My pro-capital punishment paper

[Curious]

I've started writing a pro-capital punishment paper.
I'm still in the process of adding to it and modifying it (as well as making sure none of it is plagiarised) so please let me know if you see anything that stands out as needing change (either adding new ideas, modifying, or removing) or if something is plagiarised.... though I think I reworded all of the stuff I haven't quoted. I've used some of your guys' responses as counters to opponents' questions as well. Give me some help if you'd like, I'm sure there are more counter points that opponents could have that I have not covered, thanks.


PRO DEATH PENALTY
Capital punishment, execution as punishment (the death penalty), has been part of society for centuries and society has used it as a punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action and to promote the civilization of a previously instinctively barbaric group of people. Despite what abolitionists say, its mere institution in the past is not the means by which advocates defend its continued existence. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment than the death penalty for such a heinous crime as murder would undermine our system of law and refuse the establishment of justice. Capital punishment is lawful; the murderer violated a human right by murdering someone else and they have no more right to live then the person they murdered. Each day they remain in jail is an injustice to the system and to the victim(s) and his or her family. Abolitionists are overly concerned with preserving the sanctity of the life of a person who has shown his or her ignorance of the law, unreasonable judgment and discretion (if not impaired; On June 20, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling ending the execution of those with mental retardation. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Court held that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel unusual punishment to execute death row inmates with mental retardation.), and disregard for the life of the innocent. Opponents’ actions show virtually no compassion for the victims of violent crime or concern for future victims (until, of course, they become that victim); yet, they exhibit overwhelming support for those who violate our human rights and murder our loved ones. In a nation that prides itself on freedom and justice, opponents of capital punishment continually seek to deprive our system from its foundation of legitimacy and justice. The only injustice regarding capital punishment is that only 38 states in the U.S. retain the death penalty.
Capital punishment is a form of retributive punishment and the deterrent effect is an aspect that aids the justification of existence; yet, the deterrent effect (using the death penalty to deter future murders), which is in constant debate, is not the main or only justification for its institution. Capital punishment is exactly that, punishment for capital crimes. The sentence of “life in prison” is not seeking justice to the full extent of the law. As long as a murderer remains alive (even in prison), this justice has not been pursued. The living murderer, whether incarcerated or not, holds an increasing unfair advantage over the victim in even the simplest of murder cases. Every day that the murderer remains alive, injustice has been increased by another day. Similarly, rehabilitation is not only improbable it is nearly impossible. It has been show that murderers in capital cases refuse to hold human life in high regard and one cannot not say, with any measure of sense, that the fraction of a chance at rehabilitation is worth risking innocent life for by leaving the murderer in jail. Even if a person proves that they would be stable in society several years after a murder, one would have to be so far cured and such an asset to society that their moral wrongdoing would be far exceeded at the opposite end of the spectrum in its positive influence on humanity in order to justify the pardon. Opponents argue that murderers are the least likely of all criminals to repeat their crimes. However, 6% of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of murder, at least once, were arrested for murder once more within 6 years of their release from prison. ("Recidivism of Young Parolees," 4, 1987, BJS). Murderers have so violated the human rights of their victims and of society that it should be more important to society that they never again have that opportunity. Morals and logic aren't mutually exclusive. If the criminal act being punished is voluntary, easily avoided, and obviously consistent with a sense of natural law, then the punishment should match the severity of the crime. On the same note, any form of punishment should match the severity of the crime, and instituted punishments of all forms attempt to achieve this. Opponents argue that killing a killer is not justified; they exaggerate that killing in a form of retribution is murder by the judicial system and by the government in general. Opponents equate execution and murder, reasoning (if you can even call it that) that if two acts have the same ending or result then those two acts must be morally equivalent. This is a position that is impossible to defend. Is the legal seizing of property to satisfy a debt the same as auto theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnapping and legal incarceration equivalent? Both, after all, do involve imprisonment against one's will. Is killing in self defense the same as capital murder? Both end in taking human life in some form or another. How absurd and flawed the opponents’ logic and moral confusion are. Their attempt at equivalency is often failed due to their absence of reality. The clichéd argument is prevalent. "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" The abolitions surmise that two wrongs do not make a right; therefore, executions are equivalent to murder. First of all, the term murder is specifically defined as the unlawful killing of a person with malice and aforethought (the latter part is in question depending on the dictionary); however, it is definitively defined in terms of crime. So logically, the word murder cannot be used as a description of executions as part of capital punishment since the death penalty is the instituted law (therefore it is not unlawful). This supposition by the opponents is an obvious neglect for and abuse of semantics. As well, comparing executions to murders is like comparing and equating incarcerating people to kidnapping or taxes or fines by the government to extortion or burglary. There is a difference between violent crime and just punishment. Do people think twice about a policeman speeding after a speeder to enforce speeding laws? Judging the value of something by deferring only to the effects, such as murder and execution, is unreasonable and illogical. Law enforcement officials act well within the law and act, unless corrupt, to maintain justice (thereby defending public safety) when they pursue and punish criminals. Robert Macy (District Attorney of Oklahoma City) once described retribution as such: "In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die." On legal terms, the capital punishment is well within the extent of the law. Do you really believe that the right to life was to apply to those who have broken the law, or to law abiding citizens? The fifth amendment to the Constitution states " No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This means that the founders of our modern system not only contemplated a death penalty in American jurisprudence, but specifically authorized it in the bill of rights. In the 8th amendment, the “cruel and unusual punishments” clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the institution of a penalty that is disproportionate to the crime. The use of the word “and” is specifically important because cruel punishments are allowed as long as more than one court applies it. As well, unusual punishments are legal as long as they are not cruel (which unusual might imply cruel, but regardless the death penalty is defended). Therefore, even if the taking of a life that no longer deserves to live and has broken the law by which we are pledged if it is not inhibitive of