DEBATE ISSUES

[Debate]

Hi, I'm a 15 year old sophmore at a high school in California and I have a debate coming up on the 7th of Feb. and I am on the Pro side. The opposing side has some different reasons for why the DP should be abolished. They believe that it is unfair to the poor because they are unable to afford a reasonable lawyer and they bring up the case of O.J Simpson. How would we argue against this? I have somethings in mind, but i'm not clear about this reason. They also say the usual it cost too much, and there are other ways to punish a criminal that are just effective as the DP. For the cost, how much does the DP cost versus life imprisonment without parole? I know that the LWOP costs more over time compared to the DP, but on average how much does the DP cost? I would greatly appericiate anyone's input and thanks a lot.

[Deleted]

Debate said:

Hi, I'm a 15 year old sophmore at a high school in California and I have a debate coming up on the 7th of Feb. and I am on the Pro side. The opposing side has some different reasons for why the DP should be abolished. They believe that it is unfair to the poor because they are unable to afford a reasonable lawyer and they bring up the case of O.J Simpson. How would we argue against this? I have somethings in mind, but i'm not clear about this reason. They also say the usual it cost too much, and there are other ways to punish a criminal that are just effective as the DP. For the cost, how much does the DP cost versus life imprisonment without parole? I know that the LWOP costs more over time compared to the DP, but on average how much does the DP cost? I would greatly appericiate anyone's input and thanks a lot.

Here, try this.

www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

[Earl]

Debate said:

The opposing side has some different reasons for why the DP should be abolished. They believe that it is unfair to the poor because they are unable to afford a reasonable lawyer and they bring up the case of O.J Simpson.

You and your classmates are assuming that legal representation provided to the indigent is below par – it is not. It is a career path for those who enter it. Also, most private defense attys are a product of it. In California, the Supreme Court requires a bare minimum of 10 years of criminal trial practice with at least 10 serious or violent felony jury trials and at least two murder cases. Again, this is the minimum. Most public defenders or private appointed counsel have 50-100 felony jury trials involving serious or violent felonies before they are appointed on a capital case, and that is only as second chair. Indigent capital clients are appointed two attorneys to represent them at trial. The attys are required to have a minimum of 15 hours capital case defense training approved by the State Bar. However, most courses are 40-80 hours and attys attend them every or every other year. Additionally, attys who do capital cases have the help of numerous professional organizations and legal experts: Calif Public Defense Assoc., State Public Defender, California Appellate Defense Assoc., Calif. Assoc. Criminal Justice, and more.

Also, most big time private defense attys accept appointments from the court. So, the atty a wealthy defendant may hire, may also be appointed to represent an indigent client. I would also point out that when there are co-defendants, if possible, the public defender is required to take the more culpable client.

[grandma]

What an excellent post Earl. If you were a member, I would give you a plus.

[Debate]

I would like to thank everyone that gave their input. Thank you Earl you really helped me in understanding, I appericiate it. Thanks for all your time it means a lot.

[Even]

Debate said:

They believe that it is unfair to the poor because they are unable to afford a reasonable lawyer and they bring up the case of O.J Simpson.

If they try that, you should point out that it is only one case out of thousands. Also, it wasn't the high priced lawyers that saved OJ. It was the unforced errors of the prosecution team.

However, if they do persist with the OJ theme, then you can point out that 98% of poor murderers avoid the death penalty. Compare that with the percentage of murder victims who avoid death. Also, you could ask them what percentage of wealthy murderers avoid the death penalty. But first have them define "wealthy", "poor", "not wealthy" and "not poor". One thing that anti-DP folk do is play around with the definitions to get the apparent result that suits them. For example, I saw an anti-DP poster assert that a person with assets of 150,000 and an annual income of $100,000 should be classified as "poor" because it suited their argument at the moment.

You also need to familiarize yourself with the wealth murderers who have been sentenced to death and executed.

[suzukichic]

Well I started this thread before I had an account thanks a lot Even

[Anony+]

grandma said:

What an excellent post Earl. If you were a member, I would give you a plus.

Me thinks Earl sounds like a prosecutor.

[grandma]

Then he should join our board and teach us laymen a thing or two

[crappieboy]

They also say the usual it cost too much, and there are other ways to punish a criminal that are just effective as the DP.

What is the price of a loved one's life really worth?

[Ariel]

What is the value of a human life? Can you put a price on the suffering of the murder victim and their family? Lawyers, even representing poor people, get paid more than enough money to do a good job. It's up to the courts to sort out the mess. Anyway, most jurors aren't wealthy people, so it's a red herring.

If you take away another person's life, you forfeit the right to your own existence.

