Byah vs DonkeyDude
Capital punishment should be easier to obtain.
Byah said 04/16, 10:16 PM
In a circumstance, where someone is undoubtably guilty of 1st-degree murder or some equivelant crime, the death penalty should be easier to get. I am refering to cases where the defendant's DNA was found on the knife and in the apartment, they had the victim's blood on their shirt, two people saw it happen and their was a blog entry two days before stating 'so-and-so's gonna die'. (Rare though these cases may be) In these heinous cases, the death penalty should always be used. The reason i claim this punishment should be easier is because it is cheaper to imprison someone for life than it is to kill them. I am reminded of this fact all the time and it iritates me to no end. If the case is as clear cut as i described, the defendant should not have the right to appeal as many time as they do. What ends up happening is the person is on death row for 40 years and then they die. Why not speed up the process and make it a little cheaper while we're at it?
DonkeyDude said 04/17, 02:04 AM
Let me start by saying that on an emotional level, I sometimes agree with what you're saying. When I hear about some gruesome murder, especially if children are involved, I think "Ugh, kill that person!"
But fortunately for this country, we don't run on my or your emotional reactions to news. There are a number of problems with the death penalty system that render your position incorrect, in my opinion.
First, many people have a fundamental, philosophical opposition to the death penalty, period. Never justified. These people would disagree with you.
Second, the criminal justice system is not perfect. Innocent people are sent to jail, and innocent people have been sent to death. (This has been confirmed by after-the-fact DNA analysis). That said, many people would say that you cannot take people's lives if you are not 100% certain that they are guilty. I know you assume they are in this hypo, but when can you ever be certain? Even confessions are sometimes false.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, economic efficiency is not a valid justification for expedited executions. We are talking about human lives, not rodents. That logic sounds eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany...
Byah said 04/17, 07:59 AM
I understand that many people have a problem with the death penalty down to their political core, and that is alright. This is why the states have the right to choose their stance on capital punishment, so that those people who dislike the death penalty can live where it is not used (while not a perfect solution, it is a start). Many people are very much for the death penalty, especially in cases involving ****/murder and children. I would say the people who are completely for and completely against about even out. People who see some practical use for it, but still have some concerns over ethics will be the center and have the potential to go either way.
The criminal justice system is not perfect, however, the track record for convicting the correct person has dramatically increased with the advent of DNA technology. I agree that 50 years ago, this was not the case. Since there is DNA technology and an incredibly high calibur of forensic tools, i say it is possible to be certain when convicting a murderer.
Consider this; a family loses a loved one and wants the gulity party to be punished, but then the victim's parnets and siblings die before the killer. Rest is in comments.
DonkeyDude said 04/17, 06:09 PM
With all due respect, half of your argument was irrelevant.
Yes, it is easier to be certain nowadays that Person X committed a specific murder/r.ape, at least in cases where DNA points the finger, but the death penalty is given out to people as well in cases where DNA and advanced forensics do not play a part.
More importantly, who is to say that the death penalty is appropriate in these cases? That's the underlying point here. People who believe the killer should suffer maximally (see comments) & want him to lead a drawn out, miserable life behind bars (budget be damned). Meanwhile, some criminals truly have mental disorders that lead to their antisocial behavior, and death seems overly harsh.
Look, if someone killed a member of my family, I'd want 'em dead. But I don't think my sense of "closure" warrants the expedited taking of a life. The only thing we're debating here is the expediency, and you're implying that criminals should not be entitled to the appeals and other procedures provided by law. You haven't provided a compelling reason.
Also, retribution is not the only reason for the death penalty. General deterrence is another. Neither require fast-tracking executions.
Byah said 04/19, 06:22 PM
The death penalty is appropriate in the cases of murder/r.ape for a simple reason: Recidivism. Criminals released after being convicted of r.ape/murder tend to be repeat offenders (source in comments). The death penalty is the only punishment with zero percent of those punished commiting another crime. A fast track execution, unfortunetly, has its base in economics so I will now appear heartless. I am not going to put my tax dollars into feeding and clothing a man who has sexually violated and killed other people. In terms of standard of living, a prisoner in a medium security prison (avg. for a first time muderer/rapist) is better off than certain parts of Africa, China, N. Korea, Vietnam, and area's of any third-world country. This is not about killing off people who are disabled or crazy, this is about eliminating people from society who are dangerous. One of the most explicit examples in a pro-death penalty case (unfortunetly not an expediated case) is that of John Wayne Gacy. He was convicted of violently sodomizing a teenage boy and was sent to prison for 10 years (he served 18 months) Then over the next 15 years he killed and r.aped 33 other boys. He should have been killed.
