death penalty is wrong. who are we to judge another person and say they deserve to die?

i think death row inmates still need some sort of appeal or something to ensure they aren't innocent...

AHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Yeah, they're only sentenced by judge and jury. Who are they to decide a murderer's fate?

"There are only 23 cited instances where an innocent may have been wrongly executed since 1900."

- USA Death Penalty Developments in 1996 by Amnesty International.

Of these, none have been proven. I'd say with the clean track record of both our forensic science and capital punishment programs, allowing appeals due to the possibility of executing an innocent person, and then allowing a madman like Ken McDuff to parole out of jail and murder 5 more people is absolutely unacceptable.

clean track record of our forensic teams?

is this the FBI labs you're talking about? or the local police labs?
the forensic teams do NOT have a clean track record.

there are documented incidents where a senior lab manager in the FBI read DNA results that conviced a man off of a blank piece of paper.

two new hires saw him. they were told to ignore it.

and unfortunatly, mess ups, mix ups, and screw ups are common in forensic labs.

how about the lab that took DNA collected from the suspect and switched it with the DNA from the crime scene?

forensics are getting better. but they do NOT have a clean track record.

that being said, there have been many incidents where an innocent on death row was released because of new evidence.

so don't let death row immates have a posibility of parole. just let them be able to have the evidence looked over, to appeals the decision, to question the evidence that put them in death row. no appealing the sentence, just the verdict.

Well, you're just impossible to please, then.

You whine about something there's no solution to?

Well, we shouldn't capitally punish someone because that's more costly than locking them up for 60 years, just because of appeals.

But then, oh no! You can't take appeals away because then that's unfair!

But I don't like paying high taxes to feed, and shelter mass murderers!

But, oh wait, if we try and kill them off (the most logical thing to do) then they might appeal and cost us money!

But wait, we need appeals!

It's never ending madness!

an eye for an eye..a life for a life...

the old 'eye for an eye' strikes again... i'm getting sick of hearing this quote Please read ALL posts.

an eye for an eye..a life for a life...

it's bibical and it's how things should be, in my land. You do the crime, you do the time. there are a ton of little says that'll go with this.

Back to the death penalty, it should be allowed.

i think the death penalty might be a little more tolerable if it was toned down a bit..i don't think letting people watch and laugh as someone is dying is very good..and the whole thing about people maybe being innocent just bugs me. =/ it just doesn't seem like the best deterrent.

the perfect solution:

penal colonies. in antarctica.

i will establish an international jail there. i will accept for-life prisoners only. there is nothing preventing them from escaping. except that it's hundreds of miles through negitave 150 degree weather and frozen ocean to reach south america.

instead of the death sentence, people can be sent to antarctica, where they will live and die.

it's the perfect solution.

Yes because it rings out a message of fear for the criminals. If you get caught stealing you should hve your fingers cut off so you can't steal again!

Well.... I'm against death penalty.

First of all, I think we have to understand what punishments are for. I believe that punishments are there so that people do not commit a crime because they are too scared of being punished. I believe that everyone has the right to live. And as long as they lives, there's a chance for them to redeem themselves on what they've done.

Why, don't you do a pool on this?

They could 'redeem' themselves or they could also murder/rape some more people because they can get away with murder with a slap on the wrist (i.e jailed with cable TV and free food), which is what serial killers have done in the past.

Agreed 100%. Things happen. It could've been self-defense, a sudden impulse, on accident; whatever the case, your life shouldn't end because of a mistake you made. Death is such a complicating and deep thing and I don't think the Supreme Court or the Police should have any power to end your life short.
^ That's true too, but I think the world can come up with a better solution than a death sentence.

disagree... i alot of innocent people have been put to death. Let them suffer in jail the rest of their lives.

What's a better solution? It's nice to hear you say it, but give an example.

Well, rapists shouldn't have the power to end my short life either, but they do it anyway, illegally.

You're like the best debater here, so I know you'll probably find some way to prove me wrong again.

I think that penalties in prison are enough. A death sentence is going too far. Even if someone took another's life, they deserve another chance. Once they're let out of prison, if they act again, they get put back. It's as simple as that and you may do that until that person dies. It was their own fault to be doing wrong things and if they want to live their whole life in prison, so be it. It's their choice, but if you kill someone just once and you're not given a chance, then you're dead for good and that's that. Which I personally don't think is fair at all.

If you're being sarcastic, let me know. " "



Alright, lets read a part of "Justice for Samantha", an article from People magazine, shall we? It's true and rather morbid, but it's everyday life and more believable than anything I could make up.

"On July 15, 2002, as she played with her best friend outside her family's Staton, Calif., condo, 5-year-old Samantha Runnion was snatched, kicking and screaming, by a stranger who had said he was looking for a lost puppy. Twenty hours later her nude and brutalized body was found by a pair of hikers on a remote mountain trail 40 miles away, plunging her mother, Erin, and family, including Erin's longtime fiance, Kenneth Donnelly, into the blackest grief... Finally, last month Erin watched a Santa Ana, Calif., jury sentence Alejandro Avila, 30, to death for her daughter's kidnap, sexual assault and murder. Sitting in the front row, she sobbed quitely as the verdict was read. 'She is missing so much--I cannot forgive him for that,' says Runnion...

Samatha's tears were found on the car door lock--he had a childproof lock on it. She could pull and pull on it all she wanted, but she could not get out. It's ironic that by crying and scratching him she identified her killer. I'm proud of her that by struggling--by leaving her tears and fingernales with his DNA under them--she solved the crime. She was her own hero.

I haven't gone for counseling. I can get morbid, but I won't ignore the pain. I don't sleep a lot. When I put the kids to bed, I lie there thinking. I go to bad places because I have to. I think about how I would hurt him if I could. But when I have those fantasies, I make myself sick. I've had to think through the 'what ifs...' What if I hadn't been late leaving work? What if I could have saved her? You peel grief back layer after layer.

It was hard for Connor at first. he and Samantha were so close. He was just 10 months younger. I didn't realize until after she died that he didn't know how to button his shirt or tie his shoes; she had been doing those tasks for him. For a long time, Connor was terrified that the man would come and get us all..."

Anyway, you get the idea. Now then, tell me if this guy deserved a second chance. if so, why?

I'm sure you've heard about serial killers. Do you think they deserve 'second chances', too?

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I just like that face for some reason. I voted you "Best Female Debater" for the yearbook thing .

That was a pretty sad story and it almost made me change my mind, but if I'm going to read a story about a victim, I could read a story about the killer from his perspective and he may have an excuse that would make me change my mind again.

I think he deserves another chance. Everyone does. Of course this is just my opinion. He's made a terrible mistake, but at least he'd be in prison for a long while and maybe after he was released, he'd rethink about his actions and pursue a better life. Maybe he won't, and then he'd go back into prison again. Life is survival of the fittest and if you can't defend yourself or your parents aren't smart enough to protect you, then that's your fault for leaving yourself out in the open.

About your serial killer question, I'm replying to that with the same answer I did for your story. They should be jailed. That's punishment enough.

It depends on how and why they kill the person... jurys don't slap on the death penalty too often, life in prison is the normal..... there is a huge difference between someone planning to rob soeone and accidentally hitting them too hard over the head, and a person who decide to walk anoud with a chainsaw and kill people for fun. the robber would most likely go to jail and you would be right, that would be punishment enough. Jail would not be punishment enough for the sycopath walking around with a chainsaw.... The death penalty is not the automatic for killing someone and it never should be, but i don't believe it should be eliminated all together so yes I am for the death penalty


I agree, start a penal colony in antarctica.....

I see, thank you.



I understand that there are murderers who may have a tragedy of their own that contributed to the main reason for their crime. If I were Samantha's mother and the courts did not put him on death roll, I might have taken a vigilante action and killed him with my own bare hands. That would be the tragedy that gave me the motive to kill. You understand right? If there was no death sentence, a lot of people, would take vengeance into their own hands as I would.

How would any of us be sure that he will not kill again once he is released? Why allow him the chance to bring more death and more grief into the lives of others when, he can be stopped?

You do know that that there have been killers in the past who were paroled only to kill again? Such a person was Eddie Wein. Instead of being executed he was allowed parole. Months after that, he attacked and killed women in the area he resided in. Had he been executed, those women could have a chance to live. To take care of their children, husbands. To have the chance to live the life they deserved.

What does a criminal learn when he commits a crime, he only gets put into a place with cable television? What does he learn when he commits the crime again and gets put into the same place? What will others, killers like him, learn? The answer: that they can get away with murder UNSCATHED.



We are no longer lawless barbarians. We live in a society where punishment for crimes must be uphold with the highest justice possible. Survival of the fittest does not mean humans hunting humans as convenience because that places us at the same level as species we call 'animal', 'beast', and oftimes labled as evil. It does mean that as a society, we must destroy those who harms our existence. That is how modern day 'survival of the fittest' should work.

I don't quite get why you would say that if I am killed, it would be my own fault for leaving myself unprotected. Killers find me, I don't find them. How am I to know I am a target? How is a 5-year-old girl to know she is a target? How is a mother of a 5-year-old to know a killer is stalking her child that day, that time, with the intent of rape and murder?

As for serial killers, like you, my answer is the same: jailing them teach them what? Jailing them will teach others, killers like them, what?

I highly doubt anyone would go and kill people for revenge like that and if this ever happened, it would be a rare incident. Something like what you showed me isn't common because you're showing me a story which means it has at least some significance from everything else. You act like people don't know the concequences (sp?), but the whole point of jailing someone is to teach them not to do it again. It's hard to determine a punishment depending on the severity of the case. I think that if someone has committed a crime more than once and the people in court could fairly assume that he'd act again, would it be a necessary time to execute a death penalty.

I know I might sound like I'm contradicting myself from before, but you've brought up a lot of good points.



We aren't lawless barbarians and I never said we were in complete anarchy or anything, but if a 5-year old is left unattended to actually be able to get raped and murdered without anyone being able to do something about it is the parent's fault. I'm not saying that the killer should go without punishment; I'm just saying that people could be more cautious and things like this wouldn't happen.


Jailing them will teach them not to do it again because they'll get jailed again. Or from my theory in my first paragraph, they could be sentenced to death. Somehow though, I think that process would be a bit complicated, so what do you think would be the best way of handling something like this? Just automatically sentencing them to death if they kill one other person?

It's nice to have so much faith in fellow man. I have a lot of faith and love for humanity, but I cannot spare sympathy for those who have no humanity in them.



You do not need to doubt the chance that someone would kill for revenge. I would. I promise you that if anyone harms my any of my immediate family in that way, I would kill them if the law does not stand by me. I am not one to initiate violence, but I will not turn away when I am forced to face it. The point I was making is that there ARE people who do not know, or even they are not afraid of consequences for evil deeds. That is why they kill so many again and again.

As for Samantha, why would someone sexually abuse a 5-year-old and kill her? Because he is sane? Because he knows that it's wrong? Because he's a sweet human being? If he can rape and kill an innocent child, God knows what else he is capable of if he is not stopped now.

Jailing Eddie Wein didn't teach him to stop killing women once he was loose. Also, Thomas Silverstein, someone who was on death row, killed his correctional officer by stabbing him about 40 times with a homemade knife. Being jailed simply doesn't stop these people from killing.


So instead of ridding the world of rapists and murderers like we should, we will hide all our children in our homes where they will be attended to at all times, and thus, believe that we are safe? Lest you forget, there are people who are killed and murdered in their own homes, where they often feels the most secured. Had it not been Samantha, it would have been another little girl. Perhaps another little girl who was sleeping peacefully in her own bed. Again, we do not seek the killers, they seek us. Will we hide?

How should we be cautious? Should we be cautious every moment in our life and never let our guards down? Should I never get married because the guy I'm dating might be an abusive drunkard who will kill me in a fit of anger one day? Should I never allow my children freedom to go to their friends' houses because their friends' parents could be child killers?

We should be cautious though, but you know, killers are smart enough to attack when your guards are down. Should we build a barrier between us and everyone else? From our neighbors and our children's school teachers?



So you do believe in the death penalty?

What do I think? Putting Samantha's killer on death row is fair. Even though she was most likely his first kill, he has simply no sanity, no humanity in him.

i think the way texas does things is awsum thare law is if 2 credible eyewitnesses testify against you you go to tha chair or lethal injection

How many times do I have to refute this stupid argument?

Ken McDuff, Texas, 1966 -- murders three teenagers.
Paroled in 1991 (his so called 'second chance') -- Kills five women in a two week period.

James Moore, NY, 1962 -- rapes and murders 14-year-old Pamela Moss.
2005 -- eligible for parole.

Da'wud Mu'min, 1973 -- murders an innocent cab driver.
1997 -- Mu'min escapes a road work crew in his final month of pre-parole rehabilitation and murders a shopkeeper for $4.00.

In all reality, how can you peddle the 'second chance' when the figures point to its ineffectiveness?

What the hell are you talking about? I live in Texas and I never even knew that. And people don't use the electric chair anymore. You really need to read a bit before you decide to post.

Alright, well I really can't argue with what you're saying because I agree that he does deserve death sentence. It would be nice to just kill all the crazy people in the world like Hitler wanted to kill all the "abnormal". I'm putting myself in the shoes of someone who's a killer. Why would you kill, be put in jail, and come back and kill again? On many occasions it's because of his childhood, that he was abused or never really enjoyed living at all. And he's putting out his anger in killing, or something of that sort. It's something you couldn't control and you can't control your urges to kill other people. It's just who you are. And then the police come and take you and kill you. From the perspective of this troubled killer, I think it's wrong, but from the perspective of the rest of the world, they just want him gone because he's threatening other people.

If you look at it overall, it's either save this one guy or save potential victims and I'd say save potential victims and put him to sleep. My only condition is that it's used as a last resort and not used too often. Congratulations, you made me do quite a 180.



And CrackedRearView, you really shouldn't be so hostile about it. It's hard for people to read 20 pages of arguments, find your post and be able to remember it. I'm just writing what I think. A second chance will probably prove more ineffective than effective, judging by the examples you and Fae have given me..

Here goes to prove I'm a terrible debater.

Wouldn't you say killing people with the death penalty is kindof LIKE massmurder?

Not at all.

Believe me, if someone murdered your entire family, you'd be singing a very different tune.

Something tells me you wouldn't hold the murderer's hand and coddle 'It's okay, everyone makes mistakes' into his ear.

It is, but it's for a good cause most of the time. And it's not MASS murder if we can rationalize how often it's used.

no, no! you're awesome! it's just that i am very, very set about the death penalty and it's fueled by thoughts of children i'll have someday and all the bad things people do out there to children... and not only to children, to other human beings.



how so? to even be qualified as murder, the kill has to be an unlawful act. Also, "The USA Bureau of Justice Statistics defines a mass murder as: '[involving] the murder of four or more victims at one location, within one event.'"- wikipedia

Pardon me for stepping in and being the ex-vegetarian hippieboy, but I do believe that the death penalty is murder... to an extent.

Ever read the book, or see the movie 'A Time to Kill?' Yes. I'd kill someon with my bare hands if they ever touched my seed.

Then again, my uncle was unjustly murdered for being "caught in the crossfire" on his way home from work. After 6 painful years, his fugitive killer was apprehended and senteced to serve a double life term without parole. Up until his sentencing, I wanted him dead. I wanted to show him what his entrails looked like, but when I saw him before the sentencing, my feelings changed.

It truly depends on the situation.

I think that it is totally wrong...the death penalty is murder. even though the person has (or has not) done somethin wrong, they aren't gona learn anything from their mistakes because...they'll be dead..:|

whats the point? it obviously hasnt worked. Also, the justice system is f**ked up for hte most part. who knows if the person's even guilty.


There are some (i think) really influential prisons here in ireland and some in the uk which provide the inmates with counselling (best word i can think to describe it) to come to undersand what they've done wrong, and reconcile with the family who their actions have affected..etc. persistin bad behaviour results in the taking away of privilages, or longer sentences.