[suzukichic]

Well, I did my debate the other day and I think we did well, but of course at the end of it a student asked a question that i suspected would come from him since he thinks he's a know it all and asked, " What gives the government the right to murder these criminals? Aren't we doing the same to them?"

Just in your guys opinion what would you say?

I said "What gives the right for that criminal to murder an innocent person?" and he said "He doesn't have the right" so I said, " Exactly so by taking the right for life of that innocent person, we have the right to take away his life, because by all means he has no sense of remorse for human life and on the other hand we are not doing the same thing, because we do not go around executing just anybody for the fun of it." I didn't really have any facts on it, but it was suppose to be a quick rebuttle, and honestly I don't think I answered all that well, but it made him shut up.

[fred2]

One, it is not murder, it is a lawful execution by the state. Your opponent does not get to make up his own legal definitions. Two, the government has the right to execute murderers under the powers vested to it under the U.S. Constitution. The USSC has ruled repeatedly that the death penalty is constitutional.

[ltdc]

suzukichic said:

Well, I did my debate the other day and I think we did well, but of course at the end of it a student asked a question that i suspected would come from him since he thinks he's a know it all and asked, " What gives the government the right to murder these criminals? Aren't we doing the same to them?"

Just in your guys opinion what would you say?

I said "What gives the right for that criminal to murder an innocent person?" and he said "He doesn't have the right" so I said, " Exactly so by taking the right for life of that innocent person, we have the right to take away his life, because by all means he has no sense of remorse for human life and on the other hand we are not doing the same thing, because we do not go around executing just anybody for the fun of it." I didn't really have any facts on it, but it was suppose to be a quick rebuttle, and honestly I don't think I answered all that well, but it made him shut up.

well, if it made him shut up, then you won

[Donnie]

suzukichic said:

Well, I did my debate the other day and I think we did well, but of course at the end of it a student asked a question that i suspected would come from him since he thinks he's a know it all and asked, " What gives the government the right to murder these criminals? Aren't we doing the same to them?"

Just in your guys opinion what would you say?

I said "What gives the right for that criminal to murder an innocent person?" and he said "He doesn't have the right" so I said, " Exactly so by taking the right for life of that innocent person, we have the right to take away his life, because by all means he has no sense of remorse for human life and on the other hand we are not doing the same thing, because we do not go around executing just anybody for the fun of it." I didn't really have any facts on it, but it was suppose to be a quick rebuttle, and honestly I don't think I answered all that well, but it made him shut up.

YOu haad all the facts you needed on that issue. The only way his question makes any sense is if he claims that a murderer and an innocent victim have performed equally in our society. That is just the bare bones minimum. He would also have to show that the murder victim was given a fair trial, that the murder victim had a lawyer to represnt hm, that the victim had an opportunity to appeal the murderer's initial decision and an opportunity to be granted a pardon by the governor. Thenyour opponent would aalso have to demonstrate that the murder victim was given the opportunity to have months or years of spriritual counseling to prepare for his painless death. Not to mention that murder is often accompanied by rape or other torture.

[Lotus Flower]

donnie said:

suzukichic said:

Well, I did my debate the other day and I think we did well, but of course at the end of it a student asked a question that i suspected would come from him since he thinks he's a know it all and asked, " What gives the government the right to murder these criminals? Aren't we doing the same to them?"

Just in your guys opinion what would you say?

I said "What gives the right for that criminal to murder an innocent person?" and he said "He doesn't have the right" so I said, " Exactly so by taking the right for life of that innocent person, we have the right to take away his life, because by all means he has no sense of remorse for human life and on the other hand we are not doing the same thing, because we do not go around executing just anybody for the fun of it." I didn't really have any facts on it, but it was suppose to be a quick rebuttle, and honestly I don't think I answered all that well, but it made him shut up.

YOu haad all the facts you needed on that issue. The only way his question makes any sense is if he claims that a murderer and an innocent victim have performed equally in our society. That is just the bare bones minimum. He would also have to show that the murder victim was given a fair trial, that the murder victim had a lawyer to represnt hm, that the victim had an opportunity to appeal the murderer's initial decision and an opportunity to be granted a pardon by the governor. Thenyour opponent would aalso have to demonstrate that the murder victim was given the opportunity to have months or years of spriritual counseling to prepare for his painless death. Not to mention that murder is often accompanied by rape or other torture.

All excellent points, Donnie.

Grab a + for showing how there is only ONE victim in murder... and they never received the options murderers do.

[suzukichic]

This topic, not matter how much research I do on it, intrigues me more and more. Thanks a lot for the comments and the replies, it helps a lot.

Donnie and Lotus Flower very well put comments I really really like them.