Topic: DC- Match 6 (MillsJROSS/Evil vs Nellie)

[Andail]

The topic is
Death penalty is morally wrong

A good old topic.
I'm sorry for the unfair team setting here, but I couldn't really change it this late.

Nellie is against, and gets the first post.

[Nellie]

Capital Punishment is the morally correct way to gain justice for the victims of murder.  How could anything else be the case?  Are we to believe that to purposefully cause the death of a human being should result in a punishment that in no way equals the crime commited?  No.  A murderer should be dealt with in the same way that they, as a sane human being, chose to deal with their victim.  When they, by their own free will, commit the horrendous act of ending another human being's life, then they forfeit their own life.  How can we claim true justice if this is not the case?

Please enlighten me...

[MillsJROSS]

How could we, a society in the 21st century, condone Capital Punishment? You talk of morals, but last time I checked, one of the biggest moral and ethical rules to live by is “thou shalt not kill.” To kill is a sin, right? So how can we tell someone that because they don’t value the life of a person, we therefore, do not need to value his/her life?

The system doesn’t even work. You have only about one percent of known homicides, of the first degree, actually getting the death penalty. Of that one percent, only two percent of those people are put to death. So what is that, then? Two hundredths of a percent of the people who commit homicide are punished for the crime. What makes one persons’ homicide worse than another person?

Death penalty states, in the U.S.A., do not have a lower crime rate. So the death penalty does not deter criminal action, in anyway. Which is reasonable, considering many of the people that are in danger of the death penalty (i.e. Mobsters, drug lords, etc…), are people who are at risk of being killed in or out of the state prison system. It’s like giving a warning to a suicide bomber, that should he happen to survive, we’ll kill him!

Why should anyone be given the responsibility to send someone to his or her death? What makes this person so special, that he/she is above racial, cultural, and class prejudice? We’ve already concluded that very little of all first-degree homicides are put to death, so there must be something that makes those guys special? Or is it more the fact, that people are determining whether or not a person deserves to live, and these people are biased.

The truth is, that even though these criminals have done something unforgivable, that we don’t condone, to kill them is the greatest irony I’ve ever heard. We should not decide the lives of these men and women! We should merely decide upon a punishment that takes this man away from the society, where he can do no harm. The system we have already is unfair, where some people are given the chance to live, and others not. It’s all or nothing, and as the percentages show that 2 hundredths of a percent are actually being treated to the death penalty; it might as well be nothing!

-MillsJROSS

[Evil]

SHIT! I messed up. I took twenty mins on pro... Damn... *retypes*

Ok, here it is the way it should have been...  

Lets look at how most people look at the death penalty, shall we?

1.) The convicted person of the crime is killed normally through injection
2.) The family of the deceased person gets happy

When in reality it is this:

1.) The convicted person of the crime is killed normally through injection
2.) The family of the deceased person thought the would be happier when the killer (or whatever) died, when actually they dont feel much better.

So why are these killers dying? The majority or these people are obviously insane and have no morals, whom should instead be put in rehab or something. I understand that the family of the deceased feel bad but does killing the killer make it any better? Doesnt that make you up for the death penality also? So why do we keep killing these people? The families think that they should be to death when they mostly feel that they should feel the same way that the deceased person felt. Now lets talk about jail. Jail sucks, it really does. People that go overnight think it is bad. Imagine staying there for the rest of you life. No one to talk to. All alone. Nothing much to do. Having to change your life. I think that sounds much more reasonable then killing the person.

[Nellie]

How could we, a society in the 21st century, condone Capital Punishment? You talk of morals, but last time I checked, one of the biggest moral and ethical rules to live by is “thou shalt not kill.” To kill is a sin, right? So how can we tell someone that because they don’t value the life of a person, we therefore, do not need to value his/her life?

'Thou shalt not kill' is a religious commandment, and if you're going to bring religion to the debate, there are plenty of instances in the Bible where people have been killed for their sins.

As far as the idea of not killing being an absolute 'rule', because all life is to be valued, even of those that choose to kill others, I disagree.  Just as a lesser criminal forfeits their right to freedom when they act, a killer, by choosing to take an innocent life, forfeits their own right to life.  Why should a naive social view of 'absolute', inflexible rules deny justice to the victim of murder?

The system doesn’t even work. You have only about one percent of known homicides, of the first degree, actually getting the death penalty. Of that one percent, only two percent of those people are put to death. So what is that, then? Two hundredths of a percent of the people who commit homicide are punished for the crime. What makes one persons’ homicide worse than another person?

Indeed, what does?  It sounds like you are advocating the extension of the death penalty to all homicides, to rectify this unfairness in the justice system.

Death penalty states, in the U.S.A., do not have a lower crime rate. So the death penalty does not deter criminal action, in anyway.

How do you know that criminals aren't deterred?  Who's to say that if the penalty was removed, crime wouldn't rise?  Presumably one of the reasons these states introduced the death penalty in the first place was to put a lid on rising crime rates.  I would imagine, if anything, crime rates would be higher in states with the death penalty, and that is why the death penalty exists there.

Which is reasonable, considering many of the people that are in danger of the death penalty (i.e. Mobsters, drug lords, etc…), are people who are at risk of being killed in or out of the state prison system. It’s like giving a warning to a suicide bomber, that should he happen to survive, we’ll kill him!

You're right.  Much better for these people to be gunned down in the streets than executed after being justly tried and convicted by a jury.

Why should anyone be given the responsibility to send someone to his or her death? What makes this person so special, that he/she is above racial, cultural, and class prejudice? We’ve already concluded that very little of all first-degree homicides are put to death, so there must be something that makes those guys special? Or is it more the fact, that people are determining whether or not a person deserves to live, and these people are biased.

In that case, what protects any defendant from prejudice?  Are the convictions of all prisoners to be cast into doubt because of this risk you perceive?  Maybe nobody can ever be punished for anything because of the danger of prejudice.  Personally, I'd prefer to count on the hard evidence presented in courtrooms, and the social mix of jury members as a defence against prejudice, rather than be frightened into refusing to give any criminal a just punishment.

The truth is, that even though these criminals have done something unforgivable, that we don’t condone, to kill them is the greatest irony I’ve ever heard. We should not decide the lives of these men and women!

We didn't.  They decided it themselves when they chose to kill another human being.

We should merely decide upon a punishment that takes this man away from the society, where he can do no harm.

Because to shut a human apart from society for the rest of their natural lives is more humane than to end their lives quickly?

It’s all or nothing, and as the percentages show that 2 hundredths of a percent are actually being treated to the death penalty; it might as well be nothing!

So your argument is not that the death penalty is immoral, but that it is hardly worth it for the number of murderers it gets rid of?

2.) The family of the deceased person thought the would be happier when the killer (or whatever) died, when actually they dont feel much better.

I understand that the family of the deceased feel bad but does killing the killer make it any better? Doesnt that make you up for the death penality also? So why do we keep killing these people? The families think that they should be to death when they mostly feel that they should feel the same way that the deceased person felt.

