Pro DP essay- need strong ending!

[Nicole]

Hello my name is Nicole and my english teacher has decided to make us partake in a public forumn debate. I picked the topic against abolishing the DP in the U.S. because it is something I believe in, escpecially after researching it. It is due tommorrow but and I know it is kind of late notice but I am in dier need of a strong closing. Please help me if you can it will be much appriciated!

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

The death penalty and whether or not it should be used as a form of capital punishment in America is a topic that has led to many heated debates. The opposing side will try to convince you that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment or that it is hypocritical. They will make you feel sorry for the criminal rather than the victim of a heinous crime. Do not let them fool you; their arguments can be very misleading. The death penalty is successful in incapacitation, it is the only retribution for the most malicious of murderers, and is required to keep the balance of justice in our society.
Incapacitation is defined in the dictionary as depriving one of ability, and what better way is there to disable a vicious killer from taking the life of another innocent victim, than to condemn him to death. Murderers who commit the most heinous crimes are often able to persuade judges or parole authorities to relieve them of their life sentences allowing them to kill again. Such was the case in the following crime:
When Katy Davis observed three strangers outside her Austin, Texas, apartment, she walked away. Returning later, she was attacked and forced to open the door by Charles Rector, on parole for a previous murder. The men ransacked her apartment, abducted her and took her to a lake where she was beaten, gang-raped, shot in the head and repeatedly forced underwater until she drowned. (Pro-death penalty.com)
There is no end to the number of cases like the one stated above, which prove that the death penalty is a sure fire way to keep killers like these from claiming the lives of other innocent, unsuspecting victims.
Those who say that killing is wrong and that no one has the right to kill another person--not a murderer and not the government. Or that it is hypocritical for any society to claim that killing is the most intolerable crime and then carry out state killings, are not seeing the distinctive difference between a violent crime and just punishment. Comparing a premeditated murder to an execution is much like comparing imprisoning someone to kidnapping. Is that not the same as holding someone against their will? Is it then also wrong for a policeman to speed to catch a speeder in order to enforce a speeding law? Just because physical similarities are shared between two practices does make them morally identical. In order for capital punishment to work as an effective deterrent the punishment must be coherent with the severity of the crime. Take for example Houston Texas. In 1981 there was a record high of 701 murders, but after reinstating the death penalty in 1982 Texas has seen the greatest reduction in murder from 701 to 261 in 1996, a 63% reduction. Yet still claims have been made that the death penalty has no deterrent effect and although there really is no concrete proof that confirms or denies this claim, John McAdams of Marquette University has pointed out that
“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims…” (John McAdams-Marquette University/ Department of Political Science)
If a mother can have an abortion, killing an unborn child, innocent in the eyes of God, then why can’t society use the death penalty to punish the most malicious murderers who have been tried and convicted of heinous crimes? What we must realize is that those guilty of deliberate and premeditated murder have forfeited their right to live. They have upset the balance of justice in our society and unless that balance is returned we have fallen to a rule of violence. The only way we can convincingly show that murder is the most intolerable crime is to punish the murderer by taking his life. The death penalty provides closure for families of the victim, knowing that murderer will never be able to claim the life of another innocent person. Although, the death penalty will not bring back the victim, it will enable them to rest in peace. Our society places a high value on protecting the lives of its citizens and any punishment less sever than the death penalty would undermine that value. Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City describes his concept of the need for capital punishment in order for justice to be served, in one case:
“In 1991 a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was brutally murdered. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”
As you can see it is simply not enough to sentence a cold blooded killer to life imprisonment or life without parole. These options are like a slap on the wrist compared to the heinous crimes they have committed and lives they have so selfishly taken.
Capital punishment is the most effective way to insure incapacitation, it is the only adequate punishment for the most malicious of murderers, and is required for justice to prevail. Condemning a killer to death should comfort us knowing that they will never be able to claim the life of another innocent victim.

[Deleted]

Nicole said:

Hello my name is Nicole and my english teacher has decided to make us partake in a public forumn debate. I picked
the topic against abolishing the DP in the U.S. because it is something I believe in, escpecially after researching it. It is due tommorrow but and I know it is kind of late notice but I am in dier need of a strong closing. Please help me if you can it will be much appriciated!

Ok. Let's have a look at it.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

The death penalty and whether or not it should be used as a form of capital punishment in America is a topic that has led to many heated debates. The opposing side will try to convince you that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment or that it is hypocritical. They will make you feel sorry for the criminal rather than the victim of a heinous crime. Do not let them fool you; their arguments can be very misleading. The death penalty is successful in incapacitation, it is the only retribution for the most malicious of murderers, and is required to keep the balance of justice in our society.