This seems to work for the most part, but ya know, u cant stop everyone commiting crimes.

I think capital punishment is wrong, primitive and inconsiderate of many facts, the main one being: you're murdering someone. This only continues the cycle of crime, imo.


of course, we hav to think relatively to each and every situation, ya know. i could go wayyyyyyy more into this :S but still...i think there's better ways to deal with people than having them murdered. after all, murdering them is the easy way out

and yes, i agree that if someone abused my kid i;d prolly murder them with my bare hands..

But Brandon, by definition, the death penality can not be murder.




Again, by definition, the death penality is not murder. They may not learn anything but others like them might. How are they going to learn anything being cooped up in prison with cable television?



The point? The point is peace of mind. The point is security. The point is preventing another innocent from being raped/murdered. The point is that there can be no free lunch and that such a crime must be punished. The justice system is f**ked up? Do you know how many acquittals a person gets when he/she is on death row? Why counsel someone who murdered and murdered and murdered? I guess teaching them that the consequence for murdering someone is sitting through a lecture.


... So because we can't stop them from committing crimes, we shouldn't try at all?



Murder IS primative. They killers commit the murders, they are primitive. I don't see you calling them that.

Please get your definitions checked.

Also read the whole thread.

uninspiredfae, how is taking someone's life against their will not murder??

...of course it is. just because hte government say it isnt, doesnt mean they're right

Read the whole thread and look up the definitions of murder and kill. Please.

Not only the government, but people like me, who support it for reasons of our own.

And it's people like you who inspired the idiom "getting away with murder".

Oh, and try to not curse too much, please.

Really, I think that this discussion is pretty much settled unless you have something MEANINGFUL to add.

murder:
noun: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being
verb: kill intentionally and with premeditation
Example: "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered"
verb: "The tourists murdered the French language"

''Why counsel someone who murdered and murdered and murdered?''


- because they're obviously f**ked up. why kill a mentally challenged person?


''murder'' - the taking of another persons life intentionally. this includes capital punishment, cuz it's intentional.


AkaRyux, you say that murder is ''unlawful''. of course it is. just because someone's committed a crime, doesnt make his life less valuable. im not justifying his crimes, im just goin by the fact all humans are equal and deserve a chance to redeem themselves, by dwelling on their mistakes inside a prison for the rest of their life, thinking about what they've done. not by takin the easy way out and gettin burnt ina chair or internally liquified with a lethal injection.

i dont understand why you'd wana kill someone who's caused so much pain. i understand that u hate them, and want their life taken so they cant enjoy anythin anymore...but that's just giving them the easy way out

thats my opinion.

If I were the victim's mother, you really expect me to want my money to pay for my child's killer's counseling? Really? And even now as a tax payer for the last 3 years, do you think I'm comfortable knowing that my tax money is going to give a child rapist/murderer a chance to be acquitted so he'll have the chance to go at it at someone else's baby? You think I'm comfortable with knowing a killer is eating, watching cartoons when a child could have had that chance? Really?

Edit<< Why kill a mentally challenged person? Because that mentally challenged person murdered someone (in Samantha's case, a child was raped and murdered) in cold blood. Why else?


Where did you get your definition, because it's rather lacking. Actually, it's very lacking. It has left out key words, one being "unlawful" which the basest of all dictionaries should have. I suggest you find a legal dictionary definition instead of one given to you by someone who obviously lived a onesided life. In other words, that definition is pretty stupid.


Why is the death penalty the easy way out? For whom is it an easy way out? Again, if I were the mother's victim, death to the child rapist/killer is the ONLY way I'd want it to be. The kill doesn't make his life worth less than my child's? Are you sure? Actually, it puts him in the category of guilty and with my child being innocent, I'd say he is not worth the life of my child. So, yes, it does make his life less worthy. Between guilty, and innocent, which is more deserving of life? Between humanity, and no humanity which is more deserving?
You are justifying the crime when you say he deserves a second chance. You're basically saying that the crime he committed isn't that bad.