If the justice system worked purely to make the victims of crime 'happy' by satisfying their desire for revenge, then society would be in a sorry state.  But the death penalty should not exist for the supposed comfort of the victim's relatives, but because it is simply the right thing to do.

The majority or these people are obviously insane and have no morals, whom should instead be put in rehab or something.

Naturally, any person not in control of their actions when they commit murder, cannot be held accountable for those actions.  But how about the people who do knowingly and willingly commit murder?  How do you feel about them?

Now lets talk about jail. Jail sucks, it really does. People that go overnight think it is bad. Imagine staying there for the rest of you life. No one to talk to. All alone. Nothing much to do. Having to change your life. I think that sounds much more reasonable then killing the person.

So in your desire to see a terrible punishment for perpetrators of murder, you reject the death penalty in favour of a fate that (as you describe it) sounds even grimmer?

[MillsJROSS]

'Thou shalt not kill' is a religious commandment, and if you're going to bring religion to the debate, there are plenty of instances in the Bible where people have been killed for their sins.

Yes indeed it is bringing religion into the debate, because without religion, the idea that people being killed is a bad thing might never have arisen. How could one not bring religion into this debate? That wouldn't make any sense at all. Even if a person is not a religious man, his life has been affected by religions, and the fact that we are so against killing a man has a great deal to do with western religion.  

As far as the idea of not killing being an absolute 'rule', because all life is to be valued, even of those that choose to kill others, I disagree.  Just as a lesser criminal forfeits their right to freedom when they act, a killer, by choosing to take an innocent life, forfeits their own right to life.  Why should a naive social view of 'absolute', inflexible rules deny justice to the victim of murder?

Yes, you do disagree. However, why after saying life is important, life is sacred, and the preservation of life is important to us, would you kill a man for killing another man? Why should we hold a naïve social view that there is only one way to take care of a man who has committed murder with purpose, and that killing that man is the only way to take care of the problem?

It sounds like you are advocating the extension of the death penalty to all homicides, to rectify this unfairness in the justice system.

No, what I am showing is unfairness in your system. To give a man the ability to decide who should be put to death and who shouldn’t is a big unfairness. If you advocate a system, such as the death penalty, I can only expect that you would attempt to do so with fairness. The line that determines a mans death is undefined and up to a man who could be a racist bigot who hates the poor.

Quote:
Death penalty states, in the U.S.A., do not have a lower crime rate. So the death penalty does not deter criminal action, in anyway.


How do you know that criminals aren't deterred?  Who's to say that if the penalty was removed, crime wouldn't rise?  Presumably one of the reasons these states introduced the death penalty in the first place was to put a lid on rising crime rates.  I would imagine, if anything, crime rates would be higher in states with the death penalty, and that is why the death penalty exists there.

Let me rephrase that. There are twelve states that do not incorporate the death penalty. The states without this system do not show an increased rate of crime. This says that the death penalty does not deter people from a life of crime, which is one of the reasons the death penalty is used. To say to other criminals “If you do this, we’ll do this.” While admittedly, a good idea, it hasn’t proven to have worked. Criminal activity is just as high in states with the death penalty as states without it.

Quote:
Which is reasonable, considering many of the people that are in danger of the death penalty (i.e. Mobsters, drug lords, etc…), are people who are at risk of being killed in or out of the state prison system. It’s like giving a warning to a suicide bomber, that should he happen to survive, we’ll kill him!


You're right.  Much better for these people to be gunned down in the streets than executed after being justly tried and convicted by a jury.

You’re taking my words out of context. I was showing how the danger of the death penalty was useless to men who’s “jobs” entailed that risk in the first place. And as I already stated, a system that chooses who dies and who doesn’t is biased, and therefore is not a just system.

In that case, what protects any defendant from prejudice?  Are the convictions of all prisoners to be cast into doubt because of this risk you perceive?  Maybe nobody can ever be punished for anything because of the danger of prejudice.  Personally, I'd prefer to count on the hard evidence presented in courtrooms, and the social mix of jury members as a defence against prejudice, rather than be frightened into refusing to give any criminal a just punishment.

Nothing defends any defendant from prejudice. The whole system is flawed. However, we are centering in on the death penalty, which has a much higher consequence, which I am sure you’d agree, otherwise you wouldn’t be so passionate about killing people who kill people. I didn’t say anything about not going to courtrooms with a jury. I’m not sure where you inferred this. I said the people who run this are prejudiced. However, the system should not be affected by prejudice. There should be a drawn line in your system as to what needs to be done that absolutely requires the death penalty. Not a gray area where the judge can choose of the man should be killed or not, which puts prejudice into the system. An imperfect system! A system where a line or a gray area should never be drawn!

Quote:
The truth is, that even though these criminals have done something unforgivable, that we don’t condone, to kill them is the greatest irony I’ve ever heard. We should not decide the lives of these men and women!


We didn't.  They decided it themselves when they chose to kill another human being.

No, we decided that killing them is the only choice. To say there is only one choice is limiting you. They have decided to put their lives actions to the court by committing this act, but should the court be able to handle their death?

Quote:
We should merely decide upon a punishment that takes this man away from the society, where he can do no harm.


Because to shut a human apart from society for the rest of their natural lives is more humane than to end their lives quickly?

Wait, I thought they decided themselves when they chose to kill another human that they forfeit their own lives? Well here is their life. There is a chance for them to live a very unhappy life. What better punishment could there be? What punishment would you rather have?  A quick painless death or a life filled with the knowledge that you’ve made a grave error.

So your argument is not that the death penalty is immoral, but that it is hardly worth it for the number of murderers it gets rid of?

Yes the death penalty is immoral. And yes, it is indeed hardly worth it for the number of death it gets rid of. Do I want more death, though? No. I am arguing for no death penalty. One life is too many for the death penalty to take. I am just commenting again, at how inefficient your system is.

If the justice system worked purely to make the victims of crime 'happy' by satisfying their desire for revenge, then society would be in a sorry state.  But the death penalty should not exist for the supposed comfort of the victim's relatives, but because it is simply the right thing to do.

I agree it would be a sad society that got to kill people because of revenge. But if killing a person is a wrong thing, what makes killing the killer a good thing? Two wrongs do not make a right. It is not the right thing to do.

Naturally, any person not in control of their actions when they commit murder, cannot be held accountable for those actions.  But how about the people who do knowingly and willingly commit murder?  How do you feel about them?

I’d be more afraid of the people who can’t control their actions versus those who could. Who would I rather meet? Who really is guiltier? Both took someone’s life. Only the one to plan it, at least thought it out. There was a reason, for them to kill someone. The person, who’s emotionally instable, just does it because of an emotional heightening. I’d be more afraid of them.

Quote:
Now lets talk about jail. Jail sucks, it really does. People that go overnight think it is bad. Imagine staying there for the rest of you life. No one to talk to. All alone. Nothing much to do. Having to change your life. I think that sounds much more reasonable then killing the person.


So in your desire to see a terrible punishment for perpetrators of murder, you reject the death penalty in favour of a fate that (as you describe it) sounds even grimmer?

No, evil and I, reject the death penalty as an easy way out, and a decision that isn’t up to the court system and isn’t up to the state. If his life is grimmer, so be it. He killed someone. We don’t feel sympathy for the man. We just don’t feel that any man’s life should be ended because of paragraph 3 article 26…blah blah blah (You get the point).

This system isn’t well defined. It doesn’t defer criminal action. I don’t see how anyone, after seeing its results, can still be in favor of it.

-MillsJROSS

[Nellie]

(Spent ages typing my first reply, then the bloody page refreshed on me for no discernable reason :.  Feel my pain.)

Yes indeed it is bringing religion into the debate, because without religion, the idea that people being killed is a bad thing might never have arisen. How could one not bring religion into this debate? That wouldn't make any sense at all. Even if a person is not a religious man, his life has been affected by religions, and the fact that we are so against killing a man has a great deal to do with western religion.

If your morals come from the Bible, then the parts of the Bible where God commands that people should be killed for their sins means that the death penalty is moral.

Yes, you do disagree. However, why after saying life is important, life is sacred, and the preservation of life is important to us, would you kill a man for killing another man? Why should we hold a naïve social view that there is only one way to take care of a man who has committed murder with purpose, and that killing that man is the only way to take care of the problem?

I never gave an indication of how sacred or otherwise I believe life to be.  And it is precisely because society deems life so important that a person who unjustly takes away that life should be punished in a likewise manner.  If life is so important to you why are you arguing that victims of murder should not receive proper justice for the act committed against them?

No, what I am showing is unfairness in your system. To give a man the ability to decide who should be put to death and who shouldn’t is a big unfairness. If you advocate a system, such as the death penalty, I can only expect that you would attempt to do so with fairness. The line that determines a mans death is undefined and up to a man who could be a racist bigot who hates the poor.

That's a lot of prejudices to put on a single judge.  Thankfully the system also has a jury, which is a measure implemented to filter out the prejudices of individuals.  Would all the jurors have the same prejudices as this crazy judge you've invented?  And would they all be completely blind to the evidence put before them?  The system is set up so that defendants can never be convicted by a 'racist bigot who hates the poor'.

Let me rephrase that. There are twelve states that do not incorporate the death penalty. The states without this system do not show an increased rate of crime. This says that the death penalty does not deter people from a life of crime, which is one of the reasons the death penalty is used. To say to other criminals “If you do this, we’ll do this.” While admittedly, a good idea, it hasn’t proven to have worked. Criminal activity is just as high in states with the death penalty as states without it.

To compare one state with another is an unfair comparison.  The only fair way to see the deterrent effect of the death penalty would be to look at crime figures of a state without the death penalty, and then after the same state introduced the death penalty (or vice versa).  Otherwise, you might as well argue that Deverry has a higher crime rate than Melee Island.

You’re taking my words out of context. I was showing how the danger of the death penalty was useless to men who’s “jobs” entailed that risk in the first place. And as I already stated, a system that chooses who dies and who doesn’t is biased, and therefore is not a just system.

How is that out of context?  Certainly, there may be a lesser deterrent effect on criminals who face potential death anyway, but that doesn't alter the fact that a justly and humanely given execution is better than whatever other grisly fate might await the people you mention.

Nothing defends any defendant from prejudice. The whole system is flawed.

Then how can we ever punish anyone for anything?

However, we are centering in on the death penalty, which has a much higher consequence, which I am sure you’d agree, otherwise you wouldn’t be so passionate about killing people who kill people.

Yes, I agree.  And I am certainly passionate about seeing justice for the victims of murder.

I didn’t say anything about not going to courtrooms with a jury. I’m not sure where you inferred this. I said the people who run this are prejudiced. However, the system should not be affected by prejudice.

I didn't infer it.  I simply pointed out that the jury is a wonderful method of filtering out prejudice from the final verdict.  And lets not forget there's evidence in the equation - juries aren't making their decision based on a toin coss.

There should be a drawn line in your system as to what needs to be done that absolutely requires the death penalty. Not a gray area where the judge can choose of the man should be killed or not, which puts prejudice into the system.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I see that we both seek a fair and just death penalty.

No, we decided that killing them is the only choice. To say there is only one choice is limiting you. They have decided to put their lives actions to the court by committing this act, but should the court be able to handle their death?

When a person makes the decision to kill another human being, in full knowledge of the lawful consequences of their action, they make the decision to face those consequences.

Wait, I thought they decided themselves when they chose to kill another human that they forfeit their own lives? Well here is their life. There is a chance for them to live a very unhappy life. What better punishment could there be? What punishment would you rather have?  A quick painless death or a life filled with the knowledge that you’ve made a grave error.

First you advocated a punishment that was less than the crime committed.  Now you advocate a punishment that is worse than the crime committed.  Why not accept that the only just way is a punishment that equals the crime committed?

Yes the death penalty is immoral. And yes, it is indeed hardly worth it for the number of death it gets rid of. Do I want more death, though? No. I am arguing for no death penalty. One life is too many for the death penalty to take. I am just commenting again, at how inefficient your system is.

Thankfully, and contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not coldly in search of an 'efficient' way to conveniently dispose of hundreds of murderers.  I am simply searching for justice for the victims of murder.  How can you argue that only a few people receive justice, so there might as well be nobody receiving justice?

Earlier you argued that there should be a line drawn that prevents 'grey area' defendants from being given the death penalty.  Surely your consistent argument that only a small percentage of convicted murderers finally receive the death penalty is an indication that this line has already been drawn.

I agree it would be a sad society that got to kill people because of revenge. But if killing a person is a wrong thing, what makes killing the killer a good thing? Two wrongs do not make a right. It is not the right thing to do.

To kill a person is never a good thing, just as putting somebody in jail is never a good thing, but sometimes it is necessary to see justice done.  If you want to argue that seeing justice done is not the right thing to do, be my guest.

I’d be more afraid of the people who can’t control their actions versus those who could. Who would I rather meet? Who really is guiltier? Both took someone’s life. Only the one to plan it, at least thought it out. There was a reason, for them to kill someone. The person, who’s emotionally instable, just does it because of an emotional heightening. I’d be more afraid of them.

Where is this argument going?  Are you advocating the death penalty for mentally ill people?  Are you arguing that ill people should be punished rather than treated?  Are you arguing that people who knowingly, of their own free will, commit murder are committing a lesser crime than those who kill because of mental illness?

If his life is grimmer, so be it.  He killed someone.  We don't feel sympathy for the man.

Again you show that you would rather a murderer be given a grimmer punishment than death, because you simply don't care.  I advocate justice for the victims, but thankfully my humanity compels me to advocate fairness in the treatment of the killer.  You are clearly happy to see a criminal subjected to this treatment, but I would rather have the punishment that is both just and, compared to your suggestions, humane.

We just don’t feel that any man’s life should be ended because of paragraph 3 article 26…blah blah blah

Because the written laws that are based on the moral will of the people aren't good enough for you?

This system isn’t well defined. It doesn’t defer criminal action. I don’t see how anyone, after seeing its results, can still be in favor of it.

Mainly because you have proved neither of the points you make in that paragraph.

[MillsJROSS]

(I feel your pain, Nellie, my thing was too big, so I ended up using elipses for the quotes, so you'd could find what I was talking about, the quotes don't make sense, you'll have to find them, but they're in order from your last post, so it should be easy).

Yes, my morals to come from the bible, but I am free to interpret the bible anyway I see fit. One of the biggest commandments is “though shalt not kill.” Human life is above all other religious practices. You can break the Sabbath, the most holy of days, to save a life. With this emphasis on the importance of life, how could I not assume that life, no matter what has been done, is important?

I never gave an indication ....proper justice for the act committed against them?

I’m sorry for the confusion, and I can see where it stemmed, but I wasn’t talking about what you said, I’m talking about what society says. Life is sacred, important, and should be preserved. Obviously, as life is important to me, how could I not argue that killing even a killer is not proper justice? Yes, I hold life above all else, and, yes, a man should not commit murder. This man does deserve punishment, but killing the man should not be decided by the state. It is not an equal sentence for a crime. He’ll be dead before his time, and instead of feeling the pain of life, as the victims family is surely feeling, he gets an easy way out. The death penalty doesn’t seem to be equal to me.

That's a lot of prejudices to put on a single judge.  ... 'racist bigot who hates the poor'.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The twelve men and women on the jury get to decide if the man is guilty or not, and can find a proper punishment. However, only a judge is able to decide whether a man is to be put to death, the jury can only plead that the man be put to death. One man decides whether or not this persons life is better than another’s. Still leaving plenty of room for prejudice.

To compare one state with another is an unfair comparison.  ... crime rate than Melee Island.

Let’s take Oklahoma’s reintroduction to capital punishment in 1990. After which there has been a lasting increase of about one additional homicide a month. But if the system was really working, the opposite should happen. What about states with the death penalty that border stated without, they should be relatively homogenous, right? In Wisconsin and Iowa, which are non-death-penalty states, the homicide rate is half that of Illinois. The death penalty, obviously has no case as a deterrent of crime.

How is that out of context?  ...other grisly fate might await the people you mention.

Yes, there is less of a deterrent affect for criminal’s pf this nature. This is exactly my point. This system is just acting on our primal urges for revenge. It hasn’t been proven to reduce homicide rates, which is one of its many selling points. And yes, it was taken out of context. You said it be much better for criminals with a high-risk job (i.e. death happens everyday in these jobs) to be killed by the state. You inferred that I said that it was better they were gunned down than justly accused of murder and killed by the state. To which, I didn’t infer. I was merely pointing out that a punishment, such as the death penalty, has no affect on the criminals who could be killed any day on the street.

Then how can we ever punish anyone for anything?

With the same twelve men you mentioned earlier. Prejudice can still play a part here. But with twelve men, I agree, that prejudices do not have as much of an effect as they could.

Yes, I agree.  And I am certainly passionate about seeing justice for the victims of murder.

Than why don’t you seek other ways in which to punish these criminals. If your so passionate about seeing justice, you should at least consider alternative punishments. I don’t consider state killings justice.

I didn't infer it.  ...- juries aren't making their decision based on a toin coss.

Yes, the jury is a good method of filtering out prejudice. No one is arguing that the jury doesn’t make a decision based on the evidence they are given. The final verdict can only be decided by a judge, that’s one man. Prejudice still ensues.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I see that we both seek a fair and just death penalty.

No, I am simply arguing that your system is not fair or just. The system used to put criminals into effect leaves a gray area. Which is what I was arguing. A gray area that should never have been drawn. The well-defined line, at least brings some sense of fairness to this system. However, it too, should be a line that the state should not be allowed to draw.    

When a... they make the decision to face those consequences.

However, the state should not be the one to give out consequences of that degree. That is not what the state is here for. The state is here for our protection, which can still be achieved without killing these people.

First you advocated ...just way is a punishment that equals the crime committed?

What, so the killer is dead, and the family is still there grieving for there loss? It seems to me, the punishment isn’t fair. Death is a punishment we shouldn’t give out. This punishment does not equal the crime committed. Would you argue that people who have committed rape should be raped themselves? People who steal millions of dollars should just have that money stolen back? No, I wouldn’t say their punishment is worse than the crime. They get to live, they get to reflect, and they get to change! These people are given a chance to at least evaluate their life, a right that is theirs from birth, which no government should take away from any man.

Thankfully, and contrary to what you seem to believe, I...  as well be nobody receiving justice?

No, I am not coldy searching for an efficient way to dispose of hundreds of murders. I have already stated, I do not support this system. But that this system, if it is to continue, should at least have a fairness to it. You’re not searching for justice, because you only consider one alternative. That doesn’t sound like searching to me. I don’t argue that a few people receive justice, I’m arguing that the few who are sent to their deaths aren’t receiving justice. That everyone should receive justice under a fair system.

Earlier you argued . ... indication that this line has already been drawn.

The line hasn’t been drawn, the line is decided by one man. Prejudices can result from this. This gray area should not exist, nor should a line. This line has not been drawn. It is not well defined. Instead we have a gray blob in which a judge can decide a man’s fate.

To kill a person is never a good thing,  ...done is not the right thing to do, be my guest.

Wait, if killing is never a good thing, than how can you support the capital punishment? If your so against the killing of a person, I don’t understand how you can support this system. No, I do not want to argue that seeing justice done is the right thing to do, obviously it is. However, our ideas of what justice is, differs.

Where is this argument going?  Are you advocating the death penalty ...who kill because of mental illness?

Where did the mentally ill even enter the equation? Who are you to say that the people who are killed from emotional heightening are as mentally ill as the person who plans it? I advocate the treatment of everyone. I don’t bias myself towards one killer or the other. I was merely saying that I’d probably rather meet and be killed by someone would plan my death. There, I will admit, I got a bit off subject.

Again you show that you would rather a murderer be given a grimmer...  compared to your suggestions, humane.

Your system doesn’t advocate fairness, how can you? And I don’t think their punishment will be grim, so to speak. They won’t be physically tortured, and I do care, otherwise I wouldn’t be making an argument for their lives. Your punishment isn’t just or humane. No one has the right to take another mans life. If the man has committed a wrong, he should be punished, but his life should not be forfeit. If we hold life so dear, than there shouldn’t be an issue as to whether not we should kill the man. He has a life, and we shouldn’t take it away.

Because the written laws that are based on the moral will of the people aren't good enough for you?

I don’t recall being asked to write a sentence or two in the laws that mandate the death penalty. If I conclude that these laws are immoral, than isn’t my will, and the will of other with my ideals, good enough for you?

Mainly because you have proved neither of the points you make in that paragraph.

There is no such thing as proof. But look at the system. The rule, by which a mans life or death are given or taken aren’t well defined. One man decides if this person should live or die. This is not a fair system. The states have shown not to deter criminal action. There are no conclusive results to show that the death penalty is an affective way of lowering crime.

Now lets consider an alternative, that doesn’t kill the criminal, and justice is done for the family.

CUADP (Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty), is an organization that is trying fight this system. There is more than one way to solve this.

[Evil]

Quote:If the justice system worked purely to make the victims of crime 'happy' by satisfying their desire for revenge, then society would be in a sorry state.  But the death penalty should not exist for the supposed comfort of the victim's relatives, but because it is simply the right thing to do.

Wait, right thing to do? How is this right? Killing someone because it is the right thing to do? Explain how this is so. If it isnt to make the family happy what is it for?

[Nellie]

(I've jiggled the order of the quotes about a bit, so that I can respond to similarly themed arguments in one go.  And also to BAMBOOZLE and BEFUDDLE you, MUAHAHAHAHAAA!! *flashing red eyes*)

(P.S. Aaargh, too long post here too.  Elipses city!)

Yes, my morals to come from the bible, but I am free to interpret the bible anyway I see fit.

One person may interpret the Bible as commanding that the death penalty is immoral, another may interpret it as commanding that it is moral.  I guess this part of the discussion is a dead-end avenue.

Life is sacred, important...and, yes, a man should not commit murder.

Well as I don't see life as sacred, and considering the hundreds of millions of people who have died throughout history, and that we are all also going to die one day, I don't see what the big deal is about 'sparing' the life of a person who has chosen to kill another human being.

If life is sacred and precious, then the killer's life is as sacred and precious as the life of their victim.  But, oh dear...  somebody chose to take away the life of their victim - but we must respect the sacredness and preciousness of the killer's life, musn't we?

This man does deserve punishment, but killing the man should not be decided by the state.

I don’t consider state killings justice.

The well-defined line, at least brings some sense of fairness to this system. However, it too, should be a line that the state should not be allowed to draw.

However, the state should not be the one to give out consequences of that degree...(etc)

What is this aversion to the state making decisions?  If a state run by democratically elected leaders should not be in control of how the law works then who should?  You?  Me?  Gandalf?

It is not an equal sentence for a crime. He’ll be dead before his time, and instead of feeling the pain of life, as the victims family is surely feeling, he gets an easy way out. The death penalty doesn’t seem to be equal to me.

So the death penalty isn't a tough enough punishment?  Well, maybe you're right.

And I don’t think their punishment will be grim, so to speak...Your punishment isn’t just or humane...He has a life, and we shouldn’t take it away.

No, I wouldn’t say their punishment is worse than the crime. They get to live...These people are given a chance to at least evaluate their life, a right that is theirs from birth, which no government should take away from any man.

So the death penalty is too tough a punishment?  Well, maybe you're right.

...only a judge is able to decide whether a man is to be put to death, the jury can only plead that the man be put to death. One man decides whether or not this persons life is better than another’s. Still leaving plenty of room for prejudice.

The final verdict can only be decided by a judge, that’s one man. Prejudice still ensues.

The line hasn’t been drawn, the line is decided by one man. Prejudices can result from this. This gray area should not exist, nor should a line. This line has not been drawn. It is not well defined. Instead we have a gray blob in which a judge can decide a man’s fate.

The rule, by which a mans life or death are given or taken aren’t well defined. One man decides if this person should live or die. This is not a fair system.

So the defendant is found guilty of murder by a jury, and you're worried that the judge (who has been trained for these matters) has power over the sentence?  Two things:

1. I think the operative phrase here is: the defendant is found guilty of murder by a jury.

2. As you earlier pointed out (and criticised), only a small percentage of those convicted of murder ever actually receive the death penalty.  If judges are prejudiced at all when passing sentence, then they are obviously prejudiced in favour of the defendants.

Let’s take Oklahoma’s reintroduction to capital punishment in 1990. After which there has been a lasting increase of about one additional homicide a month. But if the system was really working, the opposite should happen. What about states with the death penalty that border stated without, they should be relatively homogenous, right? In Wisconsin and Iowa, which are non-death-penalty states, the homicide rate is half that of Illinois. The death penalty, obviously has no case as a deterrent of crime.

Well, I'm pretty sure anyone can easily find statistics to support their case by an internet search, so I'm going to do one myself...

...yep, here's a juicy one:

'Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (2) Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.'

Source: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/deterrenteffect.htm

We could sit and trade statistics until the end of the debate, but I doubt either of us would get anywhere.

Besides, even if it could be shown that the death penalty had no deterrent effect whatsoever, that wouldn't stop it from being the right thing to do.

Which brings me to...

It hasn’t been proven to reduce homicide rates, which is one of its many selling points.

Thank goodness it has all those other selling points left over, then.

Yes, there is less of a deterrent affect for criminal’s pf this nature.

Alright, I'll concede this one.  A small percentage of the total number of criminals liable to receive the death penalty are not as deterred by it as the rest of those criminals.

Than why don’t you seek other ways in which to punish these criminals. If your so passionate about seeing justice, you should at least consider alternative punishments.

You’re not searching for justice, because you only consider one alternative. That doesn’t sound like searching to me.

I would be a fool to only consider one alternative.  Naturally I have considered many alternatives, but have decided that the death penalty is the most just.

Would you argue that people who have committed rape should be raped themselves? People who steal millions of dollars should just have that money stolen back?

Thankfully these lesser crimes can be fittingly punished by a suitable prison sentence.  For the ultimate crime of taking another life (or many other lives), however, the only fitting and just punishment is to deprive the killer of what they sought to deprive others - their life.

Wait, if killing is never a good thing, than how can you support the capital punishment? If your so against the killing of a person, I don’t understand how you can support this system.

It's not so difficult to understand.  Do you consider taking away people's freedom as a good thing?  Of course not, but sometimes it is a necessary measure used to see justice done because of the crimes these people have committed.  I look at the death penalty in the same way.  I would be truly sick if I thought that the death penalty, or any punishment, was somehow an enjoyable measure.

Where did the mentally ill even enter the equation?

It was in the paragraph where you suggested they were more guilty than sane murderers.

Who are you to say that the people who are killed from emotional heightening are as mentally ill as the person who plans it?

It's not for me to decide who is mentally ill or not - that's a job for trained doctors.  I'm not sure 'emotional heightening' is a recognised medical condition, however.

I advocate the treatment of everyone. I don’t bias myself towards one killer or the other.

Are you telling me you don't distinguish between someone who kills because they chose to of their own free will, and somebody who kills because they are severely mentally ill?

I don’t recall being asked to write a sentence or two in the laws that mandate the death penalty. If I conclude that these laws are immoral, than isn’t my will, and the will of other with my ideals, good enough for you?

Well, get enough of your similarly idealed people together, and you can vote together to change that bit of writing in the law.  You live in a democracy after all.  And the reason that bit of writing is there is because the will of the majority has not decided to vote to remove it - they obviously don't share your view that the death penalty is immoral.  Their ideals are as good as yours, and yours are as good as theirs.

There is no such thing as proof.

Fair enough.

The states have shown not to deter criminal action.

How have they shown it?  Where's the proof?

There is no such thing as proof.

Oh yeah, sorry.

There are no conclusive results to show that the death penalty is an affective way of lowering crime.

Would that be because there is no such thing as proof?

Now lets consider an alternative, that doesn’t kill the criminal, and justice is done for the family.

Maybe you should ask the families if they share your idea of justice.

[MillsJROSS]

One person may interpret the Bible as commanding that the death penalty is immoral, another may interpret it as commanding that it is moral.  I guess this part of the discussion is a dead-end avenue.

I’ll agree here. Religion has been debated long before us and will be debated long after us; we won’t find the all encompassing meaning today.

Well as I don't see life as sacred, and considering the hundreds of millions of people who have died throughout history, and that we are all also going to die one day, I don't see what the big deal is about 'sparing' the life of a person who has chosen to kill another human being.

If you don’t see life as sacred than what is the big deal of someone killing someone. It’s not like life really matters to you. I mean, why even punish them at all? You could tell the victims family, “He was going to die anyway, so let’s just have a drink, and I’ll be on my merry way.” If you don’t see life as sacred, than you have no basis for even thinking that homicide is wrong.

If life is sacred and precious, then the killer's life is as sacred and precious as the life of their victim.  But, oh dear...  somebody chose to take away the life of their victim - but we must respect the sacredness and preciousness of the killer's life, musn't we?

Yes, the killers’ life is sacred and precious. He is still alive. Do we love the man? No! Do we worship him as a saint? No! But we realize that he has a life, and that it isn’t ours to take.

What is this aversion to the state making decisions?  If a state run by democratically elected leaders should not be in control of how the law works then who should?  You?  Me?  Gandalf?

No, this is not an aversion to the state making decisions. The state should never be in control of someone’s life, and how they are going to die. How are these elected leaders any better then you, me, or even Gandalf? Surely not everyone voted for them. What about the people who are not being represented? The law should never encompass a law that affects people so drastically. It’s not its place. It’s no ones place. The killer should have never killed, but why need we kill him?

So the death penalty isn't a tough enough punishment?  Well, maybe you're right.

No, it just isn’t an equal morally justifiable punishment.

So the death penalty is too tough a punishment?  Well, maybe you're right.

No, it just isn’t an equal morally justifiable punishment.

So the defendant is found guilty of murder by a jury, and you're worried that the judge (who has been trained for these matters) has power over the sentence?  Two things:

1. I think the operative phrase here is: the defendant is found guilty of murder by a jury.

2. As you earlier pointed out (and criticised), only a small percentage of those convicted of murder ever actually receive the death penalty.  If judges are prejudiced at all when passing sentence, then they are obviously prejudiced in favour of the defendants.

Just because a man is trained means he’s perfect? Have you seen how many malpractice cases there are for so called professional doctors, who’ve also undergone training? You think that this training magically wipes away the prejudices this man carries with him?

1.   “The defendant is found guilty of murder by the jury.” Yes, but they are not the determinate of whether or not the man will get the death penalty. These twelve, untrained, people only choose who is guilty from the evidence presented. I don’t doubt that they get the correct criminal most of the time.

2.   Or are they prejudiced towards the black, asian, poor white trash that come their way? What makes this murderer better than that murderer that he should live? What makes these two hundredths of a percentile special? Maybe they don’t take baths?

Well, I'm pretty sure anyone can easily find statistics to support their case by an internet search, so I'm going to do one myself...

If these statistics are nation wide, then they surely account for states that do not have the death penalty, or states that didn’t agree to the death penalty during its first year.  These statistics seem flawed to me. Whereas my statistics showed a state after the death penalty had been added, and what its affects were. Which, if I remember, is what you asked for.

Thank goodness it has all those other selling points left over, then.

What other selling points? A deterrent from criminal homicide would be the only reason this system might be feasible. Which it fails to do.

Alright, I'll concede this one.  A small percentage of the total number of criminals liable to receive the death penalty are not as deterred by it as the rest of those criminals.

This small percentage, as you so call it, accounts for more homicides than any other kind of homicide. Whether that be Domestic, Political, or a constant criminal. These groups of gangs committed 34% of all homicides in 1997. That doesn’t seem so small to me.

I would be a fool to only consider one alternative.  Naturally I have considered many alternatives, but have decided that the death penalty is the most just.

As have I, and I have found that the death penalty is not just. But to each his own.

Thankfully these lesser crimes can be fittingly punished by a suitable prison sentence.  For the ultimate crime of taking another life (or many other lives), however, the only fitting and just punishment is to deprive the killer of what they sought to deprive others - their life.

How can you determine these to be lesser crimes? You don’t hold life sacred, you said do yourself, therefore, since we’re all going to die, what does it matter if women are raped daily. Or our bank accounts are suddenly flushed? What fits these crimes into a magical number of years at a state penitentiary? If the greater the crime accounts for more years in prison, it seems to me, that killing a man should be the longest sentence, not the shortest.

It's not so difficult to understand.  Do you consider taking away people's freedom as a good thing?  Of course not, but sometimes it is a necessary measure used to see justice done because of the crimes these people have committed.  I look at the death penalty in the same way.  I would be truly sick if I thought that the death penalty, or any punishment, was somehow an enjoyable measure.

Okay, so you take peoples freedom. That’s one thing. To take their life is completely different. What justice was really done? So the killer is dead? Has the quality of life improved for the victims of this crime?  No. Where as the organization CUADP, at least makes it so the killer works, for the money it costs to keep him imprisoned, and much of that money goes to the family. Sure, money is no replacement for any life, but here…here the criminal has given of himself to help the grieved. The quality of life has been improved in the scenario comparative to the last scenario.

It was in the paragraph where you suggested they were more guilty than sane murderers.

Are you telling me you don't distinguish between someone who kills because they chose to of their own free will, and somebody who kills because they are severely mentally ill?

No, I said both were just as guilty. They both killed a man. I consider them both to be mentally ill.

It's not for me to decide who is mentally ill or not - that's a job for trained doctors.  I'm not sure 'emotional heightening' is a recognized medical condition, however.

No, it’s not a condition for mental illness. You’re right. It’s symptom for mental illnesses.

Well, get enough of your similarly idealed people together, and you can vote together to change that bit of writing in the law.  You live in a democracy after all.  And the reason that bit of writing is there is because the will of the majority has not decided to vote to remove it - they obviously don't share your view that the death penalty is immoral.  Their ideals are as good as yours, and yours are as good as theirs.

Is it really as simple as that? Legal processes, it seems to me, take years upon years to decide something like that. In fact, as far as I recall, the supreme court allowed capital punishment to be reintroduced in 1976, Greg vs. Georgia. Wow, that’s nine men who represent the multitude of opinions that is generated by the 250 million Americans there are. Men that are chosen for life, by one man, the president, and their beliefs might no longer reflect the beliefs of the current majority.