our rights, is “cruel” or “unusual” it is not necessarily both and therefore is justified legally. Abolitionists continue to argue that the “deterrent effect” of the death penalty is not very effective. However, the institution of the death penalty is not only to deter crime, though it can have that effect. The death penalty is retribution on behalf of the victim(s) and the deterrent effect is byproduct effect. Some studies have been inconclusive, probably the most reliable ones because many others have inflated and biased statistics. However, “inconclusive” supports capital punishment in that the result proves that the death penalty is rarely used and is reserved only for the criminals who commit most heinous crimes. Along the same lines, with a yearly average of 15,000 murders, the fact that we are reaching 1,000 executions is insignificant in terms of proportion to the number of murderers over the 30 year span of recently and displays our reservation of the penalty for the worst crimes. “Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153). “9-15% of those on death row committed, at least, one additional murder, prior to that murder (or those murders) which has currently put them on death row; 67% had a prior felony conviction; 42% had an active criminal justice status when they committed their capital offense.” It is sad and frustrating that it takes several murders and recidivism to clue people in on the innocent lives at stake. The most logical piece of evidence that shows that criminals fear the death penalty (over life without parole) and that it is a deterrent is displayed by convicted capital murderers and their attorneys. “99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial.” Facts aside, they don’t do it because they feel it serves them right and they want to go to prison to repent. In addition, even currently there are a number of inmates who have killed numerous people in prison or after escape. Their punishment could not be increased because the state in which the crime was committed does/did not implement the death penalty. Therefore, they will never be punished for those crimes. There are many documented cases in which people controlled their emotions and realized the punishment for murder, the deterrence issued by the death penalty’s existence was effective. “(1) If the death penalty is not a deterrent and we execute, then we are executing our worst human rights violators. (2) If the death penalty is a deterrent and we execute, then we are executing those criminals and saving innocent lives. (3) If the death penalty is not a deterrent and we don’t execute, then we are not sacrificing innocent lives. (4) If the death penalty is a deterrent and we don’t execute, then we are sacrificing innocent lives. Regarding deterrence, it is necessary to error on the side of saving innocent life and not to error on the side of sacrificing innocent life. These are moral imperatives.” (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com). Regardless of all the statistical data, incapacitation saves lives. Executing murderers is the only sure way to prevent a repetition of murder by an incarcerated (or escaped, formerly incarcerated) murderer. Thereby, you have saved at the very least, a single innocent life (however, very likely more than a single life). Abolitionists feed from this same point, however, and claim that the death penalty, while saving “some” lives, causes a “brutalization effect” and causes criminals to murder as a reflection of the death penalty. From the view of a capital punishment advocate, the death penalty is not a catalyst for murder! Have large increases in incarceration caused a large flux in kidnapping? Because the punishments have become more severe, the crime rate would go up? Does that seem logical? Opponents also argue that areas with the death penalty have higher crimes rates because of this effect. However, effectiveness should not be measured by how high the rates of murder are, but the difference between what they are and what they would be otherwise. Also, countries such as Saudi Arabi have relatively low rates of crime with their quick, steadfast form of capital punishment. These same abolitionists complain of bias in the system. In fact, more white people are executed in this country than black people. If it’s biased in terms of executions, then it’s against whites. Suppose that blacks are disproportionately represented on death row (which they are in comparison to the ratio of blacks in society to whites in society), then could it not be that proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites in capital cases? Whites and blacks do represent an equal number in terms of murder victims, just as abolitionists argue. However, murder victims and capital murder victims are two distinct groups. As well, many could argue that 95% of defendants cannot afford legal representation. Yet, with such a high percentage almost all of the defendants are in the same situation. Likewise, more than a few percent of these people would be sentenced to death if the system was truly biased against their monetary status. The manipulation of statistics on cost has caused many people to believe that the difference in price is almost compelling enough to justify life in prison without parole. However, one must remember that this is putting a price on innocent human life. Opponents of the death penalty argue that life is so sacred that killing a killer should not be justified. Well then, their life must be priceless correct? Then favoring life in prison without parole due to the cost is putting a price on the life of the victim; essentially saying that they do not deserve full justice because the cost is too much for our economy to handle and promoting the “cheaper” route.
Meanwhile, one of the biggest and most important disputes lies in the fact that an innocent life can be rendered dead by capital punishment (execution). However, these same anti-death penalty people inflate these figures as well and do not take into account several important details other than “an innocent life is at risk.” Great effort has been made in the pretrial, trial, appeals, clemency, etc. procedures that are involved with the death penalty to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Appeals alone occur on eight distinct levels. DNA evidence and testing procedures have improved as well, and innocent convictions have dropped dramatically. There are legally 28 steps in receiving a death sentence as well, and all must be accounted for to pursue justice in the form of execution. “In some jurisdictions, the defense must prove mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence and the prosecution must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a huge advantage for the defendant and a major disadvantage for the prosecution. (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com)” In addition, the figures have been inflated in such a way that people released from death row or exonerated post-execution are considered innocent by the antis. Many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone's conviction is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him or her does not mean he or she is actually innocent (most times there is actually heavy evidence against the person but the extreme safeguards on the system require the government to free the person that everyone knows is guilty). There is no proof, since the safeguards were instituted in the 1970s, that any innocent person has been executed. Although slightly off course, remember when Ford pardoned Nixon? Did anyone doubt Nixon’s guilt? Old murder cases are often revived and original evidence is not as effective as it once was. Many cases have been called off because of poor recollection of the witnesses due to the passage of time. These “victories” for the abolitionists are due to minor technicalities. Even if such executions of the innocent have occurred, they are very rare and getting even rarer due to the use of DNA testing. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system, such as the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing to ensure that we do not execute an innocent person, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty altogether.

