help w/ my paper

[Genevive]

I am in an english honors class and we are writing persuasive arguments concerning major topics in the world. I chose to write about the death penalty, and I am for it, but I need some reasons to back up my desision. I've thought of some, but I would like three solid arguments...I find there are alot of religious reasons and I do not find those valid at all. Any help would be appreciated.
Thank You,
Genevive

[josephdphillips]

May 20, 2008 18:32:59 GMT -6 @Genevive said:

I am in an english honors class and we are writing persuasive arguments concerning major topics in the world. I chose to write about the death penalty, and I am for it, but I need some reasons to back up my desision. I've thought of some, but I would like three solid arguments...I find there are alot of religious reasons and I do not find those valid at all. Any help would be appreciated.

To deter someone contemplating murder, one has to impress upon someone with violent impulses what happens to people who murder.

The question to ask yourself is how serious you are about doing just that.

I've been called many things on this board, because I see nothing wrong with hanging murderers in the street, proximate to their acts of murder, in broad daylight.

I think there are some people who won't get the message any other way. They are going to murder until we convince them that we mean business. It's as simply as that.

If you're going to promote capital punishment, and be persuasive, make the death penalty sound like the right thing to do after a murder, for all the right reasons. That will get you an A+, guaranteed.

[Rand]

May 20, 2008 18:32:59 GMT -6 @Genevive said:

I am in an english honors class and we are writing persuasive arguments concerning major topics in the world. I chose to write about the death penalty, and I am for it, but I need some reasons to back up my desision. I've thought of some, but I would like three solid arguments...I find there are alot of religious reasons and I do not find those valid at all. Any help would be appreciated.
Thank You,
Genevive

1 - The best "tool" to be sure a murderer never murders again. So it prevents repeated crimes.

2 - I think it's often deterrent. While prison is much less deterrent 'cause freedom is always next.

3 - An eye for an eye. A murderer must be taken his life 'cause he has no right to continue it, while his victim didn't have this chance.

[D.E.E.]

May 20, 2008 18:32:59 GMT -6 @Genevive said:

I am in an english honors class and we are writing persuasive arguments concerning major topics in the world. I chose to write about the death penalty, and I am for it, but I need some reasons to back up my desision. I've thought of some, but I would like three solid arguments...I find there are alot of religious reasons and I do not find those valid at all. Any help would be appreciated.
Thank You,
Genevive

When a person makes a decision to murder and does so it is a step that can never be taken back, they took a fellow humans life for either money or for pleasure. There is no punishment that fits better than the DP. LWOP is an alternative but what recourse is there for those who murder while on LWOP if that is the only punishment available.

[sbusani]

There is nothing wrong with arguing that revenge -- or perhaps "retribution" -- is reasonable. It may not be pretty, but the fact remains that people (and society) have an ultimate desire to exact revenge for particularly brutal crimes. We're only human, and we have some basic instincts; exacting punishment is one of them. It provides a sense of balance. Those against the death penalty might argue that executing a criminal won't bring back the victim, but, hey, it's not designed to do that. It is designed to provide closure and some measure of justice for those whose lives were touched by the loss of someone they knew and loved to murder. So I might argue society's innate need for retribution.

Recidivism is another valid plank. A lot of people on Death Row have been previously sentenced to a term of imprisonment for murder, and had been paroled only to ply their trade again. So executing a murderer the first time out guarantees that he or she will never murder again.

Not sure about deterrence -- legally, I would never argue it because deterrence is not a factor to seek the death penalty. For example, drug trafficking penalties can be pretty severe, but it doesn't stop other people from trafficking in drugs. Laws are designed to punish, not prevent. It's a dicey argument; one I would stay away from. Besides, pickpockets were out working the crowds at Tyburn who came out to watch pickpockets being hanged. That more or less scotches the deterrent quality, and these were public executions. We don't conduct public executions in this country. Reading a newspaper account of an execution is very different from witnessing one (although I imagine death by lethal injection is probably a lot like watching a patient about to undergo surgery fall asleep).

Good luck on your paper. If I think of any other persuasive arguments in support of a death penalty, I'll post again.

Susan

[Lotus Flower]

The three main reasons I would cite would be:

1) Protection of Society - We have a responsibility to protect society from harm. When that has been compromised then we must punish to the fullest extent of the law, which, in 14 states, is through the death penalty.

2) Consequence of the action of murder - Our society has determined that we value life above all other values. When a person takes a life, they must in turn repay that life with their own. I would stay away from terms like revenge or retribution (too easy to get into the religious argument) and instead use terms that show this is how society has determined one can find justice for a murder victim. That all other consequences fall short and society demands a life as repayment for removing another life.

3) Heinous nature of the crime - Like it or not, the uglier the circumstances are to a murder, the more likely the offender is going to get the dp. It is why the dp is automatically available for those who murder children under 6 and police officers. Children are the most innocent among us and must be protected and police officers risk their lives to protect society. (This could also go to the 1st point).

I also would not use deterrance. I do not believe in the artitrary system we currently have in the US, that one can make a valid argument that the dp does deter when used so infrequently and only for a handful of murders a year. There are plenty of charts and graphs that ppl pull data from to make that argument; I, however, happen to think you can pull data from any study to prove any point. So I hold no value in that argument and would expect debate on this point, should you decide to raise it in the classroom.

Good luck on your paper. Let us know how it turns out!

Shelli

[Genevive]

Thank you for all the help! My paper is due on tuesday, so when im done with it I will surely post it on here to see what people think on it and to see what I can improve on.
Thanks Again,
Genevive

[dan]

There is nothing wrong with arguing that revenge -- or perhaps "retribution" -- is reasonable. It may not be pretty, but the fact remains that people (and society) have an ultimate desire to exact revenge for particularly brutal crimes. We're only human, and we have some basic instincts; exacting punishment is one of them. It provides a sense of balance. Those against the death penalty might argue that executing a criminal won't bring back the victim, but, hey, it's not designed to do that. It is designed to provide closure and some measure of justice for those whose lives were touched by the loss of someone they knew and loved to murder. So I might argue society's innate need for retribution.












i just wanted to show this to sbusani. Lex Talionis is a law.

Lex Talionis says that punishments by a court is not intended to revenge, offset, or compensate for the victim's suffering, Punishment is to vindicate the law and the social order undermined by the crime.

personally i am pro the death penalty, but i just wanted to point that out.

[sbusani]

Dear Dan,

Thank you very much for your post.

Lex Talionis is not SETTLED law, but rather a concept.

From Black's: The law of retaliation that the punishment should correspond to the crime, as an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Also called talion.

Since Black's is the best legal dictionary I know, I would say you have it backwards. So, I stand by my statement. But thank you EVER .... SO .... MUCH.


Susan

P.S. If you don't have access to Black's, try Wikipedia. They break it out rather nicely.

[D.E.E.]

woo hoo lawyer fight, lawyer fight. better than a cat fight any day.