's much cheaper that way, after all. Side: Con
|
2
points
2
points
1
point
Why is that an unacceptable cost? We accept it elsewhere without much qualm. With other sentencing, where time lost cannot be returned nor reputation restored. With use of lethal (or even non-lethal) force by law enforcement in their self-defense. And etc. Part of the cost of having a legal system and society is that the occasional individual gets sacrificed to it; if that's conscionable in general, why not in this particular case? Side: Pro
1) Too many falsely accused people. I'd rather all "guilty" people spend the rest of their lives in jail (and pay higher taxes as a result), no matter how heinous the crime rather than see even one falsely accused innocent person suffer the death penalty. 2) Some people WANT the death penalty. Ergo - if they want it, it's not much of a penalty now is it? 3) Lots of people who get such a sentence aren't "all there" mentally and are better off receiving treatment in a psychiatric hospital than being penalized with termination for something they couldn't fully understand what they did and/or why the did it and the ramifications. Side: Con
It is hypocritical and we do not have the right to destroy God's creation. And think about the criminal's family! We shouldn't punish their family for something they did. People have a right to live regardless of what they did. We need to forgive. Like Ghandi said: “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” Side: Con
|