[Donnie]

Good start. But you need to break it up into some pararaphs and there are several places where it loooks like words were left in when you meant to replace a word.

[Deleted]

donnie said:

Good start. But you need to break it up into some pararaphs and there are several places where it loooks like words were left in when you meant to replace a word.

Hm, it was split up into paragraphs before I pasted. Okay thanks, good start. Anyone other ideas?

[Donnie]

Curious said:

The only injustice regarding capital punishment is that only 38 states in the U.S. retain the death penalty.

Although this is a major injustice, it is not the only injustice. For example some of the states with a DP law seldom or never use it and no states executes anywhere near an appropriate percentage of murderers.

Capital punishment is a form of retributive punishment and the deterrent effect is an aspect that aids the justification of existence; yet, the deterrent effect (using the death penalty to deter future murders), which is in constant debate, is not the main or only justification for its institution.

This sentence is too long.

The living murderer, whether incarcerated or not, holds an increasing unfair advantage over the victim in even the simplest of murder cases. Every day that the murderer remains alive, injustice has been increased by another day.

this concept is not a familiar concept to most people. It needs more explanation. You might show it to someone you know and see how they react to it. Their response may show what additional explanation needs to be provided.

Regarding deterrence, it is necessary to error on the side of saving innocent life and not to error on the side of sacrificing innocent life.

"err" not "error"

Abolitionists feed from this same point, however, and claim that the death penalty, while saving “some” lives, causes a “brutalization effect” and causes criminals to murder as a reflection of the death penalty.

