Questions for anti-death penalty...

[guest]

I have to go on a debate and if you guys could just help me out, what are some questions I could ask the opposing side? I need atleast five more, I already got five. I cant think of anymore.

[RickZ]

guest said:

I have to go on a debate and if you guys could just help me out, what are some questions I could ask the opposing side? I need atleast five more, I already got five. I cant think of anymore.

Why don't you tell us what you've come up with so far?

[Guest]

1. Protection of society is the main issue, executing murderers guarantees one hundred percent that the killer cannot harm anybody ever again. Also life imprisonments doesn’t necessarily guarantee that the inmate will actually do a life bid, in a lot of countries life sentences are interpreted as once a prisoner has served a certain amount of the sentence the prisoner can apply for parole. Is there another method as efficient as the death penalty in guaranteeing murderers cannot harm again?

2. During the temporary suspension on capital punishment in the United States from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank, is there not an obvious correlation between the number of executions and the number of murders? As the number of executions falls the number of murders rose quite greatly.

3. A life sentence with or without parole is just is not a satisfactory punishment for one who has taken a life. It is not justice. Long years of incarceration will only make the inmate adapt to his environment. The inmate now has 3 meals a day, a bed to sleep in, a shower, a yard, a library, he will have visits from his loved ones, he will even be offered an education plus mental and physical health care. He is privileged to have the opportunity to watch TV or to read the newspapers, and maybe even go surf the Internet. He is serving his punishment but that punishment is not enough. The murderer is still living and breathing while his victim is six feet underground.
Is it fair that the murderers family can still visit in prison while the victim’s family visits the cemetery?

4. How can you explain the fact that the top five countries with the most murders per capita, which are Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela, and Russia, have all either abolished or not used it in practice? ***


5. These types of criminals are also doing major damage behind bars. For example, a prison
Inmate in Alabama, named Hinricky Peraita who was a triple killer and serving life without parole, killed another inmate named Quincy Lewis with a prison-made knife, the reason for killing inmate Lewis? Lewis slapped him, so he killed Lewis. Hinricky Peraita was already sentenced to life without parole in 1994 for killing three people during a robbery. And these situations are a normal occurrence behind bars; lifers would basically have no fear of the repercussions for killing another inmate because he figures since he is there for life, what could be worse? Wouldn’t the solution to that be sentencing murderers to face the death penalty? *

6. In a research done in the United States, it showed that 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. Murderers have violated the human rights of their victims and society that it should be more important to society that they never again have that opportunity. ** ("Recidivism of Young Parolees," 4, 1987, BJS).

7. 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. 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 family, wouldn’t any lesser punishment than the death penalty for such a crime as murder would undermine the law system?


I gotta have 10 for a debate, so I need 3 more...I need it by tonight

[RickZ]

I'll give you one more, and one I've mentioned around these parts before.

Cost. LWOP will increase exponentially in cost as the prison population ages. Why should my taxes pay for their upkeep? Not to mention the cost of the high security Super Max prisons. Stick 'em on the row, give 'em their appeals, then give 'em the juice.

I'll throw out another benefit. What message is society sending to potential murderers if we allow murderers to continue to live, to only receive LWOP? Are we not, in effect, giving them a mulligan for the murders they commit? They've broken the social contract, and that's enough of a reason to execute 'em.

[bee]

Guest said:

2. During the temporary suspension on capital punishment in the United States from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank, is there not an obvious correlation between the number of executions and the number of murders? As the number of executions falls the number of murders rose quite greatly.

your professor will knock your head six ways to sunday for this one unless you can prove that there are no other variables possibly factoring into the murder rate that show a similar correlation. just because a correlation exists between two things does not mean that one thing has any relationship to the other. prove that the correlation you see is not simply coincidence. if you examine murder rate against numbers of executions in the years prior to the ones you selected, you will find that the correlation disappears. for starters, have a look at the 1920s. if you can find stats before then, definitely look at them as well.

3. A life sentence with or without parole is just is not a satisfactory punishment for one who has taken a life. It is not justice. Long years of incarceration will only make the inmate adapt to his environment. The inmate now has 3 meals a day, a bed to sleep in, a shower, a yard, a library, he will have visits from his loved ones, he will even be offered an education plus mental and physical health care. He is privileged to have the opportunity to watch TV or to read the newspapers, and maybe even go surf the Internet. He is serving his punishment but that punishment is not enough. The murderer is still living and breathing while his victim is six feet underground.
Is it fair that the murderers family can still visit in prison while the victim’s family visits the cemetery?

you're asking some rhetorical questions which can be answered either way. your opinion is what you stated. others will agree, but still others won't. if you're debating, stick to what you can prove. your opponents, if they're prepared, will be anticipating this and will respond with facts that will flatten you.

6. In a research done in the United States, it showed that 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.

that means that 94% of your sample did not murder within 6 years of their release. is that what you want to give your opponents to play with?
also, is 1978 a typical year to look at? why did you pick that year only? best have really similar stats in your back pocket for other years because you can't (honestly) just pick the facts that suit your argument and ignore the ones that don't.

hope last night wasn't the tonight you need stuff for. you've got a lot of emotional appeals in there, not too much on the reasonable, logical, proveable end. you can use the emotional stuff if you have something like maybe survey results that say that a majority of those polled report that this is how they feel or believe, but otherwise you're just asking people to agree with you because it seems so reasonable to you.