death sentence
philpee2 said 02/22, 10:31 PM
The death sentence should be reserved for extremely serious cases. For example, a dictator such as Saddam Hussein should be killed. If someone is responsible for the death of many people, and there is not doubt that he is guilty, he should be killed. These people cannot be cured, and they are too dangerous to be left alive. The point of the death penalty should be to protect the public, not to punish someone. Again, it should be reserved only for the most serious cases such as dictators and serial killers. That is the ONLY time it is okay.
Eaglevision said 02/23, 12:29 AM
I disagree that it should be reserved for only the "extremely serious" cases. It definitely should not be limited to just offenders in the dictators and serial killers category. Are you saying that it is okay to just slap a death penalty on people who kill more than once. I mean whats the limit? If I kill two people, and I am not the head of a government, then I do not fit into your category. Wow, so every one gets two free kills? As long as you dont kill three (hereby becoming a serial killer), or participate in government while you do your killing; then your just gonna get life (or some time in a mental institution.) What is the definition of "serious"? I am definitely of the opinion that ANYONE's death is serious. Therefore, after a good weighing of the evidence, a judgement should be given. I would certainly approach the death penalty as a prosecutor in both the punishment and protection of the society mindsets. Lets not tie our hands by stating that it is only okay for the most serious.
philpee2 said 02/23, 08:49 AM
By serious offenders, I did not mean more than 1 kill. Its true that I didn't give a specific number. That is partly because I'm not sure exactly how much jail time people get now for certain crimes or what crimes get you the death penalty. I'm not saying that you get two "free kills". If you kill someone, you should go to jail. But if you run around killing like five people (just a random number) on separate occasions, you are mentally ill and there is no way to be corrected. People are sent to jail for some ridiculous amount of years that they definitely won't live. Those extreme cases should be given the death penalty. But just a one time murderer to be killed? Thats unfair. He can be cured. Maybe he was unstable or it was in the heat of the moment. He wont be a danger to society when he gets out of jail.
Eaglevision said 02/23, 11:11 AM
Jail? For murder? Okay this country makes PRISONS for a reason. Jails are meant to hold persons who have committed misdemeanors and/ or criminals with sentences under 5 years. Jailed people are meant to be rehabilitated. Murderers are sent to prison. This is because murder is a capital crime (YES even for one time). The death penalty is for those cases in which murder has occurred, in which society feels that the person is without remorse or the crime itself warrants it.
To say that a one time killer to get the death penalty to be unfair, is totally unfounded. Should we wait for him/her to kill again before we act? Sure, I know, lets just let people run amok letting their rage control them. Im sure people in traffic who get cut off would be okay in your court to get miffed at other drivers and pummel them to death. Oh but dont worry, it was just heat of the moment, right? According to you, we can just put them through some therapy and everything would be alright? Do you think you would feel happy to see them on the road again?
The message should be, if you kill,then you have judged. And if you have judged, then stand and be judged by your peers..even if its death
philpee2 said 02/23, 01:44 PM
Sorry, I didn't check the difference between jail and prison. I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying that a murderer should be set free. I'm saying they shouldn't be killed. The death penalty after one murder is like eye for an eye, which is a barbaric concept and completely outdated. Its not like we "wait" for them to kill again. If someone is guilty of murder, in the heat of the moment, he should be sent to prison. If someone is responsible for many deaths, and can not be corrected, he should be killed. How many times do I have to say this? There are many factors and thats why we have judges who decide. But if someone has killed one person, then the government is no better than him if they kill him. But in more extreme cases, then the purpose of killing that person is to get rid of him. To make sure he can never do it again.
Eaglevision said 02/25, 01:40 AM
Having spoken to several coworkers about this very subject, I found the consensus to be "If you take a life, then you should be prepared to give one".
You can say the same thing many times if you want. My point is mainly that you dont have to just be extremely serious in your killing to deserve the death penalty. Your statement said that that was the ONLY time that it was to be used. Im sorry I cannot agree with you.
People's lives are very important, so whether you agree with the death penalty or not (which is not the issue here), the problem with us is that we disagree on how it should be administered. You think only the category of "dictators and serial killers" deserve it. How about other types? Im sure the parents or family of the victims would surely disagree with you. Why should some insane deviant be passed over by death...after slaying an innocent? Just because its only one? C'mon lets deal with reality here.
As to your statement about one murderer being sentenced to death being barbaric in nature.....Does your point even have validity since you concede that multiple killings deserve the death penalty? Your arguing numbers of victims. Lets stop at one, ok?
Comments
Add Your Comment
Im glad I actually got this debate because I had read the other debate about Saddam Hussein and thought that (even though it went awry with religion) the debate could have went further into why things happened the way they did.
Eaglevision | 02/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Phil says, "The death penalty after one murder is like eye for an eye, which is a barbaric concept and completely outdated." Many people dont know that an eye for an eye was actually a call for restraint (i.e. "we will only take your eye for blinding one of ours and NOT kill your entire family", etc.)
Jonah | 02/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Jonah, I know that the death penalty would be cheaper since keeping prisoners in prison is expensive, but you can't put economic benefit before morals. To your comment on eye for an eye, it doesn't matter if it was considered barbaric at the time, but compared to the laws we are governed by today, it is . Its really just a relative thing.
philpee2 | 02/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Its like that phil, if someone changes their vote because they read the next round and change their minds for the one they think had the better argument. From what Ive seen in other matches, the votes can change many times.
Eaglevision | 02/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
I am for the death penalty, but it does have its fallacies. Imagine how many innocent people have executed because of inept lawyers and over zealous DA's.
ynotme | 02/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
actually philpee, many times it turns out to be more expensive to kill the man. The lenghty appeals process sees to that. Of course, you can't really have the death penalty without being extra sure that the man is in fact guilty, so i don't see how they can get around that
Skipper04 | 02/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
I dont believe in the death penalty myself, but I guess the debate is about who to give it to.
Bitterwords | 02/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
I think people who kill children should get the death penalty! When are we going to start protecting the victims rights?!!
UncleSam70 | 02/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
Until we can guarantee that not one innocent person will be executed, until we can guarantee that every defendant receives a fair trial with competent representation, until we can guarantee that the penalty is fairly applied and until we can guarantee that the method of execution is humane, we cannot morally justify capitol punishment. I submit that we can never meet these guarantees, which is why I am opposed to the death penalty for any crime.
Papagoose | 02/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Actually there are no guarantees in life, papa. I mean I would love to be able to prove a guy guilty without any doubt,but its almost impossible. I mean R. Kelly was videotaped with a young girl and still was set free. What else could we possibly do? Every system that we could put in place can be "loopholed". I know its hollywood, but have you seen "minority report" with Tom Cruise, a foolproof system for catching murderers and its still warped to someone's will. As long as there are humans, no system will be perfect.
UncleSam70 | 02/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
There are a great deal of legalities involved with the death penalty. Thanks to everyone for voting, and reading through the rounds of debate. Like I said previously, I enjoyed it. I originally was going to not take it up, but I knew I could argue phil's "ONLY" statement. My hat is off to you, phil! Good debate....remember me if you wish to challenge someone, this was fun!
Eaglevision | 02/25/08
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks, you too. You're the only one who's beat me in a debate so far. Congrats
philpee2 | 02/26/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
If the death penalty is used to protect the public, it should be used to protect the public's wallet.
Jonah | 02/23/08
Report Offensive Comment