This claim was demolished by the statistical evidence available as a result of the temporary abolitionof execution from 1972 to 1980.

Suppose that blacks are disproportionately represented on death row (which they are in comparison to the ratio of blacks in society to whites in society), then could it not be that proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites in capital cases?

They do. For some interesting commentary on this subject read the article at the link below.

lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/01/10/liberal-columnist/

Ms Barber, who is black, notes; "Look at the chart of the right. Most of those black victims were victimized by black criminals, not white. Want to get really controversial? Guess what percentage of white victims was also victimized by blacks. For the answer, keep scrolling."

[Curious]

Thanks for the comments, I'll edit those sections and look into further commentary on those issues

[Curious]

I looked at that website, but I'm not seeing a straightforward fact that you are watning me to include. I understand that blacks are, at least in capital cases, committing a disproportionate number of crimes...but I mentioned that in my paper?

[Curious]

sorry, again.

I forgot to mention:

Can you guess suggest points that I have not covered that abolitionists might argue? I think I have some good "attack" arguments but I haven't much "defense"

What else can they argue that might pin me and I should prepare for in a debate?

[Donnie]

Curious said:

I looked at that website, but I'm not seeing a straightforward fact that you are watning me to include. I understand that blacks are, at least in capital cases, committing a disproportionate number of crimes...but I mentioned that in my paper?

The wording in your paper caused me to think that you might not have a source or that you might not be aware that most murders in the US are committed by black murderers. So the number of black murderers executed is actually disproportionately lwo compared to the number of black murderers.

The following pragraph is next to the Bureau of Justice Chart:

"We’re all familiar with the Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers. The rates for blacks as victims and perpetrators are disproportionately high relative to our percentage of the populations."

The phrase "victims and perpetrators" is a link to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website with the chart and it has detailed information on the murderers and their victims evaluated by race as well as other factors.

[Donnie]

Curious said:

sorry, again.

I forgot to mention:

Can you guess suggest points that I have not covered that abolitionists might argue? I think I have some good "attack" arguments but I haven't much "defense"

There is the "race of the victim" argument. Are you familiar with that one?

Your comment above raises a question of the actual use of your paper. The answer to the question affects the type of comments that might be useful to you.

Is it a preparation paper for a debate, a summary of information for your later use, a paper that has to be turned in to somebody, or some combination of the three?

What else can they argue that might pin me and I should prepare for in a debate?

Another technique that they use is to argue that the DP is only revenge and that revenge is bad. Are you ready for that one?

There are several false quotes and claims that only "the poor" are ever executed. None of the quotes that I have seen are accurate in that regard. Thus, if they use the quotes, they can be demolished by running through several of the names of wealthy (or "not poor") murderers who have been executed.

There is also the false Christian argument, if religion is allowed to be used in the debate.

There is the argument that the DP punishes the family fo the murderer and that somehow that makes the DP wrong.

The amazingly stupid Ghandi quote about an "eye for an eye" is often used. If they are stupid enough to use that quote you should be able to reduce them to a smoldering ruin. Likewise with the "execution is murder" or the "we should be better than the murderer" arguments.

Think about this also: if you live in a DP jurisdiction there is a risk that you might be accidentally executed even though you have not murdered anyone. Does that risk worry you? Why or why not? Should all activities with a risk of death be abolished? Most people have a poor grasp of the concepts of safety and relative risk.

[Curious]

It's a summary of things I will use in my debate.

Hm, the whole "revenge" idea. I dont know really how to "defend" that because, in a sense, revenge is defined in terms of punishment. And I don't really understand how it is punishing the murderer's family.

Any useful ideas or responses for those?

Also, the debate is probably going to steer clear of the religious aspects.

I have some general questions about the system that you might be able to answer:
-How often are people able to be rehabilitated?
-How often do jail escapes occur, and how often do they lead to crime/murder?
-Who chooses the form of execution? (the criminal i assume)


In addition to all of that ^, Life in prison without parole is probably going to be talked about the most, any responses that you use to fight that assertion?