I would only use such a paragraph to convince the mob. An academic persons would get the feeling you could fear the abolishonists' arguments.

Incapacitation is defined in the dictionary as depriving one of ability, and what better way is there to disable a vicious killer from taking the life of another innocent victim, than to condemn him to death. Murderers who commit the most heinous crimes are often able to persuade judges or parole authorities to relieve them of their life sentences allowing them to kill again.

A perfect argument for true LWOP. Be careful.

Such was the case in the following crime:
When Katy Davis observed three strangers outside her Austin, Texas, apartment, she walked away. Returning later, she was attacked and forced to open the door by Charles Rector, on parole for a previous murder. The men ransacked her apartment, abducted her and took her to a lake where she was beaten, gang-raped, shot in the head and repeatedly forced underwater until she drowned. (Pro-death penalty.com)

How often does that happen? Compare the murder rate of paroled murderers and overall population. And use neutral sources not those that are "pro-DP". Otherwise you lose credibility.

There is no end to the number of cases like the one stated above, which prove that the death penalty is a sure fire way to keep killers like these from claiming the lives of other innocent, unsuspecting victims.

You adress the fears of the mob. Clever, but it works only for certain audience.

Those who say that killing is wrong and that no one has the right to kill another person--not a murderer and not the government. Or that it is hypocritical for any society to claim that killing is the most intolerable crime and then carry out state killings, are not seeing the distinctive difference between a violent crime and just punishment. Comparing a premeditated murder to an execution is much like comparing imprisoning someone to kidnapping. Is that not the same as holding someone against their will? Is it then also wrong for a policeman to speed to catch a speeder in order to enforce a speeding law? Just because physical similarities are shared between two practices does make them morally identical. In order for capital punishment to work as an effective deterrent the punishment must be coherent with the severity of the crime. Take for example Houston Texas. In 1981 there was a record high of 701 murders, but after reinstating the death penalty in 1982 Texas has seen the greatest reduction in murder from 701 to 261 in 1996, a 63% reduction. Yet still claims have been made that the death penalty has no deterrent effect and although there really is no concrete proof that confirms or denies this claim, John McAdams of Marquette University has pointed out that
“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims…” (John McAdams-Marquette University/ Department of Political Science)

Who? What University? Only cite famous persons from Universities with high reputation. People might get the impression, you cannot find something better. By the way, what academic degree does the guy have?

If a mother can have an abortion, killing an unborn child, innocent in the eyes of God, then why can’t society use the death penalty to punish the most malicious murderers who have been tried and convicted of heinous crimes?

You say: One is allowed to kill innocent unborn children. => Society is allowed to kill murderers.
Very poor argument. You are comparing the "rights" of individuals with the ones of society. Be careful: Many pros oppose abortion...

What we must realize is that those guilty of deliberate and premeditated murder have forfeited their right to live. They have upset the balance of justice in our society and unless that balance is returned we have fallen to a rule of violence. The only way we can convincingly show that murder is the most intolerable crime is to punish the murderer by taking his life.

I disagree. We can show that we don't tolerate murder by not killing.

The death penalty provides closure for families of the victim, knowing that murderer will never be able to claim the life of another innocent person. Although, the death penalty will not bring back the victim, it will enable them to rest in peace.

How many MVSs did you ask? You cannot say that. Many of them might feel insulted.

Our society places a high value on protecting the lives of its citizens and any punishment less sever than the death penalty would undermine that value. Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City describes his concept of the need for capital punishment in order for justice to be served, in one case:
“In 1991 a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was brutally murdered. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”
As you can see it is simply not enough to sentence a cold blooded killer to life imprisonment or life without parole. These options are like a slap on the wrist compared to the heinous crimes they have committed and lives they have so selfishly taken.

What I can see is a statement of a DA that contains not a single reasonable argument.

Capital punishment is the most effective way to insure incapacitation, it is the only adequate punishment for the most malicious of murderers, and is required for justice to prevail. Condemning a killer to death should comfort us knowing that they will never be able to claim the life of another innocent victim.

Condemning a killer to death only gives me the feeling that a life is worth nothing in a society. LWOP or preventive detention is working quite well. And in Germany (a non-DP state) the murder rate decreased again last year.

What about the execution of innocent persons?

Maybe, in the end you should summarize your strongest arguments.

Nicole, you did quite well for a highschool student. Nevertheless, you should be aware of weak spots in you argumentation. I oppose capital punishment, so I can tell you what an anti might think about your speech. You should try convince people like me, but with an essay like that it will be difficult.
Anyway, good luck for your debate and best wishes from Bavaria.