DonkeyDude said 04/19, 08:59 PM
The topic of this debate is the expediting of capital punishment. Your argument is that it is cheaper. That said, the vast majority of your points are irrelevant.
1) Since we are supposedly debating the fast-tracking of death sentences (not the sentence itself), recidivism has no bearing on this discussion. Seems to me that prisoners given a fast-tracked execution have the same recidivism rate as those with constitutionally guaranteed appeals rights.
2) Africa, China, India, etc.. yeah, it would suck to live in some places on this planet. But until you go to prison, you cannot tell me it is a great standard of living. Go rent American History X. And again, this is irrelevant. Whether you fast-track executions or not, the living standard will remain the same in these prisons.
3) John Wayne Gacy's specific acts of recidivism are irrelevant for the same reasons stated above.
Since you have not put forth any actual relevant substance here, I cannot fathom how you have this many votes.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Well atleast this debate proved one thing: godwin's law of internet debate.
Pablo the Great | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
The death penelty is the easy way out, and therefore should be banned
Buckshot | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
lol.. good call, pablo. my bad. i was just thinking of that scene in La Vita E Bella (Life Is Beautiful), where the woman says it costs XX marks per year to keep a retard alive, and how it would be so much cheaper if they eliminated them. i mean, byah's comment DID sound like that..
DonkeyDude | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
The death penalty should be abolished: 1) It obviously is not a good deterrent, because people still kill one another regardless. 2) If it's wrong to murder someone, it's wrong to murder someone. What's the difference if a jury (just a group of regular people) thinking it's okay vs. one person doing it themselves and thinking it's okay? Either way, people die. 3) The death penalty appeal process is so messed up that a lot more than "just a few" people executed are innocent. In my state of IL we had 26 people let off death row a few years ago when it turned out that they were all wrongfully imprisoned, sentenced to death and subsequently denied appeals. I do agree that sometimes the animal instinct in us says "Kill that Mother F*ucker... NOW!" But the whole point of a judicial system is to get past all that.
MarkW2525 | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
To say that the death penalty isn't a deterrent because people still commit murder is to say that jail time isn't a deterrent because people still steal. there really is no way to determine the extent a deterrent will work, after all, aren't nukes supposed to be a deterrent against attack, yet Al-Qaeda still attacked us. however the nuclear weapon continues to be considered an important deterrent and is credited with keeping America and the Soviet Union from open war.
MorgMcA | 04/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Byah - you never responded to any of the points...DonkeyDude had to explain to you your own point that the death penalty should be expedited. If this is your point, then a lot of your arguments moot. You just responded, "The death penalty is appropriate in the cases of murder/r.ape for a simple reason: Recidivism." And then you give examples of people getting out of prison and killing again. I agree with those points - maybe the death penalty is appropriate. But can you give some arguments why people that are convicted of crimes garnering the death penalty should not be entitled to the same appeals process as other citizens? Why they should be killed immediately? Is it just tax dollars? I can see why, as a gut reaction, you would want their deaths to be expedited, but I would love to see some clear arguments that better make your case.
sallyjames | 04/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
When you look at this issue from the viewpoint of victims you can understand the call by those who believe that capital punnishment is necessary. However I dont think it has a place in the kind of world we are building for the future. If taking a life is wrong, it should be wrong for anyone including Governments that kill in the name of justice. Interestingly, statistics about Botswana, which practices death penalty indicate that 40% of the deaths over the past 10 years were wrongly concluded in court and may have been turned around if given a second chance.
CRISP | 04/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
Surprisingly, PEACE&LOVE's statement actually makes a little sense. The first part is irrelevant to this debate, but thanks for the Botswana tidbit.
DonkeyDude | 04/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
The death penalty probably is not that great of a deterrent. But I think it's necessary as a tool of retribution against the scum of the earth who commit these heinous crimes. It sends the message that we don't tolerate that crap, and that probably impresses upon our children that certain crimes are extremely wrong in the eyes of society.
majestik | 04/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
majestik, you are totally entitled to that opinion. However, that is not the purpose of this debate. This is about expediting executions and denying people their legal rights on the basis that it is cheaper. COME ON, PEOPLE! I encourage you to re-read this debate, consider its proper scope, analyze the arguments on both sides, and switch your votes if you think you should (and yes, you can do that).
DonkeyDude | 04/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post 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
Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech
Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage
( )
Athens in Flames
A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.
(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)
This family had to go through their entire lives with no closure, because the guilty party kept getting extensions and filing appeals. This is not fair to the victim's friends and family. The death penalty is not a tool for rehabilitation, but a punishment, so the process needs some expidiency.
Byah | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment