- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
But it is inevitable, as it is for any other crime.
I don’t agree that it’s inevitable that innocent people will be wrongfully accused. and even if it did, that doesn’t mean that people who support the justice system support the idea of innocent people being convicted.
The problem with the death penalty is that the sentence is irreconcilable.
One of the reasons I don’t agree with the death penalty.
In support the death penalty you have to concede that the risk of wrongful execution is an acceptable risk.
No. There are many people who support the death penalty only under the condition that the person is genuinely guilty.
Most people won’t just confess to their crime, but the highest punishment ought to require the highest standard of evidence. Advancements in forensics continue to make this easier but it’s still hard to do.
This doesn’t mean that people support the idea of innocent people being wrongfully accused and sentenced to die.
Whether or not there is risk involved, supporters do not think innocent people should suffer for a crime they didn’t do.
David thinks A is a good thing.
An error caused A to result in B
Therefore David must think B is a good thing as well.
You libreals really don't understand the criminal mind of these sick people.
Well, I’m not a liberal, and on the contrary, it would appear that it is you who doesn’t understand criminal behavior.
All it takes to understand criminal behavior is to recognize the fact that we live in a cause and effect reality, a fact that you continue to ignore. What makes a person do criminal acts?… genetics plays a role, but so do numerous other factors. The point is that criminals aren’t born into this world destined to commit criminal acts, there are numerous conditional factors that contribute to the end result. Some semblance of responsibility ought to be exhibited on the society for creating such a “monster,” and that responsibility can take the form of study and implementation of preventative measures which seek to reduce the conditional factors that lead to criminal behavior.
Do you have kids? What if your child was raped and beat?
I do, I have three daughters. One of which suffered a traumatic brain injury at the hands of her step mother which nearly cost her her life back in March. She was unconscious for four days, and her entire left side of her body was paralyzed for several weeks. She has since recovered almost ninety nine percent (she’s at physical therapy as I type this) and will most likely require counseling and therapy for most of her life.
Would you still think we should study the bastard that did it?
One of the most baffling things that continue to plague all of the family and supporters in “Charlotte’s Web of Hope” is “why did she do it?” Why would a mother, charged with the care of this innocent three year old girl, lash out and nearly kill her?
A major reason for my position is because I would like to keep things like this from happening to other little girls. The best way I see that happening is through a society that recognizes cause and effect and study’s why people do the things they do.
Do I think Lisa is a monster? Yes. But I also wonder what caused her to be such a monster.
I believe these represent valid criticisms of our current justice system… I don't suggest the death penalty (with the criteria I've stated) as a simple drag and drop solution into our existing system- I strongly believe that the system needs serious reform, for most of the reasons you've noted.
Yes, reform is very much needed. I didn’t mean to allude to the idea that you meant it as a drag and drop solution, I think much higher of you than that. I just wanted to discuss a few of my contentions with you, which seem now to be resolved.
I think we simply disagree on the punsihment point- punishment, in my opinion, should not be a form of retribution/vengeance
The purposes of the prison sentences that I referred to are those that seem to be apparent in the current justice system, not my own sense of morality. I agree that punishment, as a form of vengeance, should not play a part in the justice system.
wikipedia- sorry for that
I don’t mind at all. I consider it a rather quick and reliable source of information.
Even within those jurisdictions where life without parole is known to be given for second degree murder, they still generally represent exceptions to the rule.
Yes. I understand that, I was more or less just using it as an example. The exception certainly does not prove the rule.
Personally, I'm of the mind that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole itself constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, especially considering the conditions in many prisons.
Then that would depend on the prison conditions wouldn’t it? Considering the current prison conditions as they are, I see your point but I think when susceptible to the prospect of death, many would still choose life regardless of poor living conditions. And despite whether or not these people deserve worthwhile living conditions such as comfort, health, morale and welfare, it still means that whether or not it is to be considered cruel and unusual depends on our willingness to provide them with these things and/or a prisoners willingness to live without.
my apologies if you inferred otherwise from my wording, it was not my intent- I'm getting better at this, but I still evidently need a lot of work on my communication skills.
No need to apologize, you are adept at communicating your points and clarifying them if need be. As I said, I already hold you in high enough regard to expect that you do not mean to imply a drag and drop solution. Any new implementations to current practice ought to take into consideration the inherent effects that it would bring.
This is actually a good idea, though without reforms to the system it would require numerous additional prison facilities
Indeed, reforms to include an effort to study conditional factors and help reduce the amount of crime through prevention I would hope. I would also like to see many of the victimless crimes dramatically reduced, but that is another issue for another day I suppose.
Should reform take place to the current justice/ prison system there would possibly be no need for additional facilities. If anything, given the excessive amount of people per capita who are needlessly incarcerated in the US, I would think it more likely that many of the facilities could be repurposed in time.
Alternatively, we could reform the laws regarding jurisdiction and consolidate life inmates from multiple jurisdictions into shared prisons, which should cut down on the number of new facilities needed significantly.
This is more along the lines of what I was imagining.
I'm still of the mind, though, that it's kinder to simply kill a convict than to lock him in prison with the knowledge that he'll only be leaving in a box.
And I am of the mind that that ought to depend largely on what the incarcerated individual considers as kind. Certainly if they would prefer to die given the option, they should be within their right to do so, but I think by presenting a danger to society it is necessary to limit their rights to at least being separated from the rest of the population as a precaution.
Ultimately, I believe that point to be the source of our disagreement on the issue. Even if I thought it likely that I could, I'm not inclined to try and sway you to my subjective viewpoint there
Likewise. Thank you for your response.
There are a number of studies that suggest that innocent people have been wrongfully executed the USA. How can anyone suggest this is acceptable?
