So...here goes...
PRO DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENTS
Practical: With the exceptions of horror films, criminals do not come back from the dead. It also saves room in the prisons.
Preventive: Executing murderers stop murders.
Ethical: Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc etc etc
CON DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENTS
Financial: Life sentence costs arounf half a million. Death penaly costs around three million
Ethical: Love your enemy, etc etc etc Also sometimes innocent people are executed.
Racial: The ratio of blacks on death row is not equal to the general population.
Here are my comments on these arguements:
While its true that you can't commit a crime after you are dead, killing criminals is probably not the most practical way to make room for more. The 'prevention' argument can go either way. There's really no way to tell. If someone is hellbent (pun intended lol) to kill someone, the percentage of first-degree murderers is not going to be very important.
Like many debates, ethical arguements can go either way. One can argue that one is from the Old Testament and the other is from the New Testament. The Commandment arguement is invalid since it is 'Thou shall not murder' and not 'kill'. However since the Law of the Land is not the Bible but the Constitution, the 'Jesus (or Moses) says its bad (or okay)' arguement is somewhat weak anyways.
One can't argue against the money reasons. Granted, it would be a lot cheaper without the Appeals Count, but then again, that would get rid of the Appeals Court, which would not be a good idea. Its easy to say only a few innocents are on death row, but its not easy to tell that to their families. As far as the black-to-white ratio, the ratio is WAY different from the general population, but it is close to the prison population. That's a whole different kettle of fish.
My position on the death penalty is somewhat complex. On one hand, I don't like the idea of a death penalty. But no one seems to have an alternative I like. A lot of people who are against the death penatly want to be easy on criminals and I certainly don't see it like that.
I don't think those who commite the most henious crimes (I place rape on that list...it use to be punishable by death) should not be in the same prisons as lesser criminals. Frankly, I'd love for the worse criminals to be packaged to Antartica with only a pair of swim trunks and a can of tuna. But, sadly, that's not very practical. Still, isolate them and give them the bare minimal. I went years without cable TV, so these guys don't need HBO.
Plus, it always seemed to be the death penalty was banking on the fact the the criminals go to Hell. I mean, I'm sure that's why stoning people was okay back in the day. But the average murder is not the God-fearing type. They probably want to die. So why cater to them like that? 'Hangin' too good for him' is a common expression.
The Constitution garentees 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' to everyone and sees them as rights given to all men. However, some gifts can be taken away. You commit enough driving violations, your car is taken away. I feel that the document is ambiguous enough, though, that both sides can use it in their arguement.
The reason I added 'and other prison issues' was because I feel that the death penalty is just one issue that needs addresses. We have HUGE overcrowding problems and repeated offenders. Now, preventative measures are always good but that doesn't help the current problem. We need to make sure our prisons are built with maximam effencicy. And make sure if you get rid of the death penalty these guys don't get aquitted or get out.
So add what reforms you want to see, or just what bugs you about the System.
Happy debating!
