Death penalty
It exists in the US. as with most things, the burden of proof is on those who wish to assert something. so I'd think the assertion is on behalf of those who want it removed/reformed.
-
so far the straw man style no thought generic points I've seen are appeals to price. and that's not convincing as I see it as a necessary evil, so outright banning is unlikely to happen. so reform is the only way to make it better, and reform will undoubtedly only make it more expensive. case and point the fact that a length of rope was all you needed before an appeals process was added.
-
I take the stance that there are those who cannot be reformed, and must be removed from the general public, for the protection of the general public. since exile is no longer a treatment for this problem, I feel that the death penalty is the only path forward, as the goal of prisons should be rehabilitation (Often aren't). failing that goal, the criminals are not fit to return to the public. so, "life sentences" should be those who can be rehabbed but would take a long time. but those who refuse rehabilitation, and or are incapable of rehabilitation due to say, mental illness, must be removed from both the public, and the prisons.
-
Solitary confinement is considered in most cases cruel and unusual punishment. so we can't just put the most violent of criminals in a box somewhere. that reasonably means that the person must be removed by death. it is therefore consolable to remove those such persons.
-
furthermore, in a world of increasing surveillance I find it unlikely that a person will become unjustly accused of a crime they didn't commit, which means that swift unerring justice could feasibly delivered, without the need for lengthy appeals processes.
-
I am not a criminal. I do not plan to be. and therefore I cannot understand the full scope of what it means to be put on death row wrongfully or correctly. I accept that murder is not black and white. and I accept that sentencing may very well not be either. the death penalty should be reserved for those who cannot be rehabilitated. particularly if the individual has preformed a crime that would fit the punishment. especially if that crime was premeditated. however hotblooded murder, or other murder where the person feels remorse, could feasibly be rehabilitated, and the person made to never exhibit that behavior again.
-
with all that out of the way I feel I have clarified who should receive the penalty, and justified why they should. Please proceed to rip my argument a new asshole.
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