People aren’t suggesting that innocent people being wrongfully executed is acceptable. Crafty wording though, you could make a good lawyer using that sort of rhetoric.
There is nothing to be gained by exposing criminals who could potentially be rehabilitated to criminals who could not, and much to lose if rehabilitation is the goal. Inmates who have 'nothing left to lose' have been demonstrated to be more dangerous to other criminals, and said dangers are a factor in inmates 'adapting' to prison conditions to the point that they cannot successfully re-integrate into society.
You make some very interesting points which led me to reexamine my position.
Many disagree with the cost-saving notion; it has been said that it costs more money to execute a criminal than it does to imprison him or her for life, primarily due to the numerous appeals, etc that are made when a death sentence is issued.
It’s also asserted to be because the exorbitant cost of the lethal injections. I don’t know if they are actually as high as claimed but it’s a common contention I hear in opposition to the death penalty. Besides, this is an unrelated factor anyway; lethal injection isn’t the only method of execution. Also, the price of lethal injection could be reduced in a society less concerned with profit but could also likely become more expensive depending on the amount of executions and the cost of supplies.
At any rate, I agree that it would be more expensive to house and feed a prisoner then it would be to execute them in most cases.
So, that all being said, I still have a few disagreements with the death penalty or maybe just ‘life sentences’ as they apply to your solution.
Many life sentences are granted irrespective of a person’s ability to live a moral life or improve from rehabilitation. Prison sentences serve three purposes as far as I can see, penalty to a crime, removal of a potential threat to society and an attempt at rehabilitation. The penalty is a type of punishment relative to the crime, the removal is a necessary measure often times, but the criminal’s ability to adjust remains to be seen most of the time. This could lead to some instances where a decent individual is sentenced to life imprisonment without any chance to show that they can live decent lives or be rehabilitated.
Second degree murder for instance, when a person kills in a fit of emotion and immediately recognizes the wrong in it. Many times the penalty is a life for a life irrespective of the person’s potential to lead a decent life.
I think you have a good point about refitting life sentences with a death penalty, but I think the possibility for parole ought to be reconsidered for many life sentences in that case. I don’t think it’s necessary, but it’s a good point.
The other reason I’m still in opposition to the death penalty is because other than the points you made, I don’t see any other substantial reason to do it other than to reduce the cost. It seems uncivilized to me to reduce the value of a life in an attempt to save money. And even when acknowledging your points, I still don’t see killing them as a necessary practice. The inmates given life sentences could just as easily be transported to separate facilities specifically for them so they don’t affect other inmates’ ability to be rehabilitated.
We'll we have this thing called DNA, and I understand that in past we have put people on death row with out DNA but in today's world, anyone on death row is there because there is hard facts and hard DNA truth that put them there. This argument is void.
DNA evidence is not always available when sentencing someone to capital punishment. Even today, with advanced forensics, people are sentenced with capital punishment without “hard facts and hard DNA.” People have been executed in the past only to discover later that they were innocent of the crime they were convicted of.
Nonetheless, I will disregard this point and focus more on the matter of people who are actually guilty of the crime for the sake of debate.
How can we prevent a baby killer or a serial killer?
By studying the conditions that lead up to such behavior and reducing the amount of these conditions in order to prevent that behavior from developing.
The fact that you think people like this are treatable and can be "cured" is a crazy notion.
I consider it both preventable and treatable. How is that crazy? It has been demonstrated to be so.
What’s crazy to me is ignoring all the deterministic factors that lead to criminal behavior and continuing to live in the same society that breeds it, expecting it to get better all on its own.
I have studied serial killers since I was a teen.
Then you should know that serial killers make up a very VERY low percentage of crimes.
these sick twisted people who hunt down there victims and seek the thrill of everything involved will never lead a normal life, they will always have the desire to kill.
All the more reason to prevent such behavior. And for the negligible amount of people with mental problems or those who have shown no signs of improvement from rehabilitation, they ought to be kept away from the rest of society.
9 times out of 10 they stop treatment because there brain wants to have the desire.
This just sounds totally false. Are you pulling this out of a hat or am I expected to believe you base this on some credible evidence?
Regardless, I’m not suggesting we let loose criminals irrespective of them being able to be rehabilitated. If a person presents a danger to others, and show no signs of being rehabilitated, they should obviously remain behind bars.
I just don’t think killing them solves anything… even studying them would present more of a benefit to us than just offing them.
The system inhrently lends itself to barbarism and injustice.
I acknowledge that the justice system isn’t perfect, but in what way does it inherently lead to barbarism and injustice?
It cannot enact itself, thus interpretation are left upon men, who naturally have a tendency to deviant from justice.
I didn’t suggest that it could enact itself and what do you mean by “interpretations are left upon men?”
Also, at first glance I strongly disagree that humans are naturally inclined to deviate from justice. Perhaps I misunderstand you, could you elaborate on that please?
this lack of evidence wouldn't be grounds to refute the assertion
It may not be grounds to refute the truth of the claim, but certainly the assertion of it.
It is only rational in debate to refute the assertion of a claim where evidence is required yet not provided.
merely to take the position of being unconvinced
not merely. its understandably so. Without being given a usable reason to believe the assertion, one ought to remain unconvinced.
One ought to remain unconvinced despite pseudo-reasoning as well, yet we have theists…
so why should we respect their life?
If there is a chance they didn’t do it there is a chance that we could be killing an innocent man.
If they did do it, then the nature of culpability shows us that crime is a preventable/treatable occurrence. The culpable factor is not just the individual who did the crime, but every detail in that person’s life and influential factor leading up to that point in time. While I do not necessarily think that should absolve them, I do consider it immoral to turn a blind eye to these deterministic factors. Some level of responsibility ought to be encouraged in order to promote an environment of prevention and rehabilitation.