Yours,
Valentin

[nicole]

Well thank you all!! But I have no time to revise all the issues you have addressed, my essay is due today. I guess i should have asked earlier. That's what I get for waiting until the last minute. Nontheless, It is much appriciated and I hope that my apponents aren't as smart as you guys.

[nicole]

Sorry I did not realize this was only one persons reply. Thank you Valentine.

[Nicole]

Hello again... my essay is actually not do until tomorrow (6/6/06) so any other comments are much apprectiated!

[Donnie]

Here are some thoughts. Maybe reading them will kindle something in your mind.

What Caarles Rector did shows what can happen to the innocnet when we fail to execute a murderer. We give him a second chance to kill. On the other hand, Katy Davis, who had harmed nobody was not given a second chance. How would you explain that to Katy Davis just before whe died?

The reason for having a death penalty today is to provide an approach to justice for the victims of murder. I use the phrase "an approach to justice" because even if a murderer were to be struck dead one second after the murder, that still would not provide justice for the victim and the victim's family. The murderer, even when executed, always comes out ahead. The murderer always gets what he wanted.

THE MURDERER HAD NO RIGHT TO GET WHAT HE WANTED. YET HE GOT WHAT HE WANTED.
The murderer wanted his victim dead and has gotten what he wanted. He has gotten what he wanted, even though he had no right to murder and his action was forbidden.

The murder victim just wanted to live, yet she did not get what she wanted, even though she had a right to live and society had promised her that she would be allowed to live. Usually she was also providing valuable benefits to society as well as not harming anyone.


THE MURDER VICTIM HAD EVERY RIGHT TO GET WHAT SHE WANTED. YET SHE DID NOT GET WHAT SHE WANTED.

WHO IS AHEAD AT THIS POINT, THE MURDERER OR THE VICTIM?

Can the victim ever catch up with her murderer?

Is it just for the murderer to be better off than his victim?

Is it fair for the murderer to be better off than his victim?

Should we care about justice and fairness for the dead innocent victim?

Once the murderer kills his victim, does he become more important than his victim?

The murderer gains an unfair advantage over his victim the moment he begins to kill her. That is true even if he hasn’t already tortured her or raped her. After the victim dies, every second that the murderer lives, his unfair advantage over the victim is increased. That is the situation in a simple murder where the murder was done in a painless way. In such rare cases the murderer is given at least one fair trial, has appeals heard and then is given spiritual counseling and a last meal of his choice before his merciful execution. The victim had none of those things and has been dead for years before the murderer is executed.

But the death penalty does provide the closest available approach to justice. Of course, many cases of capital murder are much worse than that, with the victim or victims being raped (sometimes many times by different rapists) and tortured, sometimes for hours or days, before a painful death. Then the victim's family has to go through a period of not knowing if their loved one is alive or dead. Then the victim's family has to relive the suffering of their loved one several times during the investigation, trial and appeals. If the murderer is not executed, the family members have to go through this for many years as the appeals and parole requests never stop.

WHEN THE MURDERER IS EXECUTED YEARS AFTER THE MURDER, WHO WAS AHEAD AT THAT POINT, THE MURDERER OR THE VICTIM?


Is it good that the murderer’s unfair advantage has stopped increasing?

Bear in mind that, in many cases, the murderer further benefits over the victim by raping or torturing her or both. The cases of Amy Sue Seitz, Anita Cobby, Mary Adlay, Wendy Offredo and Heather Muller are instructive, as only a few of many examples. In those, easily accessed, cases, the murderer can repeatedly relive the pleasure of the rapes or torture. He can sit with other rapists and murderers in prison and they can share their fond memories of the pleasure they drew from their victims’ suffering. They can laugh and joke about how a victim begged not to be raped for the fourth or fifth time. They can swap stories about how their victims begged for their lives as they lay broken and bleeding. In one case a rape-murderer obtained the crime scene photographs of his victim to further increase his relived pleasures. Also in other cases, the murderer kills many victims. So, in such cases, the murderer gains even larger advantages over his victims. In no case does the murderer ever suffer as much as his victims.

There are also two beneficial byproducts from adequate use of the death penalty; deterrence and prevention. When the death penalty is used, as many as 20 potential murderers are deterred from murdering for each additional execution. When a murderer is executed, he cannot kill or maim again. Thousands of innocent victims have been killed by previously convicted murderers who were not executed for their first murder. No innocent victim has ever been killed by an executed murderer.