HAH! Again, I don't understand how you could say that it's the easy way out. Death is final and I rather like finality to someone who caused me that kind of pain.

But you know, even if it is taking the easy way out, I'd rather have that, too. I'd rather take the easy way than give the killer an easy life.

I think it should be abolished. I mean, innocent people die because of this. Life imprisonnement is enough.

God fae, i read your arguments, you almost convinced me otherwise. You should be a lawyer...

man, ur puttin it into situations. im only stating my opinion from a general outset.

"unlawful" - in hitler's society, it was ''unlawful'' for a woman to work...''unlawful'' for jews to co-exist with the ''aryans''.

it all depends.



at the end of the day, its about differing opinions, and i respect yours totally.

if my child was raped and murdered by some psyco, i'd take it upon myself to torture the bastard in whatever way possible. i dont EVER wana think what would happen if somethin like this was to happen to my child. i dont know how to judge this situation cuz ive never been in it...


''I think it should be abolished. I mean, innocent people die because of this. Life imprisonnement is enough.''

exactly. and they shouldnt have luxuries...thats where the justice system is failing. ''oh hey mate, u just raped a baby. here's a ps2 to keep you occupied''.

That's exactly what I thought before (if you read the last two pages or so), but when they're let out, don't you think that their neighbors would be a bit nervous? If he was put in jail for killing someone, wouldn't that make everyone he comes in contact with nervous? If he's killed others before, there's still a chance that he hasn't reconsidered his actions and may choose to kill again. If he has before, he must not have thought about his actions. He might just be a careless person which could lead him to killing someone else, and thinking it wasn't as serious as it really was. Like I said before, it's either save this one guy or save dozens of potential victims.



Which is why he was overruled and why people no longer follow by his laws. Which is why people think of him as a horrible tyrant rather than a great leader. Unlawful doesn't necessarily mean right, but if a majority of people feel against it, it most likely will be something of the past.
Communism is not unlawful, but it's unfair. Which is why a lot of countries are trying to pull out of it (China, Russia).

Yeah, what if you're killing a totally innocent person?

I couldn't live with that. I would just say that the death penalty should be reserved to cases where they know 100% that the suspect is guilty.

I've always thought that no one deserved to die, but I'm not really sure about this..
I think that someone should die if they killed someone else purposely, and that person was a totally innocent person.

''when they're let out, don't you think that their neighbors would be a bit nervous?''

he wont get out. i meant LIFE SENTANCE meaning, LIFE. not the 25-years-before-parole shiz.


''I think that someone should die if they killed someone else purposely, and that person was a totally innocent person.''

whats the difference between killing an innocent person and killing a guilty person?

No one gets a life sentence. If you'd have taken the time to read through my arguments, you would have been bombarded with examples of mass murderers who were 'rehabilitated' and paroled only to murder on a mass scale once more.

Here's another great example: Carlton Dotson murdered his Baylor basketball teammate Patrick Dennehy in cold blood in 2003. He was recently sentenced to 35 years in prison, and will likely be paroled after just 15 years behind bars.

You can take the life of someone who was only 21, and walk the streets 15 years later as a free 36-year-old?

Why should someone be given such a luxury? This 'second chance' rubbish really gets to me.

What if the murderer is guilty and there isn't sufficient evidence? Does that mean you have to wait until nonexistent proof shows up? It's a waste of people's time and money. It's hard to tell in some cases whether a suspect is 100% guilty. Either you are guilty or not; there's nothing in between.

Excellent point. People also fail to take in the fact that there is no proof of anyone in the United States ever being wrongfully executed.

Pretty excellent track record, if you'd ask me.

Were you being sarcastic?

I found this story a while ago:
"Leonel Herrera, convicted of murder in Texas, claimed that new evidence available eight years after his conviction showed that he was innocent of the murder and that his brother had committed (and confessed to) it. His appeal to the United States Supreme Court was denied in a 6-3 decision and he was executed."

No, I wasn't being sarcastic.

There is not one instance of someone being executed when there is hard, scientific evidence to prove otherwise.

Not one.