Thanks for all your help, just a little refining and I should be able to leave the antis struggling and speaking incoherently

[Y]

???ONE QUESTION WHAT MAKE THE PEOPLE THAT SENTENCE KILLERS TO DEATH DIFFERENT FROM THE KILLER

[Donnie]

Y said:

???ONE QUESTION WHAT MAKE THE PEOPLE THAT SENTENCE KILLERS TO DEATH DIFFERENT FROM THE KILLER

This is the kind of statement that you should hope some idiot makes in a debate.

[Donnie]

Curious said:

And I don't really understand how it is punishing the murderer's family.

Their family member is killed. Although that is fine with many of them, there are some who are hurt by that. It is the murderers fault, but anti-DP folk like to free murderers from all responsibilities for their actions.

[Curious]

donnie said:

Y said:

???ONE QUESTION WHAT MAKE THE PEOPLE THAT SENTENCE KILLERS TO DEATH DIFFERENT FROM THE KILLER

This is the kind od statement that you should hope some idiot makes in a debate.

If you really meant anything by that question:

Opponents argue that killing a killer is not justified; they exaggerate that killing in a form of retribution is murder by the judicial system and by the government in general. Opponents equate execution and murder, reasoning (if you can even call it that) that if two acts have the same ending or result then those two acts must be morally equivalent. This is a position that is impossible to defend. Is the legal seizing of property to satisfy a debt the same as auto theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnapping and legal incarceration equivalent? Both, after all, do involve imprisonment against one's will. Is killing in self defense the same as capital murder? Both end in taking human life in some form or another. How absurd and flawed the opponents’ logic and moral confusion are. Their attempt at equivalency is often failed due to their absence of reality. The clichéd argument is prevalent. "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" The abolitions surmise that two wrongs do not make a right; therefore, executions are equivalent to murder. First of all, the term murder is specifically defined as the unlawful killing of a person with malice and aforethought (the latter part is in question depending on the dictionary); however, it is definitively defined in terms of crime. So logically, the word murder cannot be used as a description of executions as part of capital punishment since the death penalty is the instituted law (therefore it is not unlawful). This supposition by the opponents is an obvious neglect for and abuse of semantics. As well, comparing executions to murders is like comparing and equating incarcerating people to kidnapping or taxes or fines by the government to extortion or burglary. There is a difference between violent crime and just punishment. Do people think twice about a policeman speeding after a speeder to enforce speeding laws? Judging the value of something by deferring only to the effects, such as murder and execution, is unreasonable and illogical. Law enforcement officials act well within the law and act, unless corrupt, to maintain justice (thereby defending public safety) when they pursue and punish criminals. Robert Macy (District Attorney of Oklahoma City) once described retribution as such: "In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die."


As for donnie, yes, that is true that it was the murderer's fault for murdering. He caused his family's loss, not the justice system.

And again, does anyone have an statistics data on the tendency to relaspe into crime again/escape from prison?

[Donnie]

Curious said:

does anyone have an statistics data on the tendency to relaspe into crime again/escape from prison?

Have you looked at this:

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm

[Donnie]

Curious said:

does anyone have an statistics data on the tendency to escape from prison?

Try this:

www.slate.com/id/1007001

[Curious]

hm, this complicates things a bit, how do you argue against life in prison without parole then, considering few prison escapes ever lead to anything?

[Donnie]

Curious said:

hm, this complicates things a bit, how do you argue against life in prison without parole then, considering few prison escapes ever lead to anything?

It depends on how many murders you consider acceptable. But bear in mind that the primary purpose of the DP is the pursuit of justice. So even if a few innocents being murdered is not a problem for you, the primary purpose of the DP is still fulfilled.

I am always baffled when anti-DP folk are distraught that there is a remote possibility that someday one innocent person may be accidentally executed, but they are okay with hundreds of innocent people being murdered by murderers who have not been executed.

[Bob]

donnie said:

Curious said:

And I don't really understand how it is punishing the murderer's family.

Their family member is killed. Although that is fine with many of them, there are some who are hurt by that. It is the murderers fault, but anti-DP folk like to free murderers from all responsibilities for their actions.

So life in prison is freeing murderers from all responsabilities for the actions? I don't know from experience, but by being plucked out of society and forced to live the remainder of your life in one building, without any freedom, is not making killers take responsability for ther actions? Are you saying being confined to a tiny cell for the rest of your life is not hell? Some people would rather kill themselves. Rather, why give them the freedom of death? Sorry, but I found your comment quite ignorant and I had to put in my two cents.