Anything you said about proof. The simple, and scientific fact is that you cannot prove anything. Now, the statistics lead me to believe that crime isn’t deterred. Is this correct? I have no definite way of proving it, do I? No, but I believe in it. Just like I believe in the sanctity of life above all other things.

Maybe you should ask the families if they share your idea of justice.

Maybe you should ask the families of the killer what they think. Are they not victim too?

-MillsJROSS

[Nellie]

Wait, right thing to do? How is this right? Killing someone because it is the right thing to do? Explain how this is so. If it isnt to make the family happy what is it for?

It is certainly not, and should never be, to make the family 'happy'.  It is the right thing to do because the killer should receive a punishment that equals the crime they committed - namely, taking a person's life.

If you don’t see life as sacred than what is the big deal of someone killing someone...If you don’t see life as sacred, than you have no basis for even thinking that homicide is wrong.

How can you determine these to be lesser crimes? You don’t hold life sacred, you said do yourself, therefore, since we’re all going to die, what does it matter if women are raped daily. Or our bank accounts are suddenly flushed?

I don't see life as sacred, but why do you assume that I therefore must see it as worthless?  Life is very important, but that does not make every human being's life so precious that to kill them would be wrong no matter what their actions.  Life is so important, that to see an innocent human being killed or hurt is a terrible thing, but it is not so important that it renders us completely powerless to give the killer what s/he justly deserves.

Yes, the killers’ life is sacred and precious...he has a life, and that it isn’t ours to take.

So somebody who, lets say, murders ten people in cold blood, has a life that is sacred and precious?

...The state should never be in control of someone’s life, and how they are going to die. How are these elected leaders any better then you, me, or even Gandalf?...

If we follow this logic, then how can the state ever make any important decision that will affect people's lives, including war, healthcare, social security, etc?  The state exists to make these important and vital decisions and in a democracy it exists at the behest of the people.  Your belief that the state has no right to make such important decisions would render the whole country impotent - if the elected representatives of the majority have no right to decide, then who does?

No, it just isn’t an equal morally justifiable punishment.

At various points in this debate you have argued that the death penalty is too severe a punishment, a not severe enough punishment, and a punishment that does not equal the crime.  To claim all three positions is impossible.  I have consistently argued that the death penalty equals the crime, and you are yet to show me why you think this is not the case.  A person chooses to kill another human being, and in return they are punished by the removal of their own life - how is this not equal?  And why do you keep changing your opinion so freely and easily?  Is it because there is no sure footing to your stance?

Just because a man is trained means he’s perfect?...You think that this training magically wipes away the prejudices this man carries with him?

How many cases have you seen brought against judges?  And how much margin of error can there be in appropriately punishing somebody who has already been found guilty?

1.   “The defendant is found guilty of murder by the jury.” Yes, but they are not the determinate of whether or not the man will get the death penalty. These twelve, untrained, people only choose who is guilty from the evidence presented. I don’t doubt that they get the correct criminal most of the time.

Then what's the problem?

2.   Or are they prejudiced towards the black, asian, poor white trash that come their way? What makes this murderer better than that murderer that he should live? What makes these two hundredths of a percentile special? Maybe they don’t take baths?

On what basis are you assuming this?  This is incredible - if the two hundredths of a percentile of people that are sentenced to death only receive it because of judicial prejudice, then that must mean nobody ever receives the death penalty because they simply deserve it.  Have you considered that a convicted killer might actually deserve the death penalty, rather than assume rampant prejudice in the law over the whole land?

...These statistics seem flawed to me...

Okay, I'll get some more then.  Here's something about the results of a temporary halt of the death penalty in Texas...

'Our evidence suggests that as a result of the unofficial moratorium on executions during most of 1996 and early 1997, Texas experienced a net increase in the number of homicides over what would have been expected had no such moratorium been in place. During the interim, there were 40 executions or three more per year than during the "normal" 1993-1995 period. The execution hiatus, therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost.'

Source: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Moratoriums.htm

There are all sorts of statistics that both of us could find to support our cases, but I doubt this will get us anywhere.

What other selling points? A deterrent from criminal homicide would be the only reason this system might be feasible. Which it fails to do.

1. The selling points you acknowledged when you said 'one of its many selling points'.

2. Deterrence is not the sole reason the death penalty is morally justifiable.  The main reason it is the right thing to do is because the killer receives a punishment that matches their crime.

3. We haven't, and cannot, establish whether the deterrence effect exists or not.  I believe it does, you believe it doesn't.

This small percentage, as you so call it, accounts for more homicides than any other kind of homicide. Whether that be Domestic, Political, or a constant criminal. These groups of gangs committed 34% of all homicides in 1997. That doesn’t seem so small to me.

Alright then.  I concede that the death penalty will have less of a deterrent effect on the people who caused that 34% of homicides, and that the deterrent effect will be relatively stronger for the remaining 66%.

What fits these crimes into a magical number of years at a state penitentiary? If the greater the crime accounts for more years in prison, it seems to me, that killing a man should be the longest sentence, not the shortest

So now you're arguing that the death penalty is not severe enough again.  Didn't you argue the exact opposite earlier in your post?  I still don't see how you can deny that the death penalty is an equal and moral punishment for somebody who has taken another human life.

Okay, so you take peoples freedom. That’s one thing. To take their life is completely different...The quality of life has been improved in the scenario comparative to the last scenario.

So despite having killed a human being, the killer gets to occupy themselves in work for the time they are imprisoned (however long/short that may be), and the family receives a small amount of money as a recompense for a dead relative?  And then presumably the killer gets released on a good behaviour scheme, because I can't imagine anybody other than the most disciplined and well-behaved prisoners will be permitted to take this job.  And so the killer never truly receives the just punishment for the crime they committed.  Brilliant solution.

No, I said both were just as guilty. They both killed a man. I consider them both to be mentally ill.

I believe we have got our wires crossed here.  This thread of the debated started as a discussion of the mentally ill, but morphed into a discussion of the difference between 'heat of the moment' killers and 'cold blooded' killers.  I've been thinking your arguments were incredibly strange, and no doubt you've been thinking mine were too.

So for the record, I do believe there is a difference between those who kill in the heat of the moment (presumably due to severe provocation or accident), and those who plan and carry out murder.  And I believe the law makes a distinction between these different types of crime too, and rightly so.

Legal processes, it seems to me, take years upon years to decide something like that...

Are you suggesting that if the majority of the electorate voted for a president who promised to abolish the death penalty, the death penalty would not be abolished?  That's all it would take.  If you believe the moral will of the majority is against the death penalty, then that will prove true by the next election, right?

Anything you said about proof...I have no definite way of proving it, do I? No, but I believe in it. Just like I believe in the sanctity of life above all other things.

Agreed, we can't get anywhere by seeking for proof, only by trying to justify our values.  And I believe in the value of giving murderers the punishment they deserve.

Maybe you should ask the families of the killer what they think. Are they not victim too?

Yes they are.  More victims of the choice the killer made.

[MillsJROSS]

(Again, too long, ellipes. But It's all in order)

It is certainly not,...- namely, taking a person's life.

I don’t understand you. You tell me that taking a man away from society is cruel, and so those who do the so called “lesser” crimes, are the ones who get this punishment. Logically, with this reasoning, I could only naturally assume that the killer isn’t getting an equal crime to the one he committed by putting him to death.

I don't see life as sacred...  s/he justly deserves.

I'm glad that we agree that the state should have power to dole out justice. However, justice should never include the killing of another man, no matter what crime has been committed. To admit that an individuals life is important and argue that no one has the right to take that life, I still can’t see how you can think this killer’s life is unimportant. He can still give to something to society. Which is what the state is for, to help society move forward in a moral and ethical way.

So somebody who, ...has a life that is sacred and precious?

Yes, I am arguing that all of life is sacred an important. As I said earlier, we don’t hold this man in praise. We do not glorify him, and make the weight of his crime diminish. However, this wo/man has a life. A life that the state or anyone else, for that matter, doesn't have the right to take from him/her.

If we follow this logic... -  have no right to decide, then who does?

Does healthcare or social security have anything to do  with killing life? No. We are arguing about the states right to kill human life. I say the state has no right to make such an important decision because no one, not anyone, out of the millions of people in this country, have the right to kill another man, even if the man is a killer. Therefore, because the people do not have this right, the state should not have this right either. We do not have to kill these people to stop the harm that they have caused.

At various points in this debate you have argued ... Is it because there is no sure footing to your stance?

First off, there are only two stances that I have argued, the last one you suggest is just an either/or of the first two. If a punishment does not equal the crime, than it must be either too big a punishment or too small of one. And I agree with both of my stances. If killing life is criminal, than the death penalty is surely too great of a crime. However, if the victim doesn’t get to live out his life and society doesn’t make use of him, then the death penalty isn’t a severe punishment. You see, I am able to stand firmly on two stances, whereas you only stand on one. Who really has the sure footing then, if I have more areas in which to draw my argument?

How many cases have ...who has already been found guilty?

You see cases everyday. This is so commonplace of an occurrence it doesn’t even register. How do you think cases get to a supreme court? Because the people in those cases disagree with the judges, of lower courts, decision on their case. Each time you go to a higher court, you are bringing a case against the previous judges. I’ve never argued that the people the court finds guilty aren’t guilty. I argue that the error is in deciding who should be put to death and who should not. Out of the many homicides 99.98% of the killers you’re so keen on killing, live. Are you going to tell me that everyone in that percentage doesn’t deserve your punishment? Surely, there is a margin of error, in that percentage of people who aren’t killed should be 100%.

Then what's the problem?

The problem is that I never argued against the jury system we have now. You seemed to be implying that I had. For the record, I think that the jury system does have flaws, but in determining guilt, with what evidence is found, I think that the jury system can determine who is the guilty party or person.

On what basis are you assuming this?  This is incredible - ... prejudice in the law over the whole land?

I argue that no one deserves the death penalty. I do not argue their guilt. I argue that there are 99.98% of other killers who aren’t sent to their deaths. And that this big of a gap may be cause by prejudice. I never argued that prejudice has been carried out in all court cases that condemn a man to his death. I simply argue that if there is such a small gap of homicides that are put to the death penalty, than a defined line isn’t present, and within the gray blob of legalities prejudices are allowed to be carried out.

There are all sorts of statistics that both of us could find to support our cases, but I doubt this will get us anywhere.

I doubt that an unofficial moratorium has any bearing on your case. Was the public made aware of this? Was it made during a time where homicides are heightened, not giving it enough time to average itself out in the long run? Does it count actual homicides, or the cases of homicides that may have been held back from the previous years? I’ll agree, though, numbers can be played with, so our statistics might mean nothing at all.

1. The selling points you acknowledged when you said 'one of its many selling points'.

The only other selling point you have made in favor of the death penalty is that you believe that killing this criminal is an equal punishment. I disagree. Name another point in which to argue in favor of your case? We have already come to the conclusion that we can’t conclude that the death penalty does, in fact, deter homicide rates. So give me another point.

Alright then.  I ...remaining 66%.

I’m glad you agree, that this small, tiny, measly percent, or so you said it was small, isn’t as deterred from the death penalty. That 34% of crimes, which is a majority to all other groups, isn’t such a small percentage.

So despite having killed a human being,... Brilliant solution.

Who ever said anything about getting released? I surely didn’t allude to that. The killer has a minimum 25 years before a parole board can even view him, and even then, the state does not constantly allow killers to be paroled unless the deem them as stable and ready to join society. Some killers, depending on how severe the homicide, should not be able to be paroled…ever. The killer gets to work off the amount of money that tax payers pay for him to stay there, which is far better, because we actually pay more for people on death row than we do for people who’s punishment is just prison. CUADP wants half the money he makes to go to the family, that’s not so small. If you worked it out, working at minimum wage 5.15 for just ten years, forty hours a week, is equal to over 100,000. The criminal will surely be working for more than ten years, but I wouldn’t say that this is a small amount of money to be given to the family. The killer, however, taken from society, has been punished. He’s been put in a prison system, he has been made to work, to conform to society, and to help the families victims in supporting their loss.

So for the record, ... the law makes a distinction between these different types of crime too, and rightly so.

Yes, I think we did get out wires crossed so to speak. I believe that in both cases, both persons are mentally ill. That’s all I will say about these two scenarios.

Are you suggesting that...will of the majority is against the death penalty, then that will prove true by the next election, right?

Yes, that is what I am arguing. The president is not the sole decider of the death penalty. All branches of government are involved here. I might vote for someone who represents most of my beliefs as my state senator, but to say that the person who represents thousands up to millions of people represents everyone in an equal manner would be a flat out lie. The majority of Americans think that the state should legalize the use of marijuana. Have the laws changed all of a sudden? No, the system we have is so slow moving that by the time changes can be made, the majority might just believe in the opposite argument.

Agreed, we can't ...of giving murderers the punishment they deserve.

As do I, the only difference is I don’t see how killing them is a punishment that they deserve or a punishment that the state should be able to make.

Yes they are.  More victims of the choice the killer made.

No! Here are the victims of the state, if they are put to death. Would you want your child killed if he murdered someone? You’ve put your whole life into him, taught him all you know. Isn’t it bad enough that your child will be taken away from society, away from you? Should his life just be ended? I wouldn’t want a child of mine to be killed, if I was ever put in such a situation, and I don’t think that my child should be killed. He has made the greatest error of all, but there he can still live to help those he hurt. To help himself to become a better person.

Capital Punishment is an unjust system. If you, me, anyone out there cannot kill, then the state should be restricted to this, as well. If a person breaks this social contract, the people who control this society are obligated, by the same social contract, to keep this man alive. To teach this man what he has done is wrong, and society will not accept this. Let him patch up as much as he can, the damage that has been done. For what are we if we don’t make mistakes? Even grave mistakes of this nature. The death penalty is an unjust immoral law, if society is supposed to hold the idea the life is important.