Death Penalty
Yes-- should be in all states
Side Score: 9
|
 |
No-- It's murder
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
So, we have 100% proof that every single person convicted of a crime is guilty. It must be nice to live in your perfectly black and white world where the criminal justice systems doesn't persecute African Americans at a high rate than their white counterparts. I live in America where DNA has gotten many people's conviction reversed and where people in poverty don't have a defense. Side: No-- It's murder
1
point
If people are in poverty and commit a crime there should be no difference in punishment. Simply, if there are sides where the judge or whatever is one sided they should move the case to someone else. But the question of why should we keep these murderers and rapists alive is still standing Side: Yes-- should be in all states
1
point
I believe that people who are murders, or proven guilty of treason or espionage, should be subject to capital punishment. There are many reasons that the death penalty may be a better option, and cost is a huge factor. The cost of keeping these criminals alive in prisons and other facilities very much outweighs the cost of lethal injections. An injection is a one time use that has only one price, as a prison is a continuous payment that tax payers must keep paying. Also, many criminals may never return to their normal self. For example, a serial killer might continues to kill after their sentence is up, so what good does keeping them and paying for their survival do? Side: Yes-- should be in all states
So, in your argument people who commit treason should be executed? Weren't many of our founding fathers considered treasonous rebels. You are going to be on the wrong side of history here. Also, cost... so it's cheaper to have people have one child. Should we disallow more than on child in a family? It's easier on the economy. What's next euthanasia? Side: No-- It's murder
1
point
Yes, they may have been considered that, and I misspoke when I mentioned the treason. Those are cases to be dealt with speerately. I do still believe that murderers in some cases should be executed though. Yes of course it may be cheaper to have one child but I find that point irrelevant in the case of capital punishment of murderers. Side: Yes-- should be in all states
It takes more money to keep a person that would qualify for the penalty alive then to punish them with death. It takes $43,352 to keep each prisoner a year, and instead of using that money to keep them alive we could be using the tax payers money for things such as: education, roads, local towns, ect. Side: Yes-- should be in all states
It takes an awful lot of money to educate students too. Should we stop teaching because schools will always cost more than they take in. Isn't the benefit of the schools worth as much as it costs to keep them going. The same argument can be made for prisons. Wouldn't it be worth one life saved if you came because people saw the consequences of their actions? Side: No-- It's murder
1
point
The death penalty should be allowed in all states because it serves punishment to those that have raped, or even murdered another person. Would you want someone that has killed another person or brutally raped someone living when their victim could be laying in the ground? It’s like having them getting away scotch free because they will get a bed to sleep in, food to eat, and a roof over their head unlike their victim. Side: Yes-- should be in all states
1
point
I strongly feel like it should be legal in all states. I feel like it should have like certain requirements that have to be met in order to have the death penalty be used against someone. If someone has been guilty for rape, child molestation, sexual abuse, or sexual assault, then I feel like maybe the judge and the court could make that decision based on how the judge and jury feel about it. This process can also be extended into a higher court system, so it can be resolved. Side: Yes-- should be in all states
|
Nobody should be given the decision, or choice to take someone else’s life. Even if the crime is incredibly wrong or horrible, such as murder, rape, etc. what gives another person or a group of people the right to take away someone else’s life when there are so many other options to facilitate someone. For example, Do you think that a person that is able to murder or rape someone is 100% mentally okay? They must have something wrong to make them capable of such a horrible thing. We should facilitate, and try and figure out what makes them the way they are so we can catch these things from happening again. If we make the death penalty legal, what is that going to mean for our future? When will we draw the line, between a crime worthy of murder, and a crime that deserves leeway? Side: No-- It's murder
You're right. People who commit murder aren't 100% okay. They have issues, and therefore, shouldn't be a part of an American society. Let's keep them off the streets. Let's keep them away from the hard working Americans they were deciding to murder. They made their choice. They didn't give someone the choice to die, so if they are mentally ill, we should take care of them after they murder? Side: Yes-- should be in all states
Of course they didn’t give the person the choice to die, they chose to do that. they also didn’t ask for whatever imbalance they obviously have in their brain, that makes them capable of doing horrendous things. What about all of the rapists, and perverts walking the streets already? That our community/system knows about and has let walk? By facilitating someone that doesn’t necessarily mean we are taking care of them. They would practically be used as a tool for preventing these horrible things from happening again, while giving them a base of getting “better” whatever that term would mean in that specific circumstance. Side: No-- It's murder
|