[Donnie]

Bob said:

donnie said:

Their family member is killed. Although that is fine with many of them, there are some who are hurt by that. It is the murderers fault, but anti-DP folk like to free murderers from all responsibilities for their actions.

So life in prison is freeing murderers from all responsabilities for the actions?

What responsibilities do you think they have on the rare occassions when they actually stay in prison all their lives?

I don't know from experience, but by being plucked out of society and forced to live the remainder of your life in one building, without any freedom, is not making killers take responsability for ther actions?

No, not even for the few murderers that it happens to. Besides, they retain many more of their freedoms than their victims enjoy.

Are you saying being confined to a tiny cell for the rest of your life is not hell?

I certainly am. Hell is what many murderers put their victims through. First there are very few murderer who are confined to a tiny cell for rest of their lives. A murderer really has to exert a lot of effort to achieve that result. Even some of those who really try are sprung from such a cell by the ACLU. Generally murderers get to spend their time enjoying their high status in the prison general population. The rapists and torturers all sit around with each other and relive their glory days. They share chuckles about how their victims begged to be allowed to live after the third or fourth rape. They compare notes on the torture methods they each used. Their only regret is that they didn't think of one of the particularly brutal methods that one of their buddies used. One murderer used the legal system to gain possession of the crime scene photos of the naked rape victim that he had tortured to death.

Some people would rather kill themselves.

That tiny minority does so, if that is what they really want. But the suicide rate among murderers is about the same as it is in the general population.

Rather, why give them the freedom of death?

Almost none of the ones who are still alive want that freedom. That is why they encourage their lawyers to file appeal after appeal.

Sorry, but I found your comment quite ignorant and I had to put in my two cents.

Please don't be sorry. You know the value of your commentary and it is worth less to me

[Donnie]

Curious said:

hm, this complicates things a bit, how do you argue against life in prison without parole then, considering few prison escapes ever lead to anything?

Here is a recent jailbreak you can keep track of:

"17-year-old Johnny Earl Jones and 19-year-old Lamar Elan Benton.

Jones is charged with the murder of a two-year girl he was baby sitting and Benton is charged with the rape and murder of a 39-year-old mother of three."

These guys might commit crimes that weren't as bad as their original crimes though. For example Jones might murder a four-year old girl and Benton might rape and muder a 41-year-old mother of two.

[Deleted]

Well, thanks for all the help, I think I pretty much dominated the debate. I provided good points that they couldn't rebuttal, and I rebuttaled all of their main points with precision. this site really helped me out not only for the assignment but for me to decide that I'll consider myself pro-capital punishment until I get arguments that persuade me otherwise.

-thanks again

[Donnie]

curious said:

Well, thanks for all the help, I think I pretty much dominated the debate.

Congratulations, hard work often leads to success. You are welcome. Don't be a stranger now.

I provided good points that they couldn't rebuttal, and I rebuttaled all of their main points with precision.

I wonder how many sites your opponents had to use for preparation. A little bit of truth can counter a lot of misinformation.

How was the debate organized? It sounds like it was only you against multiple opponents.

this site really helped me out not only for the assignment but for me to decide that I'll consider myself pro-capital punishment until I get arguments that persuade me otherwise.

If you ever get such arguments please share them. All of the arguments presented by anti-DP folk on this site are either worn out or irrational.

Wahat was your position before you began your preparationsl

[Deleted]

donnie said:

Curious said:

hm, this complicates things a bit, how do you argue against life in prison without parole then, considering few prison escapes ever lead to anything?

It depends on how many murders you consider acceptable. But bear in mind that the primary purpose of the DP is the pursuit of justice. So even if a few innocents being murdered is not a problem for you, the primary purpose of the DP is still fulfilled.

I am always baffled when anti-DP folk are distraught that there is a remote possibility that someday one innocent person may be accidentally executed, but they are okay with hundreds of innocent people being murdered by murderers who have not been executed.

Yes, I am more worried about that. In my eyes not much is worse than the government killing innocent people.
And with LWOP this is not really a big issue, they will never get out again so innocent people are just as safe.

Also, it is a form of revenge.. explain to me why it's not. What is the difference between justice and revenge here?
All other crimes only give jailtime which is meant to keep dangerous people away from society.. here we only do what we have to do, there is no revenge. This is why many people think that the death penalty is just as much about revenge as it is about justice.

[Donnie]

laffer said:

[Also, it is a form of revenge.. explain to me why it's not. What is the difference between justice and revenge here?.

What would you consider the difference between revenge and justice in any case?

[Deleted]

I'm asking you. You're the ones talking about justice all the time, I would like to have that clarified.

[josephdphillips]

donnie said:

laffer said:

[Also, it is a form of revenge.. explain to me why it's not. What is the difference between justice and revenge here?.

What would you consider the difference between revenge and justice in any case?

Good question, Donnie. Every punishment is at least partly retributive by intent.

[sweethonesty]

laffer said:

I'm asking you. You're the ones talking about justice all the time, I would like to have that clarified.

Personally i dont know how many times anyone on this board has explained what Justice means to each of us. Just admit you are closed minded, and on the wrong board... and we will all press on

[josephdphillips]

sweethonesty said:

laffer said:

I'm asking you. You're the ones talking about justice all the time, I would like to have that clarified.

Personally i dont know how many times anyone on this board has explained what Justice means to each of us. Just admit you are closed minded, and on the wrong board... and we will all press on

I dunno, Gwen. I think Laffer's request is reasonable. Take a look at how the word "justice" is defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. I think it's clear the word can mean different things to different folks.

The antis' main objection to capital punishment, if I understand them correctly, is that the penalty is mean-spirited. Even if it were carried out with perfect precision and dignity, the retributive quality of the death penalty can't be ignored.

You and I are comfortable with this quality, but apparently Laffer isn't.

_{1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just : impartial adjustment of conflicting claims : the assignment of merited rewards or punishments : just treatment <meting out evenhanded justice> <the natural aspiration for justice in the human heart -- W.A.White> <a splendid example of divine justice -- M.W.Fishwick> <social justice> b [Middle English justice, justise, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French justice, from Medieval Latin justitia, from Latin] : a person duly commissioned to hold courts or to try and decide controversies and administer justice: as (1) : a judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, or formerly of the Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer (2) : a judge of a common-law court or a superior court of record (3) : a justice of the peace : an inferior magistrate <a police justice> <traffic court justice> c (1) : administration of law : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity (2) : infliction of punishment <promises the indulgence of the jury to the husband who has himself executed justice -- H.M.Parshley> 2 a (1) : the quality or characteristic of being just, impartial, or fair : FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, HONESTY <possessed a keen sense of honor and justice> <pointed out, with equal justice, that ... there are good businesses and bad -- D.W.Brogan> <"it was nobody's fault ...," she added, with scrupulous justice -- Ellen Glasgow> <the same standards used in steel must in justice be applied to other industries -- Mary K. Hammond> (2) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action <the courts are not helped as they ... ought to be in the adaptation of law to justice -- B.N.Cardozo> (3) : conformity to such principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS <defends the justice of his cause> b (1) in Platonism : the condition of harmony existing in a state between its members when each citizen occupies a place in accordance with his merit : the highest of the four cardinal virtues (2) in Aristotelianism : the practice of virtue toward others -- see COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE (3) : that virtue which gives to each his due c (1) : the quality of conforming to positive law (2) : the quality of conforming to positive law and also to divine or natural law 3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS, RIGHTFULNESS <complained with justice that English waxes and wanes like the moon -- English Language Arts> <admitted that there was much justice in these observations -- T.L.Peacock> - bring to justice : to cause to be brought before a proper tribunal for trial - do justice 1 obsolete : to pledge in drinking 2 a : to do what is just : administer justice : act justly <longed to do justice in the world -- Time> b : to treat fairly or according to merit <to do the man justice, his writing is brilliant> c (1) : to treat or handle adequately or properly <not doing full justice to his material -- Carl Van Doren> <a full schedule may not permit him to do justice to his studies -- Bates Boyle> <open for experienced salesmen who can do justice to America's outstanding line of small leather goods -- Luggage & Leather Goods> (2) : to consume in a manner showing due appreciation <do the food justice> <after he likewise had done the liquor justice -- Winston Churchill> 3 : to acquit in a way that is worthy of one's powers <in the concerto he clearly did not do himself justice> Citation format for this entry: "justice." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. unabridged.merriam-webster.com (20 Jan. 2006).}

[Rev. Agave]

[/quote]

Also, it is a form of revenge.. explain to me why it's not. What is the difference between justice and revenge here?
[/quote]

I have no problem calling the DP revenge. I do not shy away from it; I embrace it.